Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 7

< April 6	April 8 >

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Anthony[edit]

Little assertion of notability. Subject seems to be an advert for a radio show rather than an actual biograghy. Retiono Virginian 09:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could do with a bit of cleanup, not passing WP:BIO.Telly addict 10:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder. MER-C 12:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No assertion of any real notability other than being one presenter on a local radio station. Will (aka Wimt) 15:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion, no references, no article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 21:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Non notable--Joebengo 06:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. No assertion, references. Delete Goodnightmush 16:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Seems like its advertising, no real content, sources, etc...Rackabello 05:27, 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 speedy delete. Orderinchaos 03:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magic magazines[edit]

This page is little more than an external link repository. The only content is a description of the items the article links to and overall, the page either comes across as a directory or a multi-publication advertisement. Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 00:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is already tagged for speedy deletion. -Panser Born- (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Chilas[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparently unpublished playwright. John254 00:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article doesn't assert the notability of the playwright - you could list it for speedy deletion using {{db-bio}}. -Panser Born- (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have just tagged it for speedy deletion under A7, Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 00:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It asserts it, though I strongly doubt whether it succeeds in demonstrating it. I have removed the speedy tag to let discussion continue.DGG 04:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I see little, if any, assertion of notability, and nothing to back it up. A 28 yo writing about escaping inherited wealth in the 1950's New York? I shudder. --killing sparrows 04:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article should be aserted of notability. Daniel5127 | Talk 05:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to lack of references (WP:V), possibly {{PROD}} could have worked too, either way - its all good.Telly addict 10:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, uncategorized, not notable. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 14:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable playwright. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 16:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable and lacks references.--Joebengo 06:14, 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. See talk page for expanded rationale. A Train^talk 12:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Phantasy Star series[edit]

Procedural nomination. Prod contested after deletion. Reason for proposed deletion given:

In-universe timeline of a series of video games, based on primary sources only. Fails WP:NOT for plot summaries and the fact that Wikipedia articles should be written from an out-of-universe perspective (which is tough to do for a timeline).

—bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per criterion 7 of WP:UNENC. -Panser Born- (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Daniel5127 | Talk 04:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Under this logic we can't cover any serious timeline. This makes Wikipedia poorer and I can't see how this list lacks by not mentioning irrelevant "out of universe" references. User:Dimadick
- His logic isn't really applicable to real timelines. Delete. ' 08:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fogeltje 08:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being an indiscriminate collection of plot information for the games. Nothing in the article is sourced ( or apparently sourceable reliably). Cannot possibly pass the Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis part of WP:NOT. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - per WP:SS, WP:NOT#PAPER. - Peregrine Fisher 15:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft. MSJapan 18:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Phantasy Star, as per WP:SS, and request that regular editors clean it up. No need for it to be so large. Madman bum and angel 19:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (well, I'm the original nominator, so I'm allowed to say "per nom" here :-) ). Fram 19:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, sorry about that. For some reason I had it in my head that it was prodded by an anon; I would have cited you as the nominator if I had known. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the appropriate page for cleanup. Jtrainor 19:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't violate WP:NOT. As stated in the policy: A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. None of the other reasons listed are criteria for deletion. NeoFreak 01:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed the preceding sentence Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot which this article clearly fails - Peripitus (Talk) 10:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should look at the top of the piece again — how does it differ in any way from, say, the Star Trek universe and Star Wars universe timelines? They're virtually identical in format, with real-world context galore (or as much as can be utilized). But there really isn't enough there in the way of scope and comparison, versus Star Trek — they're two entirely different beasts. Forty years, six TV series, and eleven feature films, versus a mere four video games. And all of the above-mentioned examples are separate articles from their respective "primary" Wikipedia entries, and each large enough to warrant it. Quite simply, it has about as much sourcing as we can reasonably expect, given the far smaller quantity of hard material compared to other universes, which are the cardinal games in the series...the dates are the dates are the dates. --The Bandsaw Vigilante 14:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does not violate the WP:NOT test. Additionally, there are other fictional universe timelines on Wikipedia which are as large as the Phantasy Star one, and which are typically accepted without comment. Further, all of the entries are dated strictly according to in-universe information found within the games themselves. --The Bandsaw Vigilante 04:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how the existence of crap justifies more crap. ' 11:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Grow up, please, and keep this on-topic. --The Bandsaw Vigilante 14:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No personal attacks, and it's entirely on topic. AFDs are not votes. Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NOR and can never be written from anything other than a in universe perspective. Whisp e ring 15:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absence of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE's real-world context and sourced analysis makes it a no-keep. MURGH ^disc. 00:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This fits "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." - Peregrine Fisher 01:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large it may be, but to you think this justifies omission of reliably sourced analysis in real-world context? MURGH ^disc. 01:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So as soon as we have an article on a subject (even if haldf of it is "fan problems" or "trivia"), then we can have a second article which is nothing but a plot summary? This seems to be a very loose interpretation of the "aspect of a larger topic" line, and would make the whole WP:NOT for plot summaries rather toothless. Fram 05:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the subject. Phantasy Star is subject where it applies. - Peregrine Fisher 16:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why aren't short plot summaries in the three articles, or a plot summary in the main article, enough (remove the "fan controversies" section and you have more than enough place...) What in this timeline makes it indispensable for the understanding of the articles about the games? Making a blanket statement that it applies in this case is a bit too easy.Fram 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all sourcable with the games themselves, which is pretty much all that is possible with any fiction. Merging into anything would make it overly long. Fiction must have plot summaries. This article does not just cover a single game; it covers a long SERIES of very influential games. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. Voretus 16:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at the different Phantasy Star articles, I don't get the impression that merging would be impossible at all: the articles are not too long anyway, already have a plot summary, and have many fan and trivia sections which can and should be removed. Having said that: it can be sourced to primary sources, but WP:WAF and other policy and guideline pages make it clear that articles should be based on secondary sources, written from an out-of-universe perspective, and not be solely a plot summary. I haven't seen any good argument why this timeline is necessary except that every plot summary can be defended with the "part of a larger subject" clause, no matter if it is necessary and if the article is any use in helping the understanding of the series. Fram 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given that the Phantasy Star series is over all notable, I'm satisfied with that, and given that the series itself has a connected storyline, this kind of page is appropriate to cover the subject. FrozenPurpleCube 16:56, 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 10:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survivors Strike Back[edit]

As much of a fan of Survivor as I am, I don't see how this meets WP:WEB. Prod tag removed by an anonymous editor without explanation. Maxamegalon2000 00:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails all the criteria specified at WP:WEB. -Panser Born- (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Panser Born. Acalamari 02:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no asssertion of notability. Natalie 14:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the editors of the blog are all with articles, means they are notable. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 16:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. Wooyi's argument above means that "Survivors Strike Back" may merit a mention on the Survivor article and the respective articles of the bloggers, but not its own article. A Train^talk 17:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all this information could be placed on the individual survivor's pages. Darth griz⁹⁸ 03:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I dont see the point and it doesnt deserve to have its own artcle.--Joebengo 06:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reason to have it Survivorfan101 13:20, 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 Redirect to Employment. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-13 06:09Z

Employe[edit]

Neologism, violation of WP:NEO. Possible hoax as there is no verification available to validate claims. Stoic atarian 01:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't violate WP:NEO, as it's describing a specific event rather than defining the word "employe". Having said that, it appears to fail WP:N, as it doesn't seem to be a notable event. It might be best to move some on the info into the General Motors article. -Panser Born- (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Panser. --Lmblackjack21 01:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and merge to wikt:employe. This is not a neologism, but an actual albeit uncommon spelling of the word "employee". However, the article is solely about this spelling of the word, not the concept behind the word. ~~Thus, it belongs in the dictionary rather than the encyclopedia.~~ --Metropolitan90 02:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Employment per Peripitus and Uncle G below. --Metropolitan90 04:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and merge Not a neologism but belongs on Wiktionary and not Wikipedia. DanielT5 03:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, only if it can be sourced. That corporations and courts are concerned with and become involved in such minutiae is notable, if only as a sign of the coming apocalypse. --killing sparrows 05:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Although there is a wiktionary article there are no hits on the askoxford site. The entire body of the article consists of the opening, which is an unsourced absurd idea copied from one of the Dilbert strips, and an odd section on the use of one word by one court. The article smells of a hoax particularly given that it was created by two single purpose accounts. If not deleted the only option I can see is to redirect to Employment as a possible misspelling - Peripitus (Talk) 11:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Non-notable anyways. BlackBear 13:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this entry belongs to a dictionary. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 17:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peripitus has hit the nail on the head. This article is a hoax. The word "employe" can be found in texts dating at least as as far back as 1859, long before General Motors even existed. It's a perfectly normal, albeit rarely used nowadays, alternative spelling of "employee". Just redirect this to employment, as the employee spelling already does. Uncle G 20:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Transwiki - Only if this article can have better sources it should be transwiki--Joebengo 06:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - "employe" is in Merriam-Webster[1] as a variation of "employee." --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 19:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - Transwiki only as a variation of "employee", removing urban myth garbage --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 18:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. While the OED confirms the historical use, the "save printing ink" story stinks of urban myth or fabrication. Tearlach 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I worked for EDS back in 1990 or so, when they were still owned by General Motors, and I remember seeing "employe" as a spelling in company documents. I never figured out why they spelled it that way. I don't think this entry is a hoax, but I doubt there are any verifiable stories about why it's spelled with one "e" at the end. Rather than trying to debunk this, just redirect it to employment as Uncle G mentioned above. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:41, 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 10:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Tov[edit]

bio of non-notable character from non-notable television show; I'd suggest this be included in a bio of the actor who portrayed the character, but that the character itself is not notable, Delete Mhking 01:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The information is already pretty much covered in the The Magic Door Television Theatre article (which is a stub anyway), so I don't think this character warrants its own article. -Panser Born- (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to notability, poor quality references,(IMDB and selfweb). adding sig --killing sparrows 18:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mhking
Delete Character doesn't meet WP:Notability. Interestingly though, WGN-TV the station that carried the The Magic Door Television Theatre went cable-satellite in 1978 and it would have been broadcast in a much wider area than just local.[2].--Paloma Walker 17:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's a similarly named porn star, Tiny Tove. It's probably a likely mispelling, so this should redirect after deletion? 132.205.44.134 22:43, 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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deranged (wrestler)[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable independent wrestler, fails WP:BIO and WP:A. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom , fails WP:BIO & WP:A. --Paloma Walker 02:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Googling (Deranged CZW) turns up 2,140 hits - why does/doesn't this satisfy WP:BIO? Emurphy42 10:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emurphy, the primary notability criterion states that "A notable topic should be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". A Train^talk 17:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the Google term above actually only returns 210 unique hits, and most of those are blogs, forums, or irrelevant. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable wrestler. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've enjoyed Deranged's work but I don't think he meets any of the General criteria of WP:BIO. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Bmg916^Speak_Sign 19:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Old Man's War. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-13 06:11Z

Skip drive[edit]

The article does not differentiate between fact (research on faster-than-light speeds) and fiction (the role as a mode of transportation in the book Old Man's War). A book may be notable, but concepts introduced within a book do not deserve its own article. ~~Possible WP:NEO as well.~~ Sr13 (T|C) 01:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's outrageous. To differentiate between the two, you'd rather delete this page, yet keep the aricles on Warp Drive Hyperspace etc etc? All are fictional modes of FLT travel. All are based in various fiction works. These other articles do not deserve articles by themselves either then. If you delete this one, why would the others stand? If it is because it is not as wide-spread I believe that is all the more reason to keep it.

And if the only other problem you have is that "The article does not differentiate between fact...and fiction..." then why delete it, and why not just fix it?

I don't understand why this article is getting deleted and the other's arn't when there is so little difference, if any. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bhig3 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Both warp drive and hyperspace are deserving of their own articles because they have been referenced and used in multiple works of fiction (and even non-fiction in the case of hyperspace). But "skip drive" has been only used in two books by the same author and has not been in use outside of the novel itself. Sr13 (T|C) 04:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep If used only in Scalzi's books, I am not sure it is notable, but it is perfectly clear that the discussion is taking place within the fictional universe. And as appearing in published fiction, its not a neologism. But probably the same principle is referred to under other names elsewhere in sf, as the possible physical reality has been widely discussed. DGG 04:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to the book's article. I looked at FTL and there is indeed a list of 'see also' of various fictional 'drives' with their own articles, they should all probably be M and D'd, but their existence is not reason to keep this. --killing sparrows 05:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete and Redirect - Can you say "copyright violation?" ... half of the text in this article is just a copy&paste from one of the novels! --68.239.79.97 ~~20:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)~~ 04:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another sci-fi description of an FTL drive system. Redirect to the book, maybe, but it's a bit generic. Copyvio clinches it. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - element of fiction from just two books. And way too much of the article is a book quote. -- Whpq 15:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect I think if someone wanted to put this information into the article regarding Old Man's War it would be fine. Regarding the large amount of text cut and pasted from the book: I'm not going to squawk about it, but I think there's probably a more concise and useful way to get that information across -- Scalzi 23:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect If the article is mostly WP:COPYVIO then delete the article, put in a redirect to the book's article and include a paraphrased discussion on the concept there. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mackinley Qabaniso Yesaya Chibambo[edit]

Besides needing major cleanup, could not find much of anything on Google that's not a wiki mirror (see [3]( Citicat 01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I broke the article into paragraphs so it can be read and there is some claim to notability but no sources. The burden is on the creator, not the reader. I would change my !vote for one reference, and then deal with the style issues.--killing sparrows 06:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like original research, and the creator's username suggests a conflict of interest as well. No hits on google books. Fails WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BIO. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 15:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep cabinet member of national government is notability, would have been more useful to categorise and tag as unrefed (ie try dealing with the articles problems) ⇒ bsnowball 11:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely keep; he is mentioned in several books, like Rise of Nationalism in Central Africa: The Making of Malawi and Zambia, Revolt of the Ministers: The Malawi Cabinet Crisis 1964-1965, Sir Glyn Jones: A Proconsul in Africa, and others.--Aldux 14:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - member of a national government is notable. -- Whpq 15:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While there may be sources, they aren't in the article, and a list of titles doesn't clarify the extent of coverage in those sources. If he was so important, there should be more hits on the name than just Wiki and mirrors. MSJapan 04:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin jeffries[edit]

Fails WP:BIO Non notable fashion designer/musician, no google hits for him, his fashion label. only ref is a myspace page. Montco 01:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Acalamari 01:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious vanity page. Mwelch 02:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Daniel5127 | Talk 04:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly speedy for autobiovanispam. --killing sparrows 06:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smells strongly of WP:COI. Also fails WP:V and WP:BIO. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 13:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic vanity, no independent references and doesn't even appear to make an assertion of notability. Will (aka Wimt) 15:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability, that ol' vanity thang, no cites/references. Pig^man 18:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Borderline speediable in 3 categories (A7, G11, and G1), which should count for something. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 15:29, 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 deleted... 3 days ago actually.--Wizardman 13:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let it drip[edit]

Non-notable art studio. Google search of "let it drip", "skally" yields 4 results. No reliable third-party resources to establish notability. Looks more like spam. Montco 02:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable and for the reasons stated by the nominator--$UIT 02:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, Unsourced. Alex43223^{T | C | E} 11:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Looks like spam to me. No way this article could be re-written per nom's comments. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 15:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete blatant advertising, just tagged it. Rackabello 20:05, 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 no consensus to delete, and no consensus to merge. Any follow-up merge proposals should be done on the talk page of the articles (see WP:MERGE), and not AfD. Daniel Bryant 01:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Running on Empty (Hardy Boys novel)[edit]

This article might not belong per WP:FICT. This article, and many like it, may belong in the hopes they will become expanded, and as part of the significance of the entire series, of which each book is too much to summarize in one page. WP:PAPER may be useful in arguing for. Personally, lean towards merging minor book summaries into smaller articles by period. Seeking community consensus. For some reference, please see the Aubrey–Maturin series article, which may be a good example of final outcome. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 01:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per A1 for failure to provide context. --Ybbor ^T SURVEY! 01:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - not speedy per DES. Still, does not provide much hope of proving "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." Any merger of all these books would end up in a page that is far too long, and would still not assert notability of the content. --Ybbor ^TSurvey! 12:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep Running on empty, and abstain on all others. Someone has satisfactorily expanded Running on empty to include reliable sources, and I hope they will do the same for the rest, although at the moment, the others have a long way to go, and should be re-listed if not cleaned up. (And apologies for all the vote changing). --Ybbor^TSurvey! 13:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment IMO even the current (slightly) expanded version of the article should not be kept. it has no conent beyond publication data and a somewhat longer plot summary. This still doesn't meet WP:FICT. DES ^(talk) 20:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "The Hardy Boys go on a mission to find context in a very short article about a novel, and come up empty." Realkyhick 05:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. "The Hardy Boys go on a mission to find context in a series of very short articles about novels, and come up empty." Realkyhick 05:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good one, Realkyhick CosmoNuevo 10:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not, in my opnion, a valid speedy. The phrase "the Hardy Boys", even unlinked, gives conteXt (which is why I removed the db-context tag, and linked the phrase). What there isn't is sufficient conteNt for a good article, and I don't see how this or similar articles are ever likely to exapnd beyond a plot summary. Note that WP:FICT says (actually quoting WP:NOT) "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." I find it very hard to see much "real-world context and sourced analysis" likely to ever be written into this or similar articles. (Note that the author of this has created a several similar sub-stubs. Others are now on WP:PROD.) Therefore, Delete All or Merge and Redirect All to The Hardy Boys (or a new details page as discussed below). DES ^(talk) 12:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (N.B. Edited to apply to added noms. DES ^(talk) 20:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Redirect to list of Hardy Boys books or whatever the page is called. FrozenPurpleCube 20:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, btw, I've removed all the PROD's I could find, because I don't think it'd be a good idea to make one decision here, and another one there. It might also be helpful to get an idea what the various wikiprojects on novels/books are doing. The series as a whole certainly qualifies, but where to draw the line for articles? I don't know. FrozenPurpleCube 01:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so I have added all of them to this nomination as shown below. I draw the line at stubs that are nothing but plot summeries, about books that do not have enough distinctive features for individual articles ever to be much more. DES ^(talk) 02:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an article being a stub is not a real problem, and given that the general consensus is that almost all non-self-published fictional books do have enough content to support their own article, I'm not sure it matters. The series itself is certainly quite notable, some coverage of the individual books is certainly as warranted for it as it is for almost every television show or movie series. I do think substantially more could be added to some of these articles, but without knowing which ones, I'm content with a redirect and letting things develop as they come. FrozenPurpleCube 05:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Hardy Boys. Given the nature of the series, it is difficult to imagine that there would ever be sufficient material to expand this article much beyond the present state. janejellyroll 01:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and if later developed into significant articles they can then be split Fg2 03:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all but expand. I've added them to the Novels WIkiProject which may result in some additional information. Individual series books are notable, and there's no difference between Hardy Boys and any other series books articles out there. Any book articles can be expanded with publication data, an infobox, and a brief plot summary. None of that is presently in place in the article, but it can be added. The Hardy Boys is also a more-than-notable series that justifies separate articles on the different books. Additional: in reply to the nominator's suggestion of looking at Aubrey–Maturin series, this is a bad example because as I interpret the talk page there is every intention to write individual articles on each book. 23skidoo 20:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment IMO an article that has no content but "publication data, an infobox, and a brief plot summary" should be merged if a useful merge target is availble. Note the quote above from WP:FICT and WP:NOT which speaks of "...real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." DES ^(talk) 20:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. And I reply that no suitable merge target exists because it would add acceptable length to any such target article. 23skidoo 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment a "Details of" page could easily be created for each of the major incarnations of the Hardy Boys Series (Classic, Digest, Undercover, etc) and these items merged there in list format, possibly with a gallery of cover images. DES ^(talk) 20:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Please see the example given in the nomination. I believe a page like that would be the best outcome per DES' argument above. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 02:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - articles like this need enhancing (done some myself) not culling. These stories are a major set of series in the youth culture of the US. Not so prominent now but during there hayday were avidly read. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge into an article entitled Hardy Boys Novels. Real96 05:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Create a template for the Hardy Boys as a navigational aid. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional noms

I am also nominating the following related pages because they were all created at the same time, by the same editor, and all consist of a 1 or 2 sentence plot summary of a Hardy Boys novel. All should be treated simialrly

Merge It would be easier to read all on one page with a list of summaries from the entire series. --Darth Borehd 01:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The same argument, however, could be made for any series of books, including james Bond, Simon Templar, Doctor Who, Matt Helm, Ellery Queen ... the list goes on. All these have had individual articles written (some no more than stubs, while others have more content) without objection. Barring a Wikipolicy banning such articles, my "keep all" vote, above, stands for this relisting. 23skidoo 00:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ("vote" is above) I don't think any of them should be kept as separate articles -- all should be deleted or merged. Note that there has been discussion about such merges in the past on Talk:The Hardy Boys. DES ^(talk) 02:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All as notable juvenile novels, per huge sales over multiple decades. They have all these amazing adventures in Bayport, which seems to have more old mills, smugglers's coves, spy headquarters and buried treasures than any other town in the world! 66 wonderful books which sold for $1 each back when. Merger to a list with plot summaries would not be the end of the world. Edison 04:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Running on Empty, and merge the others until they are written. In the Maturin books the ones not yet expanded are not necessarily minor, but rather just those that we haven't gotten to yet. Same here. DGG 05:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But on the ones expanded, editors have found somethign to say beyond plot summery and publication info. Indeed even the ones still only in the central article (where I would have kept all of them) ther is morre than a plot summery and pub info, and I don't see how there will ever be that for any of these. DES ^(talk) 12:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I think that's an unfair assumption. All you need is one editor with a strong knowledge of the series to come along and the articles will fill out. Same could be said for any stub on Wikipedia. 23skidoo 00:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at this a week later, I wonder if the article I referenced for merging isn't unwieldy long. I still wonder if there's anything that prevents other pages from eventually reaching this point. Stubs are always considered acceptable, and an article may remain a stub for years and still not qualify for deletion. Just a thought for the re-listing. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a central listing per Real96. NeoFreak 01:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like television episodes. Individual books in this series are noteworthy. Fg2 03:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Hardy Boys because they are just one line long and don't deserve a separte article Gman124 01:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. All books in the series are notable. Everyking 07:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a single page with plot summaries. Mystache 23:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Jay High School (Cross River, New York)[edit]

Fails WP:SCHOOL (if you don't want a defunct guideline, then WP:N). There is nothing cited in the article that makes the school notable. Sr13 (T|C) 02:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Non-notable school. TJ Spyke 04:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Weak Keep, but on the condition that it be cleaned up (a month should be more than enough). If it wasn't for the MSNBC mention, I would have kept my Delete vote. TJ Spyke 06:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it's been covered by reliable, non-trivial published sources -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 04:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep this is just about the minimum of notability for a high school article, but a useful reminder that less than this is certainly not enough. DGG 05:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: meets minimum notability. Pig^man 18:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:VAGINA. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article needs some cleanup, but does seem to meet notability guidelines and does contain some references. Camaron1 | Chris 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant high school plus sourced controversy. TerriersFan 21:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article makes explicit claims of notability using reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn 15:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Satisfactory. — RJH (talk) 15:15, 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 to Beatrice Baudelaire (younger) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Beatrice dedications[edit]

Original research and violates Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. <3 Clamster 01:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Beatrice Baudelaire (younger). This is clearly notable, but does not merit its own article.--Orthologist 09:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the younger Beatrice? Shouldn't it be merged with the older Beatrice's article, as this is the one Snicket talks about. By all means, merge it, but please don't delete it. Microchip08 11:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (original author).[reply]

Also, it may be "original research", but what is wrong with that? It is correct research - surely it shouldn't matter if it is original or not? Microchip08 11:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. <3 Clamster 16:46, 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, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge! I don't want to lose my work! microchip08 14:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)`[reply]

I'm relisting this debate because my opinion of this article differs from the only response in this AfD. I'm withholding my opinion in case I end up closing this one anyway. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the very essence of in-world trivia. It's not OR because it shows no thought at all, beyond the bare idea to make such a totally useless article. DGG 05:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article about the book series. I don't think it even needs a redirect as anyone looking for info would go there first. --killing sparrows 00:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fancruft and OR. MSJapan 04:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (can IP editors vote on this? But at least hear my reasons) - even if it was cleaned up so as to be actually accurate, it isn't necessary to have this on Wikipedia. 81.152.33.236 14:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Natalie 14:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spike Steele[edit]

Non notable minor league pro wrestler Mattinbgn/^talk 20:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7. I will personally tag as such. Sr13 (T|C) 02:52, 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 to Hunter (novel). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-13 07:35Z

Oscar Yeager[edit]

Orphan article; stub of fictional character from non-notable racist book that also merits deletion; tagged as unreferenced since 8/06. THF 17:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is the protagonist of a minor work from an author better known for another equally racist novel. The book is barely notable, and there is no justification for a separate article for the main character. There's no additional detail in this article and thus nothing to merge in. The books should be AfD'd separately, as it might be notable. DGG 06:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICTION. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read the related articles on the book and author. They, unfortunately, seem to pass notability. This, fortunately, does not. --killing sparrows 01:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Book which contains this character has sold over 250,000 copies. Also supports more in depth article in Wikipedia about the author's other book, "The Turner Diaries" which links to this fictional protagonist.172.135.160.79 02:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC) -- — 172.135.160.79 (talk) 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. Daniel Bryant 08:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Klisanin[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO, I may very well be wrong, and would appreciate other eyes on this, but the sources listed seem to not qualify as "intellectually independent" of the source. Joe Decker 14:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If she ever completes "working on a multi-media experiment designed to test the viability of evolutionary guidance media", and if the result should happen to be notable, then there will be a reason for an article. She's 4 years after a non-research clinical Ph.D, received from "a San Francisco, California based 'distance learning' institution" and has written only one scientific article; she apparently holds no academic position of any sort. There are zero independent references--the book by Laszlo is background, published about when she received her BA degree from "a mid sized, state supported collegiate institution located in Russellville, Arkansas." We would not accept this sort of a beginning academic career for any psychologist even with degrees from major universities. As a comparison, I don't think we would accept a fiction writer with one short story and plans for a novel. DGG 06:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. This is remarkably thin on actual accomplishments, relying much on referencing other people's work as a kind of reflected/inherited achievement. Pig^man 18:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per criteria for any academic. I have no doubts re: the altered states of conciousness thing though, and ethnobotany. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 01:15, 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 Merge to G-Unit discography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-13 07:37Z

Smokin' Day 2 (G-Unit Radio Part 1)[edit]

I originally started these pages but I'm nominating this for deletion due notability issues as set in WP:Music. Although much of the mixtapes are referred to by sources such as MTV, All Music Guide, & Allhiphop.com, it seems that they cannot be expanded beyond a track listing. The most well referenced mixtape is 2050 Before The Massacre (G-Unit Radio Part 10) but is not really worth keeping considering almost all the 24 mixtapes in the series can not really be expanded beyond a track list. It was a little hard nominating these for deletion since I spent quite a while gathering the information but nevertheless, Wikipedia's policies must come first. In the future, I hope standards in the album guidelines can be made more clear. It currently states that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia (which is why I started the pages). But notable artists can also make non-notable albums. Spellcast 15:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons above:

Spellcast 15:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Why not merge? Between the various tapes I'm sure enough information can be compiled to form a decent article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean merge them all into one article (including track listing and covers)? I've tried that by creating a new page and only pressing the preview button. The size of the article ended up being way too long for one page. Spellcast 09:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to retain full track listings; but you could separate out a chunk of the G-Unit discography and add all the review and summary information on the album articles. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary. The reviews and album summary can simply be integrated into the list at the G-Unit discography page. Spellcast 11:22, 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, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge GUnit Radio parts 1-8, 9-16, 17-24. Length problem solved, information kept. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Keep info. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian School Of Music Boys Choir[edit]

Non-notable band; only evidence offered for notability is a link to one Doane College page listing National Merit scholars, including one of the band members, where the band gets a passing mention in his (presumably self-submitted) biography. —Bkell (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that The Russian School Of Music Boys Choir are a notable band by the fact that the Doane College University web page officially endorses the notoriety of said band by mentioning them on their official website (regardless if the biography is self-submitted or not, which there is no evidence to prove one way or another). The fact that there is actual output by the band on their Myspace page gives backing to the band's current music activity and genuine existence. There remains a substantial amount of actual plays of their music on the LastFM website that back up this claim. -SirJaunty 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 09:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no evidence that this unsigned musical group meets any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. The Doane College page is not even media coverage and says nothing significant about this group except that a student at the college is a member of it. --Metropolitan90 03:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:MUSIC. No major releases, no news articles to be found and far far too new to merit an article on any other grounds - Peripitus (Talk) 11:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "Russian School of Music" does not even exist as an organization, only a cute name this guys decided to use for their group.DGG 13:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article itself makes no real assertion of the notability of the band in my opinion given that the Doane college link is simply a (self-submitted?) list and its mention on the university website is not sufficient to fulfill WP:MUSIC criteria. Furthermore, there are no independent references, bar that dubious example, with all other external links pointing to sites of their own creation. Will (aka Wimt) 15:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and no independent WP:SOURCEs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pigman (talk • contribs) 20:02, 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 keep, nomination withdrawn. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oley Valley High School[edit]

Probably not notable enough to merit its own article. Just wanted other people's opinion on this in case I am wrong. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to recent edits made to the article, I decide to withdraw the nomination. I'm going to close this AfD as an admin. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable school. I think it should be speedy deleted for no assertion of its notability, but that doesn't seem to happen with schools. TJ Spyke 04:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Directory information only. We can't really speedy high schools, because probably all of them will be contested. There have been a number of prod's for middle schools, and that might be appropriate for schools with as little to say for themselves. No prejudice against a proper article, if there is the material and the interest. The best way to encourage good high school articles is by removing the meaningless ones. DGG 06:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oy vey! (How the previous participants in this discussion have been able to avoid this phrase is beyond me.) All high schools are notable, as I argue here. But because it's stumpy, I'd be in favor of redirecting this one to a school district article if it existed, or even a community article, if this school serves only one community. Furthermore, oy vey!Noroton 15:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Oy vey is right: the article is the barest of stubs about the school. It's had a good year to be improved, but nothing has come of it. There's not even a district article, so a merge isn't warranted. —C.Fred (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. There is no consensus at Wikipedia that high schools are or are not notable, as evidenced by the various high school AfDs closed as "Delete", "Keep" and "No Consensus". As such, each high school article has to satisfy the same criteria as any other article, and this one does not. Ole! --Butseriouslyfolks 20:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a high school that is significant in its community now with references to meet WP:N. TerriersFan 22:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per edits between my initial recommendation and TerriersFan's. I'm not sure what it says about the school, but the gorilla mask incident that led to coverage on CourtTV? That moves the article out of just-another-school-stub-article land. Notable. Disclaimer: I do not advocate donning a gorilla mask to get your school an article in Wikipedia, just for the record. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 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 no consensus. A Train^talk 12:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yury Gitman[edit]

Personal promotion, not sufficiently notable. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm surprised this article has lasted two years. Notability not asserted except by self-published site. Nearly a copyvio, but text is slightly changed. Realkyhick 23:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It isn't a good article, but the subject is notable enough due to taking part in several major art shows, if still not verified as such. If someone could add sources and reviews, then it would be okay. Poeloq 08:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article in its current state is not attributed to verifiable independant sources, but it does assert that such sources exist. I believe that the article can be improved and does not meet deletion criteria. Jerry 20:14, 6 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 03:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sourcing, no evidence of subject's notability. Xukuth 06:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced.--cj | talk 02:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - see [4] and [5] for notability. However, the article should possibly be on the Magicbike instead, which is the subject of almost all of Gitman's notability. --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 18:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of S.H.E Endorsements[edit]

For one thing, the article is essentially written in Chinese so I can only guess what the actual content is. But it seems like a pretty trivial collection of fandom information. It's not even clear in this context what exactly constitutes an endorsement and I certainly wouldn't like to see articles like these mushrooming all over for various artists. Pascal.Tesson 05:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't formatted it because I haven't had the time to translate it all, but it is essentially a list to complement the actual S.H.E article to inform readers of the products that they've endorsed. This is why I labelled this article a list. I was planning on setting up a wiki table to show the years that S.H.E endorsed certain products. And before you call this "mere fandom," please go over to the S.H.E article and see for yourself the sheer amount of work I've put into it just to give it the depth of information that it has now. Again, this article is here so I don't have to elaborate on every single endorsement on the already existing endorsements section. However, I could just as well make mini blurbs on every single product and go on another massive Google hunt, if that's what you want. - Pandacomics 18:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well kudos for improving the S.H.E. article but I believe the question is: if you think this isn't important enough to put in the main article, why do you believe it deserves a separate article. And why do you think this list has encyclopedic value? Pascal.Tesson 18:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not putting it in the main article because the article is already too big. 10,000+ words is more than enough. I've had to move other items off the main article, such as the endorsements page, so as to maintain an informative purpose by not overbloating the main article. Not to say that this has any relation to sport, but listing specific endorsements on a page is about as informative as putting up year-by-year standings of the English Premiership League. It's "trivial," as you say, but it contains information that simply complements the main article without being disruptive (by staying as a separate entity while linked to the main item). - Pandacomics 19:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to S.H.E. The root article is indeed unwieldy, but the split still has to hold its own weight - so unto itself, a large article is not always a sufficient reason to split. --Dennisthe2 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you find it unwieldy, please peer review it. I put up a request nine days ago, with absolutely zero response. Even articles like Miriam Rivera are getting responses. - Pandacomics 04:50, 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, Daniel Bryant 03:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think putting a list of products that are endorsed by a particular performing group is a very poor idea, and the very essence of linkspam. So I would oppose including this information anywhere, unless a particular endorsement became very notable, which does sometime happen. DGG 06:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . This type of list has no encyclopediac merit, Any notable endorsements can be kept in the main article. Editors need to remember that it is NOT necessary to list every piece of available information to make a complete article, else we end up with a list of grades of steel used in railway wheels on the Boston and Maine Railroad. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not English, and canonical fancruft anyway. I am intrigued by the idea of a list of grades of steel, however... Guy (Help!) 23:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is essentially delving to the realm of trivia. If there is a strong identification of the group to a particular product or set of products, then it can be included in the main article. -- Whpq 15:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails on so many reasons I can't even count them. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on notability. One of the most important things for manufactured pop bands to do is product endorsement. The purpose of bands like this is not to make music but to make money. This is expected from almost any band signed to the Big Four labels, but it's tautological for the boy- and girl-bands that the record companies create out of whole cloth (by picking "musicians", assigning them roles and personalities, putting them into a studio and handing them prearranged music to record). Manufactured pop bands == product endorsements. It's ugly, it's a disgrace to music and art, indeed a stain upon human culture. But it's relevant. — coel acan — 03:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good but it doesn't change the basic problem that THIS ARTICLE IS IN CHINESE! - iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. No sources. Completely unverified. As Whpq has pointed out, the encyclopedicness of a topic like this is debatable. In debatable cases, sources to establish independent notability and verify content are particularly important, otherwise an independent article isn't viable. Finally, English Wikipedia articles do need to be primarily in English. My complements to Wikipedia:WikiProject Endorsements. --Shirahadasha 23:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to List of islands of Massachusetts. A Train^talk 12:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bass Rock (Norfolk County, Massachusetts)[edit]

Previous deletion discussion (August, 2005)

Article states it is about a 'small barren rock', lack of notability, previous AfD failed to reach consensus, further review likely to lead to deletion Jörg Vogt 08:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge annotations and whatnot to List of islands of Massachusetts, retain as redirect (there is at least one internal reference). --Tony Sidaway 18:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I abstain from voting this matter. Wen Hsing 05:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I clicked on the reference and it made no mention of this stone. Is there anything special about this stone? What if it is moved by the current or an animal?Aleksi Peltola 04:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish there was a [[WP:ROCK]] I could cite. Realkyhick 17:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of islands of Massachusetts, where there is already a list of rocks.--Ng.j 02:20, 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 03:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, it's an actual island that exists, and is recognised as such by a government source (apparently). Lankiveil 04:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to List of islands of Massachusetts. It's a rock....that's the entire article and after some websearching it's hard to see a much longer one emerging. I've copied the reference note over already - Peripitus (Talk) 11:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a named geographic feature as a small island. DGG 14:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect according to Tony Sidaway, Peripitus. Or merge and redirect to Norfolk County, Massachusetts. But keep the information in Wikipedia. Fg2 03:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ng.j to List of islands of Massachusetts. --Dariusk 19:24, 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 Merge to Amok Time. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-13 07:56Z

Admiral Komack[edit]

Character who makes a single appearance in a single episode. Per other characters with similar lack of exposure, I suggest redirecting to that episode. One thing that sets this character apart is that he is the first admiral to appear in Star Trek; ex-Husnock/38.119.112.187/189/190, who seems to have ownership issues over this article, wants an AfD on this basis. I contend that mentioning this being the first episode in which a character of that grade appears covers the bases sufficiently -- the character itself is not notable beyond a fanboy interest in when a rank first appears, and a mention in the more-significant episode article itself is more appropriate. After all, more folks will search for the episode title than an obscure -- even if first-time-in-Trek -- admiral. --EEMeltonIV 14:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Okay, first of all, I never said I owned this article. I noticed that the article had a two year history with some 10 ten people having edited it. Then EMelton came along and blanked the whole thing without a word of discussion. I asked for such discussion, he blanked it again, so I suggested a VfD in order to get other opinions. I was polite during the entire affair, yet now there are some suggestions that I have acted improperly? I also see that EMelton keeps dropping names like “fanboy” and “wingnut” (see Fleet Captain (Star Trek)) which seems to me somewhat uncivil. Second point, I have no idea where this equating me with another user, who has been off this site for months, comes from. Star Trek rank articles have been worked on by several people, so am I also ex-Morwen, or ex-Coolcat? Who I am is not important and I am under no obligation to sign in to prove myself. If EMelton thinks I am abusing another account there are plenty of Wikipedia channels to report this. Lets focus on the article at hand and stay away from accusations and name calling. -38.119.112.189 11:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see in response to my polite notice, you have hinted in an edit history that I am a sockpuppet [6]. I am under no obligation to log in or create an account and dropping hints of impropriety in edit histories (which are permanent records of an article) is quite uncalled for. Please focus on the article and away from name calling. It is quite uncalled for. -38.119.112.187 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I am the original user who brought up to EMelton that he should run an AfD. I feel the article has good merit, including data on the actor who portrated the character, and is of note becuase this character was the first ever Admiral to appear in a Star Trek production. I am also not a "fanboy", as EMelton has suggested. I have 2 Master's Degrees and have written a Star Trek novel for Pocket Books. Not that this is said to influence the vote, only that EMelton should not be so quick to call people names when he knows nothing about them. -38.119.112.189 11:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is too much information here to integrate into the episode, and there is more than enough for it to stand on its own.--Ng.j 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article but lose the immaturity that is going on between EEMeltonIV and 38.119. Regardless of who 38 is, as long as he hasn't broken any rules he should be okay and should be allowed to edit freely. -213.42.21.79 11:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails WP:FICTION for a separate article; all applicable pertinent information already located at "Amok Time". — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Amok Time . This is an article about a very minor character with barely a line of dialogue. There can be no expansion as everything that can be said has already been said. It has also been said at Amok Time, so no merge is necessary.--Kubigula (talk) 22:19, 6 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 03:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, extremely minor fictional character. Lankiveil 04:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per the plot summaries section in WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. This is a clearly unencyclopediac subject - Peripitus (Talk) 12:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and as stated above, redirect to the episode. I believe that anyone needing to know about such a minor character would be enough of a fan of Star Trek that they would know about Memory Alpha, where this information would be more readily available. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mastrchf91 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Just not a very notable character. Maxamegalon2000 05:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the Amok time article. This is a minor character from a single episode of a TV series. -- Whpq 15:56, 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. Daniel Bryant 08:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter (novel)[edit]

Non-notable book by racist William Luther Pierce that doesn't even merit a mention in the body of his lengthy Wikipedia article. Most of the few Wiki articles that link to it do so as questionable entries in "See also" section. THF 17:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the book may be distasteful, but two independent sources are cited for critical commentary, therefore establishing notability per criterion 1 of WP:BK. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One of those sources is a self-published book that does not meet WP:RS. I have yet to track down the Gardell to see if it has any relevance, but it's not cited for anything notable in the article. -- THF 18:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of two books that cover a "strong" topic from a different viewpoint. — 71.48.195.150 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 03:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book is quite notable. It got plenty of media mentions in coverage of the OKC bombing trials since either McVeigh or Nichols or both (I can't remember which) supposedly had it/read it. William Luther Pierce is unquestionably one of the most influential overt racists of the past 40 years. Significant works of his (like a completed novel) in that vein are pretty much inherently notable. Mwelch 04:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book is notable. Perhaps it wasn't mentioned in the main article because of the existence of this one here, so nothing can be deduced from that. Self published, but has received independent attention. The author (fortunately) wrote only two novels, so both are worth including. DGG 06:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable book with just enough media attention. We might want more on literary criticism of it but it doesn't merit deletion. We can't delete subjects that disagree with our own views. User:Dimadick

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - I'm not going to relist this again. If anyone wishes to continue the merge proposal, this can be done without AfD (see WP:MERGE); talk pages of articles suffice. Daniel Bryant 01:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film is dead festival[edit]

Non-notable film festival, no independent media coverage, and 0 relevant Ghits. Contested endorsed prod. Leuko 18:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This festival has been around a long time. I've been to it before, showed my films there before. It's very underground and the organizers want keep it that way, and yet their festivals are always packed. This is an important part of the LA digital art scene and LA underground culture. Why delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jscaff (talk • contribs) 19:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC). — Jscaff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Because Wikipedia has notability guidelines to ensure that there are enough reliable sources to ensure verifiability and that a quality, neutral point of view article without any conflicts of interest can be created by editors who have no "inside" knowledge of the subject. Leuko 21:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ as main festival of new media expert Lev Manovich's Post-Cinematic Society. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:31, 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 03:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced - at the moment the only sources are four links to the organiser's own website, and a blog. Might well be important, but nothing whatsoever to show this. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With what? Leuko 21:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably with {{Template:Unreferenced}}. Even so, even the blog link admits that sourcing this is, well, problematic. What I've seen about this convinces me that it belongs on WP, but without any citation, I don't think I can vote keep. Even a mention in a community weekly would be enough for me, so perhaps the article could/should be recreated sometime. On the other hand, I don't see how deleting it makes WP any better. I doubt its a hoax, and it seems important enough in an underground art festival in LA sort of way. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it is a hoax too, but without WP:RS there isn't any independent editor review to verify the article or to resolve WP:COI concerns. Leuko 22:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, of course. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to redirect it to Lev Manovich (there would be very little to merge). We could also redirect Post-Cinematic Society, for that matter. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:55, 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. Daniel Bryant 08:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical generation[edit]

While I can find many references to the term "Chemical generation" [7] none seem to have anything to do with a literary movement. This seems like original research. IrishGuy ^talk 19:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a reference to "chemical fiction" in one of the external links. It seems plausible to me, although obscure. --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 20:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment one of the references refers to "chemical fiction" as a genre, but there I didn't see any references to a "chemical generation" as a literary movement. IrishGuy ^talk 20:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does have some usage: one of the Sarah Champion anthologies is subtitled "New Fiction from the Chemical Generation", and there's this and this. Those last two use scare quotes when talking about "chemical generation" writers, and this PhD student's research program has to explain the choice of "chemical generation" over other possible names, so the terminology may not have settled yet. I lean toward keep unless someone can suggest an appropriate redirect or merge, though. —Cel ithemis 22:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 03:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I translate chemical generation as the generation of those people who rely upon artificial chemicals for stimulation and recreation, though it is hard to tell the exact meaning. If the name doesn't stick, we can reconsider.DGG 06:49, 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 redirect, no consensus to delete outright. I cannot merge content back into this article as of present, as it is protected due to a dispute over this very content. An editorial comprimise over what content to readd back into the article (note: the content is still in the history of South Australian general election campaign, 2006, see this), if any, should take place on the talk page of South Australian general election, 2006 and be implemented after disputes are resolved (and protection lifted). I will be protecting the redirect as it is merely a continuation of the dispute at the main election page, which is protected also. Daniel Bryant 06:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Note: I modified this close slightly after more information (mainly, the reason why the main article is protected and why this was forked initially) came to hand.[reply]

Note: this close is on deletion review. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15 for the review debate. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: DRV endorses the closure as a redirect. Xoloz 15:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Australian general election campaign, 2006[edit]

Duplicate of large part of South Australian general election, 2006. Was created outside of consensus on 22 February only 6 weeks after the 2006 election article was made an WP:FA. The change was opposed at the project talk page. DanielT5 03:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The campaign and the election are distinct concepts. Joestella 04:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Content of feature article with *many* contributors, and without any consensus whatsoever, was moved out by User:Joestella on 22 February 2007. Such copy-paste moves create GFDL issues as they do not attribute authorship to the original authors (someone who doesn't know it was a split would attribute the content, some of which I contributed to during the FA improvement drive, to the creating user). The first such article came into existence on 6 February 2007 for an election in New South Wales, also authored by Joestella. The user has also been edit-warring on an infobox that he has created at another article, and moved all Australian election articles to new names in February 2007 against consensus - which is currently leaning to renaming them again. Orderinchaos 04:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Was approved as a Featured Article without joestella's self-imposed concepts. Timeshift 07:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ~~duplicate~~ fork.--cj | talk 16:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No longer a duplicate, but a fork it remains.--cj | talk 06:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- cj | talk 16:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to election article - the election campaign is important, but this was part of a featured article which should not be significantly changed without the consensus of those who edited it. JRG 03:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the content has already been restored to the parent article in full before this AfD was raised - it's a different issue to the WA one. Orderinchaos 03:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - Strong Delete and Redirect to election article then. JRG 13:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, as an election and the campaign are distinct events, as well as a hearty non-binding directive to DanielT5 and Joestella to grow up. Lankiveil 00:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete there seems little value in keeping a partial fork of an FA. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No opinion pending the resolution of discussion in the main article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if vic and nsw can have campaign articles, so can wa and sa imho. just because an article is fa one time doesn't make it perfect & unchangeable ChampagneComedy 20:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The changes did nothing to improve the article (actually quite the reverse) and actually caused a potential GFDL copyright issue. By restoring it to its home article, people can see clearly who wrote which bits that got it to featured status to begin with. The way it was done made it look as if Joestella was the sole author of all of the content. Orderinchaos 20:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This objection could be used to stop any splitting of overlong articles, so I would hope people can see past it. Joestella 11:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A substantial rewrite of South Australian general election campaign, 2006 is now under discussion, with the breakup of the article a key component of this. Given this discussion, a decision on the deletion of the campaign article would be premature. [8] Joestella 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "substantial rewrite" is once again a creation of Joestella and has been attempted without consensus, in an attempt to disrupt this AfD. Joestella's first ever edit to this previously stable page was at 10:56 UTC and was uncontroversial. His third blanked most of the article (which I might note has featured status in its present form), then completely rewrote it. A warning has been placed on his talk page. Orderinchaos 16:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Users concerned that my rewrite of the SA election article was in less than good faith should read the relevant talk page to see the list of concerns it addresses. Silly turns of phrase like "once again a creation of Joestella" don't move anything forward. My suggestion is judge my changes on their merits, not mine. Joestella 17:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a duplicate fork per CJ. Sarah 07:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the original content was poorly-written and heavily pov. i have made an attempt at improving it. users who want this page deleted should look again. that campaign articles are sometimes warrented is not disputed (see nsw/vic)... that the SA election 06 article needs to be rewritten (maybe split) is not disputed either (see its talk page)... i think a lot of these vots for deletion above are personally motivated in nature. ChampagneComedy 17:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not good enough - why is the entire page now dominated by that "Rann gets results" poster - the older picture had examples of several types of poster (and was a free image, as opposed to a fair use image), for example? And the writing still isn't good. This never needed to be split from the original article. Let's just merge them together, as appears to be the consensus here, so this stupid edit war can cease. JRG 00:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The changes should be made to the Campaign section of the main article, rather than to the fork article, so that the changes can be appropriately tracked with regards to the largest part of the article. I would have *no* objection, despite my current content objections to the proposed changes, for this article as recently altered (11-12 March) to be pasted over the relevant section in the parent article by the closing admin or another neutral person (it wouldn't be a cut and paste move strictly speaking as the original content originated from here and most of the changes have been by one user - above - who can be appropriately credited), and we can sort out by consensus what happens with it thereafter. This would restore the balance to what it should have been - that the article that should be changed, gets the changes. As JRG said, the current situation is getting ridiculous, and we need to look for small/trivial parts of this where we don't essentially disagree that we can actually get moving, to shrink the size of the potential battleground and limit it to *real* issues, like any point of view or other issues. Orderinchaos 05:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC) - Note that this is now severely tempered by the removal of 36 references, which were nearly all checked individually at FA stage, from the article. I request that this article be userfied or subpaged rather than merged at this stage. Orderinchaos 04:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page now contains substantially different (and I think better) content than the section in South Australian general election, 2006 that it's intended to replace. Deletion would seem to be an inappropriate even for those who oppose the election/campaign article split. Joestella 08:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my proposed solution above, which would completely accommodate the content of this page (in fact replacing what is there under the main article in the relevant section), while acknowledging the substantial majority wish that these two related topics belong under one article, and allowing for consensus to direct where to proceed from that point. Note that editing on this page only commenced *after* consensus had established the page was redundant as a duplicate/fork of the original, so the edits in question since 11 March should have been made on the main page in appreciation of this. Orderinchaos 10:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to note that this article keeps getting better while its parent is locked from editing. I note that the FA process failed to detect that most of the references in this piece were partisan, did not refer to events mentioned in the text, or refer to events long before or after the election. Of course, it's got a little way to go yet (an edit to remove/reduce my own POV would be appreciated) but it's much better now. Joestella 18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing the number of references from 53 to 17 is *not* a good outcome. The "Background" section is now almost completely unreferenced. Large sections of content have been removed which were indeed relevant to the 2006 campaign, despite one person's opinion to the contrary. Nearly all of the previous references were from reliable sources - most were from mainstream media sources, including SA's state newspaper, The Australian and the ABC. Verifiability is a *core policy* of Wikipedia. Please put them back, and stop being disruptive with this. Orderinchaos 04:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Per my own nom, CJ and Sarah and also noting that the changes since 11 April to this article have reduced it to an inferior version of what is already at SA General, and have made it effectively the property of a disruptive user who seems bent on "winning" some lame dispute instead of improving the encyclopaedia. Case of WP:POINT in action if I ever saw one. DanielT5 04:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Daniel's nomination, the page has changed virtually 100% [9]. That users Timeshift, ChampagneComedy and I have made extensive changes since I created the article does not make it my property – it is not as though I have been reverting changes to it. I spent many hours actually reading the sources and found that some were actually ALP policy announcements, and that many of those from mainstream media sources referred to events long before or after the campaign. That the reflist has fallen so precipitously is neither here nor there; what matters is that the references now included are relevant and non-partisan.

While DanielT5 is very good at linking to Wikipedia guidelines, he seems to have overlooked WP:Assume good faith - since when has hours of research and writing by multiple users been anything but improving the encyclopaedia? Joestella 06:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ffs now you're editing "strong delete" votes to make them "comment" - what next?!?! And telling *me* to assume good faith. I had not actually voted, although it was fair to assume my nom was a delete vote, but I did clearly say "Per my own nom" at the beginning of my vote so it was clear to anyone reading. DanielT5 10:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that all of Timeshift's mods were *before* the nomination, and he had integrated all of his changes at the main page. It's also worth noting that he agreed on this page that this article is in fact a duplicate and voted for its deletion, edits starting four days after the Afd commenced by previously uninvolved editors who had already made their minority viewpoint clear on this page notwithstanding. I agree with Daniel that two sections which are still there now are hideously under-referenced as a result of these changes. Orderinchaos 06:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Joe, I'm with DanielT5 on the quality of the content. The original article is far more detailed and comprehensive now - the issues section especially - the Adelaide Tram extension and Port River Expressway issues, for example, were left out of the issues section on the newer article, whereas they are covered on the original article; the law and order part of the issues segment is much better covered as well; and the pictures that added to the article three days ago were removed for some reason. There are also a lot more references in the original article. Yes, the original article could do with some changes (which Joe's input would help), but the changes in the Campaign fork have been regressive to say the least, and there's no way that a separate article is warranted. I still think a merge of the two articles is the best outcome. JRG 10:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Adelaide tram extension was approved the previous year, the primary source is the government itself. I could find no reference in the linked sources to the Liberals mentioning it on the campaign trail. The Port Expressway proposal has no source attached to it. Believe me, all the old content that is backed up with sources I kept – there's just not much of it. On Law & Order, the Liberal policy on speed limits isn't sourced, and the stuff about drugs dates from long before and after the election. The only accurate, sourced and relevant information on the subject is "Law and order was another key issue, with Labor promising extra police," but this ignores the opposition's similar promise. I'm not saying this is deliberate POV - it's just poor research. Joestella 11:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Why does it need to be sourced back to the Liberal Party (a partisan organisation)? Strange call to make considering you are complaining about POV (accidental or otherwise). If something is approved before and built after an election, it makes logical sense that it will impact on the election in a number of seats which either benefit from or are affected by it. Orderinchaos 11:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge content into the main article. The writing in this one is better than the equivalent section in the main piece but there's no need for a separate page on the campaign. Euryalus 10:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge Per cj and sarah. While it may be argued the election and the campaign are seperate, they run at the same time and are closely related to each other (One does not happen without the other). It's simply pointless to have another article documenting something which is related to the core subject. Personally, this AfD has gone on far too long now and should have been resolved days ago. It's only because of people pursuing their own views of issues they are invested in, that one or more users have potentially acting like meatpuppets and changing the comments of others that this has been allowed to continue for as long as it has. Thewinchester ^(talk) 10:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge as above. One of the articles needs to be the feeder, and the other the receiver. The original article which is a feature article I believe should be the receiver. This will be an arduous task, and I believe it was silly to set of and write an entirely new version in the first place. Much more could have been achieved through gradual change.

If there is a silver lining here, its that hopefully these issues can be thrashed out before the Federal election later this year. Recurring dreams 11:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All has been said above already (sometimes civilly and sometimes less so - including, I note, some interesting adjustments to an other editor's vote! what the?)--VS ^talk 11:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this sort of article is not uncommon. --Duke of Duchess Street 17:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 18:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Western Australian general election campaign, 2005[edit]

This article was created on 22 February 2007 and in its initial form was not suitable for Wikipedia. Large sections of it were removed and it has sat there ever since. At the talk page for Western Australian general election, 2005 a discussion about the content of this and some other matters resulted in no consensus. The article is clearly not going to be developed as, for various reasons, no reliable source can be agreed upon for current Western Australian political matters. DanielT5 03:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The idea that "no reliable source can be agreed upon for current Western Australian political matters" is based on a conspiracy theory about The West Australian being owned by Brian Burke. A dearth of DanielT5-approved sources is not a valid reason to delete this article. The New South Wales general election campaign, 2007 article turned out quite well - so the premise (if not all of the content) is certainly sound. I suggest that concerned users post specific problems on the currently-blank discussion page. Joestella 04:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above comment is by the creator of the article, who is in a minority on the talk pages. Interested parties can read the sources themselves - [10] which is new (last week), and I also cited on the talk page at the time ([11], [12], [13], [14]) several pages which clearly demonstrate the West Australian is not a WP:RS on *current* political issues, it is like using the Liberal party website and is itself a political player. The discussion page is blank because the discussion has taken place on the original talk page as nobody but the above user accepts this page as legitimate. The NSW qcampaign article which is cited as precedent here was in fact created by User:Joestella only several days earlier and itself didn't have consensus - political articles have suffered from a lack of contributions and this user's ignoring of consensus, edit-warring on election articles and forcing of Liberal Party of Australia POV has already driven away at least one good faith user and made others back away from contributing to the encyclopaedia. DanielT5 04:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge (formerly Delete) While avoiding the issue of WP:RS as this is a content issue, the article was possibly created to make a WP:POINT and violates consensus - the only people who have commented at Talk:Western Australian general election, 2005 other than Joestella have opposed this article's existence, and discussion at the relevant WikiProject has also drawn near-unanimous opposition Furthermore, the original article is barely beyond stub status so it is hardly time to start splitting them. (JRG below makes some excellent points.) Orderinchaos 05:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There is obviously some useful material for the article on the election. There are obvious issues between the creator and the nominator and AfD is not the place to sort it out. There are obvious reliable sources for the article such as the West Austalian, The Australian and the ABC so the nominators comments about lack of reliable sources are rather mystifying. Frankly, the West Australian's status as a reliable source on West Australian politics than Redrag.org. If the claim about no reliable sources were true, there would be no sources for the other article. Capitalistroadster 01:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge to election article - this should not be deleted whatsoever; the election campaign is as important as the results. Despite what is claimed on the talk page, the election article without the campaign material is not extensive and needs a lot of work; the merger of the two articles would be a good way to expand the article. It doesn't need two articles. JRG 03:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article is heavily one sided and would not be suitable without a significant re-write. This is not withstanding that it's essentially a duplicate of an existing article already adequately covering the subject, and is at best one-sided and pushes only a specific viewpoint. thewinchester 16:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, as an election and the campaign are distinct events, as well as a hearty non-binding directive to DanielT5 and Joestella to grow up. Lankiveil 00:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge (see below). The standard practice for Australian election articles has been to have a seperate page for the election campaign. I feel that if there is a merge, then when the main election article length is increased then we will have to demerge again. With resepct to POV, I believe it is better to fix the problem rather than delete the article. Recurring dreams 00:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem for me here is that it is not a "standard practice". Certainly, it is widespread, thanks to a non-consensual change which was pushed onto a range of articles in around mid-February 2007 by one user, which has been opposed by almost anyone else who's had a say in the matter. I don't think this is the way we should be forming standards - certainly willing to discuss what works, and I am personally of the view that different elections require different procedures to avoid an overly lengthy article in some, and an overly stubby one in others. Orderinchaos 03:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. I was not aware how the practice of having separate articles for campaigns and elections came about. In that case, particularly considering neither articles in this case are overly long, I will change my recommendation to merge.Recurring dreams 07:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if vic and nsw can have campaign articles, so can wa and sa imho. orderinchaos is wrong if he/she thinks that these articles are not standard. order in chaos voted TO KEEP Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Victorian election campaign - so much for not standard practice ChampagneComedy 20:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note this contribution history of this user when closing this debate DanielT5 06:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Read my reply to Recurring dreams - what you have highlighted is entirely consistent with my stated position. My vote in that instance had less to do with standards development and more to do with not wanting to demean the hard work of others who had contributed to that particular article. I note, however, that my original concerns about that article's content still stand despite two months having now elapsed. The two AfDs under consideration here are completely different - one was created as a clear NPOV violation, while the other was a raw duplicate and probable GFDL violation. Common sense trumps need for absolute standard in this area IMO - where required, do it, where not required, don't do it. Orderinchaos 20:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The idea that the WA campaign article is "a clear NPOV violation" just doesn't play – and would anyway be solved through the use of NPOV tags, editing and talk page discussion, not deletion. This AfD debate seems to be more about three WA users – thewinchester, Orderinchaos and DanielT5 – demanding local control of WA-related articles. That's not how Wikipedia works. Joestella 06:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I raised the POV issue on 8 March under the topic "POV issues" on the article talk page. Your tone in reply was confrontational and dismissive, and you refused to continue the discussion once reasonable sources were presented on 10 March to justify the stance you were ridiculing. This is not conducive to obtaining a meaningful consensus. Secondly, if you got me, Orderinchaos and Thewinchester in a room discussing politics, you're talking about three mutual political opponents, not a cabal. However I respect them as good faith contributors to Wikipedia and we would work to improve these and other WA political articles on that basis with anyone who wishes to work alongside us, regardless of their state of origin. DanielT5 06:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Jos - Can I ask how you came to the very interesting idea that the supposed cabal of OIC, Dt5, and myself are demanding local control of articles? I suspect you are pushing this baseless viewpoint because of the continued disagreement with your position on these matters. If anything, I see the work of these users as well as all others acting independently as a solid and reasonable attempt to achieve and build clear consensus on the issues at hand. Any assertion to the contrary is both baseless and borders on personal attack.
        As for NPOV tags, they don't solve anything. They are a simple attempt not to modify the core issues that caused them to be there in the first place. It's also not helped by the fact that you've been attempting to attract users with a specific bias to your viewpoint to this AfD debate in order to support your obviously contentious viewpoint. I came across this AfD as part of my usual project checking, and not because one of the many friends and contacts who may or may not share similar views or ideas brought it to my attention. Now seriously, can we please can the crap and come to a plausible and reasonable consensus on this AfD as quite frankly it's gone on far far too long and should have been an easy fix.. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both articles have changed significantly since the deletion proposal was first aired. Joestella 05:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I still think the two pages should be one, and believe a merged article will deliver the most solid presentation of the election, I'm no longer opposed to the *content* in the articles following the changes made yesterday and today - the issues are starting to get a reasonably fair and balanced coverage and when I have time in a few weeks, I can hit the Battye (our state ref library) and source some of them. As I said on the main talk page, I'm somewhat relieved that we can actually look to develop this now rather than watch a continuing and pointless revert war between one inferior version and one slightly less inferior version. Orderinchaos 06:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The election article is still pretty bad - the best outcome is still a merge, which will combine one average and one slightly-better-than-average article into something that can be significantly improved. JRG 03:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree. The article was created by someone well removed from the circumstances who did not contact anyone in WA for help on it, despite two very active project talk pages and about 5-10 people at that time being available. Given the limited media available online about an election held two years ago, and the fact most media is offline and in our state library here in Perth, this was going to result in a flawed article no matter what. By the time we did discover it two weeks later, all of us were too busy with other projects and offline stuff to do anything useful with it. There had actually been some discussion of creating the article in June, that gives you some idea. I think the best thing about such an outcome would be to draw a line under the warring over this article which has taken place until 2 days ago, so we can come back at another time and fix up this article to a point where we're reasonably happy with it (I have no real plans to get it past B-grade, to be honest). Orderinchaos 04:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (as original nominator) based on changes to the article on 10 April by ChampagneComedy, the two are now halves of a whole and I am happy to accept the retention of the new content accordingly. DanielT5 01:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- strong comment :P the nominator no longer supports deletion. orderinchaos's main problem is that user:joestella and i are sydneysiders and so "someone well removed from the circumstances who did not contact anyone in WA" - WP:OWN if ever i saw it. i think the deletion should be rejected and a merge discussion set up instead. ChampagneComedy 06:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that *I* changed my vote to merge 4 days ago. I disagree with the notion of this page existing, but the content in it is now significantly improved from the 2 POV versions battling for attention previously (which I largely credit to yourself), and merits being used in the original article. The deletion debate was opened up, the primary issue with the *content* was addressed (which as I noted in my reasons for deletion near the very beginning, should not have been part of the AfD discussion anyway) but the issue with the *existence* of the page still remains: "Furthermore, the original article is barely beyond stub status so it is hardly time to start splitting them." Furthermore, there is no need for an additional bureaucratic procedure to determine what is by now a fairly clear consensus, and the outcome is a win-win for all as your hard work is acknowledged, recognised and incorporated, while the article can be appropriately expanded when sources and other materials become available. Orderinchaos 07:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these articles are inherently built on commentary, and I don't consider that encyclopædic. Any coverage that is necessary is perfectly containable within a section of the general election article.--cj | talk 09:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with the main article, as with the South Australian version the writing is good but there is no need for a separate article on the campaign alone. Euryalus 09:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Jailbreak. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-13 08:02Z

Jail Break[edit]

Seems to be something made up in school one day. No secondary sources provided to indicate that this game is particularly notable or widespread. Lankiveil 03:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sounds like fun, but can't find any reliable sources that state this is a notable game. --Haemo 04:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge and redirect if sourced. I would even accept student newspapers as a source for this apparently college campus phenom, but the burden is on the creator, not the reader.--killing sparrows 06:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jailbreak as is Jail break. made up in school article - Peripitus (Talk) 12:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect after deleting history, WP:NFT obviously. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete and redirect as suggested by JzG. Pascal.Tesson 14:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Widely played by many notable universities, including Cambridge and Warwick - Sorry, forgot to sign - Freddie42 15:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jailbreak or Jail break and include a brief description about the game, but giving no link. BlackBear 17:55, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-13 08:04Z

Jeremiah chronicles[edit]

Non-notable fiction series (with only one story, apparently). Google Search only shows Wikipedia and various other non-related Bible websites Lankiveil 03:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is in bad shape with almost no references. Could these "Bible websites" provide us with publication history, capable of establishing notability? User:Dimadick
- Comment, I mean that Jeremiah is referenced a bit in the Biblical books entitled "Chronicles", so any search term including the two pops up rather a lot of sites discussing the Bible. Searches for '"Jeremiah Chronicles" "Lo Sobrenatural"' and '"Jeremiah Chronicles" minako' produce nothing of import, unlike what might be expected if this serial were notable. Lankiveil 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete actually, I believe this could even be speedy deleted both as spam and as non-notable web content. Pascal.Tesson 14:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete My objective in creating the article was the same for creating the story. It is important for the secular world to see the lives of Christians and how they deal with life/ how they became Christians. The stories I write may not be well renowned or popular, but they are truth filled examples of life, which to me makes them notable. What sort of references are needed besides to Lo Sobrenatural (the story itself)? I suppose references to the Bible? Like many other articles in wikipedia, Jeremiah Chronicles is for explanation of a work to be read for enjoyment. There is no history behind it (because it is a work in progress still undiscovered by many.) Deletion of the article would only free up webspace for other junk that is less notable/ revelvant to today. Creative creation323 03:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)creative_creation323[reply]

Do Not Delete This is a well written article with links to the story. Afallingsparrow 07:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-13 08:05Z

Comprehensive School Mathematics Program[edit]

~~non-notable commercial mathematics program;~~ Jd2718 03:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC) I read salix' and Bbagot's comments, and saw salix's expansion of the article itself; I am now convinced that this article is worth keeping. Jd2718 10:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 04:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The authoritative ERIC databases from the US Dept. of Education shows 915 results using both the full name and the acronym. The program is no longer active, but archives are available, and apparently material from it is still being commercially produced. Once N, always N. The article itself is not spammy. DGG 14:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The article is advocacy, and doubtless many non-notable acronyms have crossed the Dept. of Education. I deny that once notable is always notable; if a Roman legate is now known only as an Egyptian grafitto, he has ceased to be notable. So here: we are not in the business of cataloging every acronym ever to burble through Washington; they are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't dispute DGG's findings, but as the USDoE sponsored the program's development, they are responsible for cataloguing all the related studies (from development, field tests, etc), making it difficult to consider ERIC, in this instance, authoritative. Jd2718 04:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think it is important to document the changes in mathematical education through the years, this program ran for nearly 20 years and at close 55,000 students were using it. We have articles on many minor mathematicians who have had far less impact than this program which shaped the mathematial development of many many people. p.s. I've expanded the article somwhat. --Salix alba (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A program that successfully ran for almost 20 years over a relatively large area is notable. Programs from the pre-internet time period aren't going to have as many Google hits, but can still be notable based upon their history and scope. Bbagot 06:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-13 08:06Z

Brittany Blue[edit]

no evidence of notability, no sources. Natalie 03:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable porn star. Lankiveil 04:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, fails WP:PORNBIO. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The external link gives a filmography of twenty-eight films. Any of them particularly notable for its genre? User:Dimadick
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Tabercil 19:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of passing WP:PORNBIO in the article. Epbr123 20:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Moore (porn star)[edit]

non notable, no real sources, fails WP:PORNBIO. Natalie 04:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:PORNBIO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flyguy649 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment No sources? But the profile offers two seperate filmographies. Did you bother to check them? User:Dimadick
- Comment More precisely, WP:PORNBIO#Invalid criteria #4 says that this type of source (specifically citing IMDB and IAFD as examples) is insufficient to establish notability. Either present something satisfying WP:PORNBIO#Valid criteria, or go to Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors) and argue for adding something to the criteria that the article does satisfy. Emurphy42 10:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Further, having an IMDb profile isn't a reliable source for anyone, as it merely demonstrates that the person exists. As it is not a "non-trivial work", it does not demonstrate notability. Natalie 14:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Valrith 13:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Tabercil 19:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I quite like her but there's no indication of passing WP:PORNBIO in the article. Epbr123 20:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per Natalie's comment. Edison 23:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being in 125 films within any genre should meet the prolific requirement. The problem here is a poorly written article. Vegaswikian 21:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: First, number of films is an invalid criterion. Second, the valid criterion about being prolific within a specific genre niche is not satisfied, as she hasn't performed in any particular niche... Valrith 01:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet a single notability requirement. Tarc 13:04, 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, nomination withdrawn. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Gold[edit]

~~non notable, no real sources, fails WP:PORNBIO. Natalie 04:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)~~ [reply]

- User:Epbr123 has noted that Gold has won an AVN award and added it to the article, which satisfies WP:PORNBIO. I withdraw this AfD. Natalie 23:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:PORNBIO. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Tabercil 19:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She won Best Supporting Actress - Video at the 1999 AVN Awards. Epbr123 20:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edison 23:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does she fail WP:PORNBIO? She won Best Supporting Actress - Video at the 1999 AVN Awards. Epbr123 08:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has not only won an AVN Award but an XRCO Award as well. She has been a long time performer and has made 250+ movies. I think that is enough to warrant an article. MikeH411
Keep per MikeH411. Two separate industry awards shows notability - see criteria one for WP:PORNBIO ("Performer has won or been a serious contender for a well-known award"). Tabercil 22:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even by porn standards Katie Gold has worked in a lot of films. accusing her of being NN shows a lack of knowledge in the field, no offence DelPlaya 22:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, if you read WP:PORNBIO, you will see that the number of films any one person has been in is explicitly noted as not a measure of notability. However, awards are, so I withdrawing this nomination. Thank you Epbr123 for finding the cite. Natalie 23:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the AVN Award, a very clear PORNBIO criterion. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 08:31, 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. Sandstein 05:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tabitha Stern[edit]

non notable, no real sources, fails WP:PORNBIO. Natalie 04:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:PORNBIO, unsourced. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Tabercil 19:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of passing WP:PORNBIO from the article. Epbr123 20:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of multiple nontrivial coverage in reliable sources, thereby failing WP:A. Edison 23:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a fanboy biography, hardly NPOV (uses exclamations!), all other issues such as WP:A and WP:PORNBIO notwithstanding.Tolstoy143: Quos vult perdere dementat 04:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lonnie Waters[edit]

non notable, no real sources, fails WP:PORNBIO. Natalie 04:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:PORNBIO. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Tabercil 19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of passing WP:PORNBIO in the article. Epbr123 20:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Epbr123 Rackabello 00:41, 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 05:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitten (porn star)[edit]

non notable, no real sources, fails WP:PORNBIO. Natalie 04:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Panser Born- (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Tabercil 19:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes WP:PORNBIO by appearing in the mainstream media when she was on Blind Date. Epbr123 20:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A TV appearance does not confer notability, and if WP:PORNBIO provides such an easy route to notability it needs fixing. Edison 23:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:PORNBIO. I do not feel that a single appearance on a reality tv show makes the cut for criteria #5. And while I admire deep-throating and moaning as much as the next guy, her penchant for it doesn't quite meet #2 either. Tarc 03:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for meeting WP:PORNBIO. Appearing in over 200 movies in any genre shows endurance in the business. Vegaswikian 22:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you happen to notice that "number of films" was listed under the "Invalid Criteria" header? Tarc 02:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep highly visible and notable porn slut... nuff said. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:12, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liza Harper[edit]

non notable, no real sources, fails WP:PORNBIO. Natalie 04:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, prolific, but no other assertions of notability, thus fails WP:PORNBIO. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATT and WP:PORNBIO. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Tabercil 19:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of passing WP:PORNBIO from the article. Epbr123 20:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for clearly passing WP:PORNBIO. Appearing in over 300 films is prolific in any genre. Even if you use the source with the lower total that is still over 165 films. Nominators really need to read the details before nominating articles. Vegaswikian 22:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would suggest that you need to read WP:PORNBIO more closely. It clearly says that number of films is an invalid measure of notability. There is no assertion that she is prolific in a genre niche, either. Natalie 02:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet a single notability requirement of WP:PORNBIO. Tarc 13:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Liza Harper began the anal gaping trend, which is now its own genre. timjr 03:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-13 08:08Z

Sandee Westgate[edit]

Non-notable person per WP:BIO.RJASE1 ^Talk 05:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also fails WP:PORNBIO. -Panser Born- (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of independent non-trivial sources. {{pnc}} applies. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). Ronbo76 23:52, 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 Rename to Ganon's Castle. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-13 08:09Z

Ganon's Area[edit]

As much as I am not a deletionist, "Ganon's Area" is not an established in-universe term referenced at all. As best as I can tell, this term is a creation of Wikipedia itself. StayinAnon 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simple case of WP:OR here. Arkyan  ^(talk) 23:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article was recently moved from Ganon's Castle. I recommend moving back to that title and redirect to Hyrule (with or without a merge). --- RockMFR 06:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be ok with that. While the notability may be questionable, at least it wouldn't be original research.StayinAnon 20:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've gone ahead and moved it back. --- RockMFR 21:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to Ganon's Castle, which is a legitimate and prominent in-story reference. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hyrule. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hyrule is already way too large, and splitting out common "themes" or places could make sense. I'm not sure this is really OR, as I'm not sure what else the author could've done for this material. - grubber 17:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ganon's Castle. The area itself is probably not really something to carry its own weight. --Dennisthe2 23:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually the same artilce that was renamed to Ganon's Area and moved back to the correct name Ganon's Castle. So there is no need to merge since they were never seperate articles. --67.71.77.40 04:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - quite simply, this is written from a completely in-universe style, so fails WP:FICT, fails WP:ATT, and shows no indication of possibly passing WP:N. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:19, 6 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, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 05:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title is currently Ganon's Castle, so this should be taken into consideration when determining the fate of this article. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 05:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been moved back to Ganon's Castle, which is a real location in almost every Zelda game. TJ Spyke 08:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It's just a collection of original research and fancruft, neither of which have a place on Wikipedia. -Panser Born- (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a major location in almost every Zelda game, how is that cruft? It could be better sourced, but it is notable and is NOT fancruft. This AFD should be closed since the article isn't the same as when it started. TJ Spyke 23:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why has this been re-listed twice? The stated nomination for deletion was that "Ganon's Area" is not an established in-universe term referenced at all. Since then, the article has been moved back to its correct title, Ganon's Castle, which is indeed an established in-universe term. The nomination should be closed because the original grounds are no longer valid. If someone wants to open a new AFD on a different ground, they should do so separately. Re-listing the nomination twice seems wholly unjustified and skewed towards deletion. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 15:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Jeff Silvers 04:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed as well, and I nominated it. StayinAnon 07:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BAO Team (2nd nomination)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Article about a Filipino hacking group. While the first nomination ended in a withdrawn nomination, I have doubts this group actually meets the notability requirements WP:ORG. Of the articles, only two are from reliable sources, Time-Asia, and those happen to focus on a person that just so happens to be a member of this group, rather than about the group itself. Thus, the article still lacks reliable sources, failing WP:ATT. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete just two words: vandalism and pointless DCUnitedFan2011 16:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hacking again? This is already nominated by one of the administrators as a Start-class article, what's the difference of this article with Razor 1911, Fairlight(group) and Kalisto, these group are all unverifiable. neochaosX please check the other links that are related with this group. Yunaffx 00:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are not aware of fan translation or warez groups, groups like these are legible for wikipedia. This is already the 3rd nomination, the 2nd one realized that everything was appropriate. Wikipedia must form localize groups in every country to verify such claims. DCunitedfan, please search for other hacking and warez groups here in Wiki, so you can see other 'pointless' stuffs. For NeochaosX, please read all the links related with this article. Can you please point out the sections that you think inappropriate. btw this article is nominated for start-class by an administrator that written/edits about 100,000 articles, he's better than us, regulars.

read the details carefully http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BAO_Team

like this one...

zephyr2k admits that she is "tey" and she's a chatter before with the hackers and carders in IRC. JL99 08:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guys, read my nomination again. I'm saying this group doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines because there's no non-trivial (read: more than just a single mention in an aritcle about someone) coverage of the group in reliable sources. If you can show to me that this group has been the subject of that kind of coverage, I'll rethink the nomination. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is notable for you? Please check the external links again. Your notability standards may be too high than wikipedia. *Leader of the group, kamuixtv. Posted a comment regarding Edge-9. http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=177477. JL99 08:20, 6 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, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration. The notability is limited for reverse-engineering groups and cannot be compared with major companies.

http://rpgd.emulationworld.com/ is a popular website dedicated for console game translation news. The romhacking method was stored here http://rpgd.emulationworld.com/rhdoc/general/x68k.html. There

is also a screenshot of EMIT, if you are not convinced enough download the rom here http://www.geocities.com/drajero/baoimage.htm Stormworld http://us.geocities.com/storm_reaver.geo/Dec1997.htm is also a translation news site in 1997.

DNML, the official japanese site can be found here http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA015183/, developments and other projects during those times can be found here http://www.geocities.com/yunaffx2001/dnmln.htm/ in English.

Programs/OS used and still exist like Ezjap, pic2exe and batugan that can be found/download here

http://www.geocities.com/drajero/baoimage.htm

http://www.geocities.com/hentaihelper/ is a popular hentai game site in the 1990's. He archieved the translation of game, VG on his webpage.

http://www.infinimana.com/rs3/docs/Credits.htm He credit Evilhero for Romancing Saga 3 see number 11. infinimana is the official site of Romancing Saga 3 Translation.

Minor details

Vincent Ternida is an employee of ABS-CBN Foreign Programs Acquisition Department from 2003 to 2006, he lead the translation of various anime shows to Tagalog. Anime is a foreign show, so the job belongs to them. The only way confirm this is by asking his friends on Friendster and his blog sometime in 2004. http://nacchisento.livejournal.com/2004/12/13/

Ernie Baron's Knowledge Power was a defunct ABS-CBN educational show, the episode regarding "carding" is available hopefully at their vidoe archieves, at this moment I'm looking for a Filipino Wikipedian that may provide an information regarding this matter.

EDIT: Edge-9 DVD copy protection is not commercially available yet. But when kamuixtv posted screenshots, the DVD community was threatened and criticized his work. He is open for demonstration at the expense of those who are interested. Afaik, Future products is also accepted here in wiki (ex. Protein-coated_disc ). Asian-Media is just the another name of BAO Team. Yunaffx 22:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geez for the record, 3rd time AfD. Wait, Ezjap belongs to Software Development, still not notable enough? Dark AleX, psp hacker...another reverse-engineering article. Kamuixtv 14:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It doesn't matter what individual members have done; this is about the notability of the group here; what individual members have done do not make the group notable by association. Additionally, do you have any reliable sources to prove all of this? Personal and community websites and blogs are not reliable sources; is there any coverage of this group and its activities in major Phillipine or Asian media outlets? I'm still not seeing these sources, which means this article still fails WP:ATT. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Those anime translations for ABS-CBN or Hero TV (TV station and cable TV), development of edge-9, game translation and ezjap are all GROUP work with their respective project leader. Cdfreaks is no longer a community website, it's run by Rank One. http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/DVD-Edge9-Copy-Protection.html, http://www.megalab.it/news.php?id=1105 (Italian) Yunaffx 22:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources to prove that it's their work, then? Again, all those websites you posted are not reliable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Then delete every reverse-engineering related articles here in wiki, because most of them rely on community websites like http://www.nforce.nl EDIT: Please scrutenize the ff. articles RPGe_(translation_group), DeJap_Translations, Fan_translation, ROM_hacking because most of them heavily-rely on community news-based portals. Yunaffx 01:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuna, All I can say is they are the same with this article but this is not limited to romhacking or fan translation. For neochaosX: Vincent Ternida's scope of work is not only for anime. When you watch a certain Korean or Mexican drama in ABS-CBN, you can see his name in the ending credits. Can you use that as a proof of notability? JL99 02:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I note that the only two real references are based upon interviews with a member whom the group disowns in the article. I have removed the list of real names & the photos of the group under BLP, and some obviously copyvio pictures. I would also not be comfortable with the existing articles under real names mentioned here or in the previous AfD without evidence that the subjects wanted to be so identified. DGG 14:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- DGG, you deleted the screenshot of EMIT in Tagalog? Yunaffx 21:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply not enough independent sources for me. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strond delete, and if anyone could help it, can this please be made into a speedy delete? Notability not established even in mainstream or popular Philippine culture. Just because someone affiliated with this group is an employee of ABS-CBN does not add to the notability of the group (in other words, it's not enough). In addition, a great majority of the "references" cited are actually self-published material and cannot be verified outside of these "references". Wikipedia is not, among other things, a fan site, a hobby site or an extension of your warez group's website. This is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. --- Tito Pao 08:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Tito Pao. Did you read all that I posted? This article can be compared to the following articles: RPGe_(translation_group) DeJap_Translations Fan_translation ROM_hacking Dark AleX

I disagree with the term "self-published". From what I've discussed their "reliable" sources (including this article) are from their own community-based portals. Vincent Ternida and the new members, Yaoi Dudes is only a reference and can establish it's own notability when it's needed. It seems reverse-engineering articles are not welcome for you. You can freely put an AfD template on the mentioned articles. This I like to see. This article is not a warez group. try the ff. Razor 1911, Fairlight_(group) and Kalisto. Tito Pao, can you please read from the top? It seems that I re-written all the stuff that I posted. Philippine popular culture is ignorant, "denial" or skeptic when it comes to "local" hacking, that is why it is here to inform users. edit: We should ask the opinion of Jacoplane Yunaffx 13:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

titopao, please don't take this as a personal attack, you are no expert nor express interest on video games and anime based from your userpage. BAO team is also a video game article and nominated for start-class. There are no 'experts' here not unlike in citizendium. I have seen how you "butchered" local voice actors. It looks like you are inconsiderate and too vigilant plus your knowledge about the topic is maybe less than zero. If you ask some people from the Philippine anime community they might say positive things about the dubbers. See Laura_Bailey_(voice_actress) JL99 15:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yunafffx and JL99, community-based portals are considered as self-published materials just like blogs and forums ("portal" is just another word for forum, btw), so unless the WP community has changed its position, I will stand by my opinion that it's not suitable a reference on any article. I've removed blogs and forums on many artists' articles and has successfully nominated articles about, among others, a cosplayer's biography (Alodia Almira Gosengfiao), a fan site (Erik Santos Friends Online), a community choir and a couple of Cebu-based bands for this reason. Please see also my comments at the Tambayan regional portal for more on this information. And if you're having a problem with me being "inconsiderate" and "too vigilant" "butchering" other voice actors' articles, wait until you've seen other editors who are much, much more "vigilant" and "inconsiderate" than I (they are, in fact, editors who I respect highly). Anyway, this AfD is not about me and my editing abilities on Wikipedia, but on estalishing the notability of the article (please read the guidelines for more information). In the courtroom, the case is not about the witnesses and the lawyer's reputation, but the facts and evidence that counts; if the evidence is weak, the case will fall, so you'll need strong evidence to build up your case. This is how I see this and other AfDs---you'll need to justify why we should keep an article given WP's guidelines. Just because you are in the know of the group and/or are in one way or another involved with it does not give enough impetus in giving this article a "Keep"; articles on Wikipedia are made much more of other stuff, and there are guidelines for that. In the end, if the BAO team's article can't stand the criteria that were set by the WP community for groups, corporations and organizations, then this one must go. --- Tito Pao 08:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But do you agree that this article has the same level with the articles that I presented above? The way they cite their sources are very much the same. btw correction, community-NEWS portal is very much different from blogs. community-news portals like: Cdfreaks http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/DVD-Edge9-Copy-Protection.html http://www.megalab.it/news.php?id=1105 http://www.nforce.nl - warez news http://us.geocities.com/storm_reaver.geo/Dec1997.htm - fan translation news http://rpgd.emulationworld.com/ (inactive but they have archieves) and if you read other fan trasnlation articles they always refer to EMUNews. The blog of Vincent Ternida (project leader of all anime translation of the group, Yaoi Dudes (part of BAO) for ABS-CBN/Hero) proves only that he WAS an employee of ABS-CBN. And it is only use as a reference. Yunaffx 09:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for your comment in WP:Tambayan but it is parallel to the article. Did you know the Philippines belongs to the top credit card frauders in the world? In 1999 to early 2000's, major online stores like Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Yahoo Acutions, Ebay and a lot more blacklisted the Philippines. If you have a credit card try to online shop now :) That is why the Time-Asia article is cited along the names Alvin Veroy (already deleted) Aka eyestrain, Mark Cacho aka Maku-kurei who even tried to delete his name on this article using his very own WP nick kurenai jiku or in short kurei from the anime flame of recca (I think he's trying to be a comedian by doing that stupid act.), badsektor and of course, Evilhero. See. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BAO_Team Yunaffx 09:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although a portal is not a blog, it may still be considered as self-published material because anyone can sign up for an account and post content (assuming that the portal's admins provided enough privileges to its users) which, at its very basic, can be verified only by the poster unless proven otherwise. I can sign up on the CDFreaks.com site and post my own article and use this as "reference" on WP---and this is exactly the kind of situation that is frowned upon on WP. (I won't go over with the rest of the sites you mentioned for the same reason.)

The community has held for quite some time that "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable", and since the BAO Team appears to be something that a group of classmates made up (but apparently carried on with after school), this puts the burden on you and other interested editors in establishing that this article is about something that many (if not all) readers from the Philippines and elsewhere would want to look up in an encyclopedia, something that a serious journalist would write about for a full-featured article (and not just a mere mention---don't get me started with the Time magazine interview again because they do make mention of other people and place names, not all of them notable...do you think if someone wrote a Letter to the Editor and it get published, the writer becomes instantly "notable"?). This article needs more reliable sources (see this page for examples).

I tried looking up for "BAO Team" on various search engines and newspaper archives and have failed to find other independent sources that would verify what's written on the article (most of the hits turn up to be Chinese corporations). This is why, as you've mentioned, the Alvin Veroy article was deleted. Convince me why this one shouldn't be.

And, no, I don't have a credit card because I hate borrowing from other people or buying from credit. I don't trust hackers because I think like one, although it's not like what people would normally think (I didn't say I am one). --- Tito Pao 13:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cdfreaks doesn't work that way, you can cite something and they will be the one (cdfrekas editors) to write the news. Megalabs is also a news site. You didn't answer my question regarding the similarity with other fan translation articles. I found out that some console emulator articles refers similarity with this article Zsnes, PSX_emulator, French-Bread (DNML-like), most of them rely on emulation/fan translation or doujin-soft communities. Yunaffx 23:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"you can cite something and they will be the one (cdfrekas editors) to write the news." That exactly is why I consider it as self-published. How transparent is this website's editorial and content moderation policies? This site is referenced only on other blogs, portals, forums and blog/RSS aggregator sites, but no significant mention of this website appears on other, more established organizations, academic institutions or news agencies. And this discussion is about the BAO team, not the other sites. Besides, the Zsnes and PSX_emulator articles are about open source projects, not about a group of classmates who decided to form their own hacking team. --- Tito Pao 04:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, orgs such as these are nonnotable by default unless they wreck havoc ILOVEYOU style. --Howard the Duck 16:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tito pao, I'm convinced that Razor 1911 and Fairlight_(group)'s history was a WP:MADEUP. Who the heck is Doctorno and Sector9 anyway. btw the your definition of "notable" is very massive, what if it's only limited in Asia or the Philipppines. Open-source? DNML is also an open-source, you can edit the games that created by others. CDfreaks only covers Edge-9. At first they maybe a group of classmates but later formed as a internet group that is why there's a hacking, translation and DNML sub-groups. Howard the Duck, enough of the flaws read the FACTS. I thought AfD last only for 5 days? Yunaffx 22:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is this is unnotable, even in the Philippines (I reside in the Philippines my whole life, FYI). If this makes it to the mainstream newspapers then this'll have half a chance. As for AFD, since there is a lengthly discussion about the matter, it also means there'll be a lenghtly time before this is settled, not to mention the backlog of admins around here... --Howard the Duck 00:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howard makes a good point in the BAO Team needing a reference on a newspaper to bolster the notability claim, so I won't add anything to that. With regard to other teams, this AfD discussion is about the BAO Team, so I prefer to limit my discussion on this article alone. If you feel that Razor 1911 and Fairlight_(group) should also have been nominated for an AfD, then do so. Or better yet, I will nominate them myself once this AfD discussion has been decided upon by an admin. With regard to the 5-day period, this Afd was relisted (in case you've missed the fine print, it says "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached") because the admin who worked on the previous nomination thought that there was not enough votes and comments to merit a consensus. This is not the only time that it happened on Wikipedia (to the best of my knowledge, it's the 4th time I've seen this in an AfD that I participated in), and it will likely happen again in the future if no consensus can be reached. --- Tito Pao 12:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article reads like an Uncyclopedia article, complete with gratuitous Photoshopped clip art and penis jokes. Uncyclopedia is thataway. → If there's information on a Filipino cracking group hiding in there somewhere, it's news to me. --Quuxplusone 08:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Yannismarou 08:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wapiennik[edit]

Non-notable surname. Would be an unnecessary disambig page if converted, as we don't have an article on anyone with that name. Contested prod. MER-C 05:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki as is (already done), and if it's not cleaned up, it should be Deleted. As it is, it is not encyclopaedic. Madman bum and angel 19:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it is already transwikied. There's very little material to clean up, and doing so wouldn't suddenly make the article WP-worthy. MSJapan 19:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I believe that fact that is unique is in itself a reason to include it, and it has many hits on Google. I think it would be almost discriminatory against Poles to remove it, as if their surnames are somehow "lesser" than the others listed on this site. Why have a surname stub? A surname category? Not only is it a surname, it is describes a type of structure. At the very least put it on a disambiguation page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.197.163.165 (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

— 76.197.163.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Non-notable surname. Articles for first and last names are only necessary for common/famous instances. This applies to neither. Also note that this was put up for a sppedy 2 weeks ago, and the CSD template was removed and never replaced. Caknuck 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that because only common surnames should be noted on Wikipedia that only common knowledge should be noted in all other arenas on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.42.130.222 (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory. I also agree with nom's point that the article has no value as a disambiguation page (as some other surname pages have) in light of the fact that we have no articles about people with this surname.--Kubigula (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Our guideline WP:MUSIC does not square with the author's contention that Google search results and being underappreciated make a group notable. Sandstein 05:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skatallica[edit]

Not notable under WP:Music, as I explained on talk page. Could also fall under original research. Xukuth 06:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Panser Born- (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Further justification, sources, and proof of notability added to Talk:Skatallica. -candre23 1:35pm EST 7 Apr 2007
Comment The above is a comment from the author (Candre23) of the page. Xukuth 19:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable short lived high school band. Russeasby 19:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Flynn (inventor)[edit]

"Inventor" of something that violates the first law of thermodynamics, no confirmation fomr reliable sources, oner of a number of articles apparently being used to push alternative energy theories (alternative ot mainstream physics, that is). Guy (Help!) 08:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some searching shows that no reliable sources care about him, hence no notability. Just another person who finds basic physics confusing - Peripitus (Talk) 12:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources. -- Whpq 16:07, 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 05:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BioPerformance[edit]

Scam that was shut down. End of story, really. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to have had a news article written about it here by the Herald Tribune. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Panser Born (talk • contribs) 11:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep They are not defunct,for they are still advertising on Google--as a sponsored link. (& a number of similar scams are piggy-backing on that) The injunction was apparently temporary, as it says in the WP article. In addition to the herald-Tribune, the NYTimes also had an article, & I have added both, along with a link to the Better Business Bureau, (& there's probably more--I checked only the first few pages of ghits.) It's a notable scam, with 40,700 ghits for a search of (+Bioperformance +fuel) DGG 15:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by DGG. -- Whpq 16:08, 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 no consensus. WjBscribe 15:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce De Palma[edit]

"Inventor" of a free energy machine. Lack of critical (in the sense of independent review) sources. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing really turning up in Google site:.edu searchs, nor in Google Books, Google Scholar, or Google News Archives. Bupkis attention, in other words. --Calton | Talk 15:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, Since the 'book' and it's 'publisher' referenced apparently do not exist. Also, we should try to preserve the 'elite and secretive nature of the game' as mentioned in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killing sparrows Sorry, added to wrong article!--killing sparrows 22:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)(talk • contribs) 22:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

- Keep. Notable in subject area of perp motion. J. D. Redding 05:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Internationally well known in the perp motion scene and hence quite notable as crackpots go. The article is passably written, but some statements (e.g. the MIT-Edgerton connection) need sourcing. Stammer 06:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable enough. Gateman1997 04:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page needs sourcing but otherwise he is notable (notorious) within his field and so fulfills the relative criteria for inclusion (notable loons are still notable). Note: User requesting peer review sources for his work should be put in a small box and mailed to Afwhatsitstan until they stop asking. perfectblue 14:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's poker[edit]

Textbook WP:NOT. Something some college students made up one night. Zero notability, or actual existence for that matter. 2005 09:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The book cited as a reference for most of the article returns one result on Google - this Wikipedia article. -Panser Born- (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Since the 'book' and it's 'publisher' referenced apparently do not exist. Also, we should try to preserve the 'elite and secretive nature of the game' as mentioned in the article.--killing sparrows 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when it becomes a verifiable poker variant, it can be recreated. -- Whpq 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bourgeoisie elitism.--WaltCip 13:20, 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 12:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outwar[edit]

Totally, completely original research. Subject is most likely non-notable, as the article currently gives no evidence that its subject meets the Web content criteria. --Slowking Man 09:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is notable due to the fact that many groups do not like seeing spam from Outwar (Look at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Outwar+spam&btnG=Google+Search ). Instead of deleting the article, we could start from scratch. Outwar has an Alexa rank of 31,286 - http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=outwar.com&url=http://fabar.outwar.com/outwar_tos.html - WhisperToMe 15:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More sophisticated schemes for misdirecting internet traffic have been developed first, but based upon the immense amount of material in blogs and the numerous blogs devoted to the game itself, its notable.This is one of the cases where such sources are acceptable. DGG 09:30, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Control (poker)[edit]

Vanity nonsense game somebody thought up one day, which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Description doesn't even make sense. 2005 09:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources listed. A brief online search yielded, apart from this article and mirrors, information on how to have control over a game of poker. Seems to be a game someone made up and decided to share with the world. Wikipedia is not the place to do this.Dr bab 11:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - non-notable (unknown?) poker variant. -- Whpq 16:10, 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 keep. Yannismarou 11:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darica[edit]

This information present is not useful nor reliable. Google gets 0 hits on the topic exactly. Artaxiad 10:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Artaxiad 10:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - cough cough - it might be a stub, but it is an actual town: [15], [16] :) Baristarim 10:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but is it notable? Artaxiad 10:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, depends really - it is small, but it is an actual town. I am not from there, what am I supposed to say? :)) Baristarim 10:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Support" so tell me why you said so. If its reliable, notable, encyclopedic it stays so far it meets no criteria. Artaxiad 10:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions. -- Baristarim 10:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, Who care with Google search or else in this case. This is a real Town, with streets, houses, port, population etc. Can you delete also this town.? Dont play with wiki rules, be positive, dont take other Users time.Must.^T ^C 11:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This Afd was a mistake please close this one. Artaxiad 11:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, as long as we are having a good time it is ok :) Baristarim 11:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wait an explanation; which kind of mistake? Also for Kalecik.Must.^T ^C 11:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I went to google I saw 1-10 it was per page, it actually had 10k+ pages. Artaxiad 11:18, 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 keep.Yannismarou 11:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kalecik[edit]

Google results abound, not notable, no references [17]. Artaxiad 10:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Artaxiad 10:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How about we keep this, add more information and then we can get it cleaned up and referenced? I'd be happy to assist in helping, this. It definitely meets WP:NN.Telly addict 10:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, Who care with Google search or else in this case. This is a real Town, District, with areas, villages,streets, houses, port, population etc. Can you delete also this town.? Dont play with wiki rules, be positive, dont take other Users time. Must.^T ^C 11:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - cough cough again - it is an actual town which even has its own administrative website [18]. Well, I suppose that its "notability" depends on a lot of things :) Frankly, I am guessing that I will never go there in my lifetime, but someone who grew up there might not find it a good idea that the article about their birthplace was deleted :)) Baristarim 11:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions. -- Baristarim 11:22, 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. Sandstein 05:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Master Magnet[edit]

Terminology only used on one page of one (fringe) web site. Delete as nn neologism. --Pjacobi 11:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this blatant spam for a kook website. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stub; or keep info and redirect to appropriate article .. J. D. Redding 21:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what? There are no sources for this neologism outside of the kook website that promotes it. Excluding unreliable sources, that makes precisely zero sources cited. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete demonstrates no notability, only one source and it doesn't seem to be remotely reliable. --Minderbinder 13:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by administrator. Terence 16:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of vehicles in GTA 3[edit]

Per precedence. Has little potential to ever contain encyclopedic material. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 11:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC) ╫[reply]

Delete I dont see what use this is - if anything it could be added as a section on the Grand Theft Auto III article but needs some expansion cos that is a really poor list with just 2 cars!! --PrincessBrat 13:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiril Chukanov[edit]

Self-sourced article on someone whose claims have not been published in any reputable journal. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - external links are to self-published sources, and the article admits he hasn't published his research in peer-reviewed journals. No evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:PROF. Delete unless properly sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nobody besides himself has noticed his work, he is not notable. All refs. from his own site. DGG 16:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 23:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "has not published"? "undisclosed location"? This article goes beyond the usual failure to assert notability and instead asserts non-notability. —David Eppstein 23:13, 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 without prejudice to the creation of an actual article under this title. That's pretty much the same thing as the "keep and rewrite" also being proposed here, since there's really not much worth keeping here. "Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links or Internet directories". Sandstein 05:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European mythology[edit]

In my opinion, this article is a collection of links redundant to Category:European Mythology FisherQueen (Talk) 13:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but totally rewrite - The nominator is quite right that this article is a redundant collection of links with little or no information; however, the title is certainly a suitable topic for an article. This article needs to be stubified and then completely rewritten, with sources, to provide an overview of the European mythological tradition. But "this article is bad" isn't per se a reason to delete an article. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is so extraordinarily bad in conception that there is no point in keeping it. The category deals with the different traditions. A serious article comparing them would have to start from scratch. DGG 16:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sjors said in the talk page that they were working on it in November, but haven't touched it since then. They also mentioned that it was being used by another project or something like that. If the user was active, I'd recommend userspace, so they could continue working on it if they wished. As is, I'm not sure Category:European mythology doesn't do everything this article does, but eventually an article would be good here. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. The article is a good one in theory, it's just that someone's hijacked it with a bunch of links. --Hemlock Martinis 23:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can agree that this is a valid topic for an article, but there is absolutely nothing in the current article that could be kept to seed such an article. -- Whpq 17:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ad-hoc collection (at least for Bohemia) of Wiki and external links w/o any context. For a valid article the mythology should not be structured by modern national states, that's absurd. Pavel Vozenilek 00:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Deductible Theatre Company[edit]

A non-notable small theatre company in London. It is not notable, and just tells about the theatre. Fails WP:CORP. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 12:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - external links are to their site and MySpace, so no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to meet WP:CORP. Delete unless multiple reliable sources are added to the article by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. I've tried to find some independant online sources but to no avail, really. -- Seed 2.0 23:56, 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. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Creating a redirect would be an editorial matter. Sandstein 05:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian-American War[edit]

I am not sure we need an article on a war that has not happened, and may well not happen. This article basically says 'some people think that the US will have a war agaisnt Iran'. I admit there should be an article on the opposition to war against Iran; that actually exists. This doesn't, and hopefully never will. J Milburn 13:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this article for deletion is ridiculous. We already have articles on the military planning of the Iran war and opposition to the Iran War. How can you have Opposition to war against Iran and Plans for military attacks against Iran and not have an article on the Iran War? I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sino-American War before catsing you vote. I don't see how anyone can say that this article fails to meet the standards that Sino-American War has. --Lee1863 13:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Keep Deleting this article makes 3 other articles obsolete. In addition there ha sbeen strong talk in the media and scholars for nearly 3 years now. --Lee1863 13:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Two points. First of all, stop claiming things, and start citing things. Secondly, this article has only just sprung up- the other articles weren't obsolete before. To be fair, this article is obsolete to the others- it contains no new information, or anything that could not be (and isn't already) elsewhere. Also, they managed to cite the other article. J Milburn 13:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is pure crystal ball stuff and violates WP:CRYSTAL and I think breaches all three examples. Whilst this could happen, so could any other war with countries that dont get on well, but its pure speculation. --PrincessBrat 14:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First off just because an article doesn't have sources yet doesn't mean you delete it. Second of all there has been large talk in the media about the Iran War. Explain to me how this article fails to meet the same standards met here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sino-American War --Lee1863 14:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this point, if its not sourced isnt that deemed original research which isnt allowed on here? --PrincessBrat 14:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is content that cannot be sourced to a reliable source. It does not apply to content that is simply unsourced. A unsourced statement that "Tony Blair is 53 years old" can be checked and confirmed or refuted. -- Black Falcon 18:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Explain to me how this article fails to meet the same standars met here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sino-American War --Lee1863 14:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again I dont think that was the right decision to keep the above article as thats the same thing as we are arguing here. Its speculation - but Ive looked at the policy quoted in the arguement to keep and in my view they both contradict each other. In a proper paper encyclopedia you would not find these sort of articles, only ones that have happened. These sort of articles are great reads, but should be on conspiracy/military sites. Whilst you could say that articles keep decision sets a precedent, Im standing by my vote of delete --PrincessBrat 14:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:That article was kept because there was no consensus to delete, not because there was a consensus to keep. In any case, please see WP:WAX. J Milburn 14:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But this is a special circumstance considering that there has been vastly greater media attention placed on the Iran War than any war with China. Thus even WP:WAX acknowledges that there are exceptions. That rule was only created to prevent unjust comparisons, I don't think anyone can claim that the debate is fundamentally diferent here. It doesnt say that other afd debates can't be used as a defense it simply states "but even here caution should be used." "look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited" The policies are IDENTICAL here. It would be a complete mockery to have an article on Sino-American War and none on the much more debated and notable Iran War. There is also the World War III World War IV article. --Lee1863 14:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have arguments agaisnt what you are saying- if you really care, message me. However, it is irrelevent. Can we forget about the other articles, and discuss this one only. Pretend this is the only article on Wikipedia, but we still have all our policies, and defend it. That will create a better debate. J Milburn 14:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Textbook example of Crystal Ball. I don't care if it renders other articles obsolete -- if that's the case then consideration should be given as to whether the articles in question likewise should be here. If there's an article on speculative future American conflicts, then this can be mentioned there. The WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument may apply to articles like the Sino-American conflict article mentioned ... or it may be independently notable for other reasons. For example there is plenty of good rationale for keeping an artcle on World War III, for example, because of the wealth of scholarly work and popular culture references regarding it. Very little if any exists for this particular speculated conflict. And on a minor note, the very article title is problematic as there is no guarantee such a war, should it happen, will be given this name. It's more likely to be called the Third Gulf War. 23skidoo 14:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly, World War III is a cultural meme - people use the term and the idea to refer to all sorts of things other than an actual war. No one has said "I came home late without calling and it was like Iranian-American War." Second, there are already articles about the aspects of this war that have actually happened - the planning and the protest. We don't need another article that's only one paragraph and gives no new information. The existence of any other article does not relate to the existence of this one - Sino-American War should perhaps be deleted as well. Natalie 14:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Any truly notable snippets of information from this article could possibly go into Foreign relations of Iran. RJASE1 ^Talk 15:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Far too theoretical to merit a place on wikipedia. As 23skidoo says, it's too bad if other articles are rendered obsolete. John Smith's 16:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep We kept Sino-American war on the basis that the possibility had been discussed, and was therefore a notable topic. (I !voted otherwise, as I considered the various possibilities too amorphous.) The subject of this article is unfortunately a much more likely occurrence, it is all too clear what forms it is likely to take, and there have been numerous speculations about it. There are four good sources listed in major publications. More can easily be found. I am a little puzzled, as to me it seems an obvious keep. DGG 16:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coment First of all, previous decisions do not require a similar decision to be made on a similar entry. More importantly you are misrepresenting what happened on that nomination. From what I see it was not that the consensus was to keep, it was that there was no consensus (i.e. not a large enough majority) to delete. It is more accurate to say those that wanted to keep the page were lucky that more editors who would have voted for deletion didn't know a vote was taking place. John Smith's 17:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 16:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Terence 16:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The article covers a topic that has received coverage from multiple, reliable, non-trivial sources. That is to say, that it is attributable and notable. WP:NOT#CRYSTAL applies only to unverifiable speculation. This is clearly both verifiable and verified. It also states that "it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about ... whether some development will occur". -- Black Falcon 16:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A further note: the existence of the other two articles in no way affects my recommendation. A war between Iran and the U.S. has been the subject of sufficient coverage to merit its own article. The only issue I have is that the current article does not do the topic justice; but, that's an editing issue unrelated to AFD. -- Black Falcon 16:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sources I've added more refs., now 10 English language sources, ranging from Al-Jazeera to USA Today, from 2005 through 2007. There are many more, but I've done enough typing. It would be good to have some Iranian ones. And, as Black Falcon says, it would be nice to have a much better article. Sources are a start.

Strong Delete, I have never seen anything that didn't happen in an encyclopedia before. Even if it is refrenced well tha doesn't mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia. It should be deleted under the third section of WP:CRYSTAL. Cheif Captain 17:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article was 2008 Iranian-American War, you would be correct. But it's not about a particular war; rather, it's about the concept of an Iranian-American War in general. -- Black Falcon 17:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This is a classic example of a situation where just because we have sources on something doesn't mean there should be an article about it. "A war between Iran and the US might happen" is not an encylopedic topic. One could also write articles on "Potential assassination of George Bush", or of whoever the current US president is at any moment, there are always people speculating on what would happen if a president dies, that wouldn't belong here either. --Xyzzyplugh 17:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too speculative, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Krimpet (talk/review) 17:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Repurpose to some title reflecting the potential for conflict between Iran and the United States. FrozenPurpleCube 17:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - I think the references provided are enough to demonstrate notability and to keep it. The article does however need expanding and a few more references from multiple sources.LordHarris 18:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article isn't written from the sources and is a crystal ball. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is a lot more literature on a Chinese-American war than on an Iranian-American war, and the article doesn't seem to have much heft as it stands. Possible this could change, but people have been writing about China-America for decades but seriously on Iran-America for only a few years.

I'll add that my participation here was solicited by Lee. As a comment, while it's perfectly reasonable to inform interested parties of an AfD, it's usually good form to inform everyone who was in a previous AfD if you do so; you seem to have informed only people who voted Keep on Sino-American War, which would skew results in this AfD and generally look bad. SnowFire 18:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for me I was not asked to come here: I saw the discussion, said that I thought it obviously notable, but also saw that it needed sources, and I went and added them. And then stopped--I did not ask anyone else.' (Nor do I judge by such matters--I judge by the arguments, whoever it may be who makes them. I see that the others here, even if asked, are also expressing themselves independently DGG 19:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is, and has never been, an Iranian-American war. When there is, we can create an article. Until then, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Batmanand | Talk 22:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense! 300 (film) was an Iranian-American media war! :P CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I suppose in the nature of things WP deletion policies cannot be absolute, this to me is textbook crystal-balling, no matter how you dress it up. Whatever has occurred between the United States and Iran thus far, it is not a "war" in any generally accepted sense and it would do violence to language to characterize it as a "war." Allon Fambrizzi 23:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
Strong delete. Any article that starts Many people have been considering the possibility of ..., as this article does, is about as clear an example of violating WP:NOT (a crystal ball) as is possible. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Plans for military attacks against Iran. Obvious WP:CRYSTAL. Stammer 07:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this is pure crystal-balling. No particular reason to list "predicted wars" unless they become reality. Better still, this article contains no reliable information as of yet on who is considering this war possible. User:Dimadick
Redirect as a feasible search term to plans for military attacks against Iran, which is a much better sourced and non-crystal ball article on what the creator of this article probably was looking for. Even if kept, this article will probably not be anything more than a duplicate. (Especially when both sides will, hopefully, end their tensions using diplomacy, but that's just my opinion.) Resurgent insurgent 14:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still new to wikipedia so I wont vote. But I just want to say that the defenders of this article are right the issues here are IDENTICAL to thoose in the Sino-American War. Because of that I don't believe that this article should be kept, I propose that the Sino-American War Article be deleted. Everyone on this page should take a look at the Sino-American War article its even more of a travesty, and because not enough decent eitors noticed it at the first Afd is no reason why an article that clearly does not belong on wikipedia should be here!--Westolly 14:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)— Westolly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. All edits of this user have been related to canvassing for this AfD. Resurgent insurgent 08:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. All edits of this user have been related to canvassing for this AfD. Resurgent insurgent 08:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)" that really was a below the belt shot by resurgent considering his hypocritical stance to keep sino-american War and delete this page. And I havent canvassed people to come to this afd I simply requested that people who have already shown intrest in this Afd look into the Sino-american War article. I'm all for this article being deleted but I think the Sino-american war article which also clearly does not belong in wikipedia should be addressed. I don't know how any one can argue that a stronger case can be made for a US-China war over and Iran War. And as for my few edits I've acknowledged that which is why I did not vote here not attempt to start the deletion myself. I have only laid out my opinion. I'm all for a civil debate but dirty dishonest tactics just lower the honest disagreements into mudlslinging. --Westolly 13:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with Westolly. As far as I can see, (s)he is acting in good faith. J Milburn 16:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Westolly, let us consider the facts that Resurgent insurgent had when reviewing your contributions history. Your very first edit references two AfD discussions: this and the AFD for "Sino-American War". In a subsequent edit you made reference to Wikipedia:Deletion review. New users are generally unaquainted with AFD and even fewer know about DRV. Now, it is quite possible that you were simply responsible and/or knowledgeable enough to investigate Wikipedia's policies, in which case I both congratulate and thank you. However, Resurgent insurgent's comment is not exactly inaccurate. The fact is that you have made no edits outside this topic. Your other edits don't exactly constitute canvassing for this AFD, but rather the Sino-American War article. I do not dispute J Milburn that you are acting in good faith, but so is Resurgent insurgent. If this is just a misunderstanding, then let's treat it as such. Please note that Resurgent insurgent's did not directly accuse of acting in bad faith (canvassing can be a result of good-faith efforts, which I believe to be the case here) and I don't think you should accuse him of "dirty dishonest tactics". Cheers, Black Falcon 16:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that I had edited other articles. The first line I wrote was that I wasn't going to vote due to the fact I was new to wikipedia. I have made no effort to personally take action against the Sino-American article due to the fact that I acknowledge I'm new. Thats the reason why I've contacted others who have more experiance to help me on this effort. I'm sorry if I offended resurgent, but he made it seems as though I was doing something pretty serious- according to WP rules a bannable offense, when I've been quite open about my aims. All I ask is that Sino-American war be held to the same standards this article is being held to. --Westolly 20:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct and that's why I believe you were and are acting in good faith. The canvassing charge is not entirely accurate; as you've pointed out, you contacted editors who had already participated in this AFD. Although cross-posting the same message in multiple places is generally discouraged, I doubt anyone would try to argue that your actions merit a ban (and I don't believe it was Resurgent's intention to suggest that). As regards the articles, Wikipedia is (for better or worse) not always consistent, and it seems likely that this article will be deleted. If you wish to renominate the Sino-American War article, you may of course do so; however, as it recently survived a deletion debate, it might be prudent to wait a few months. Alternately, you could take the matter to DRV, but DRV is usually reserved for issues of process (i.e., did the closing admin appropriately gauge consensus) rather than article-specific arguments. One final note. As AFD is not technically a vote, admins who close AFD discussions should consider the arguments involved and not just the bolded "keep" or "delete" statements. Thus, your comment will/should receive due consideration (being new to Wikipedia does not prevent you from participating fully in its processes). Cheers, Black Falcon 21:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research; this article takes various claims of military tension between the U.S. and Iran and blows this up into an "Iranian-American War," which has never happened and hopefully never will. By the way, I've moved Sino-American War to Potential military conflict between the United States and China because there is no such thing as the "Sino-American War." Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 15:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at least for now anyways, per WP:CRYSTAL. BlackBear 16:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, how can anyone give this a pass from the usual crystal-ball policy? Gazpacho 23:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL WP:NOR and POV. If there is an article about the history of Iranian-American conflicts, merge any useful information there. Rackabello 23:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rackabello. --FateClub 01:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL Charles (Kznf) 18:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Delete Ridiculous. There is no such war, its just a speculation that can be found in many articles already in wikipedia. Is it Wikipedia policy to write articles on things that don't exist? I don't know, I thought that it wasn't Wikipedia is not a crystal ball people.Tourskin 03:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per WP:CRYSTAL, massively POV. It means that articles such as British-Iranian War will be created.--WaltCip 13:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the plans article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there shouldn't be an article about an unnotable war that didn't occur.--Sefringle 22:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selah records[edit]

Non-noteable label, advertisment Lugnuts 13:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all external links are to sites affiliated with the company, so no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:CORP. Delete unless independent sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Baristarim 05:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pre above Rackabello 05:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cabej[edit]

This stub for an Albanian family name has a number of problems. First, the content seems to be original research and no sources are provided to indicate otherwise. It is also clearly meant to be, if not glorifying, then at least very sympathetic to the Çabej family. This could be a reasonable disambiguation page except that there are currently no individual Cabej or Çabej with Wikipedia articles (although it's my understanding that some could have in the future). Finally, the creator of the page recently blanked it for unclear reasons, although probably related to the debate Talk:Cabej on the talk page. Note that I recently redirected the duplicate page Çabej to Eqerem Çabej University. It would be also reasonable to do the same thing in this case. Pascal.Tesson 15:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not only unsourced and POV, but it doesn't actually cite any specific people within the family when discussing their achievements. Either completely rewrite and source, or delete. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness though, an earlier version mentioned Eqerem Çabej among the notable Çabej. Pascal.Tesson 16:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Question~~ Delete - Do we know for sure the creator of the page (Canaa kahn) is one of the two IPs (199.97.98.39 & 67.80.177.72) who has blanked the page? --Keesiewonder ^talk 21:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the history of the talk page indicates. Canaa kahn signed a message written as 67.80.177.72 a few seconds earlier. The other IP has a history of vandalism and is probably unrelated. Pascal.Tesson 21:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thanks. If the creator of the page is now blanking it and the subject as yet appears otherwise non-notable, then ... delete. --Keesiewonder ^talk 21:27, 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. Daniel Bryant 08:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AkuA[edit]

Advertisement for wrestler, dubious claim of notability. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable, I didn't get very many hits after doing a google search--$UIT 17:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom. It appears promotional. No evidence of notability, reference to sports websites or major past/future wrestling events etc.LordHarris 17:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is seriously promotional in tone. I don't think the subject has enough notability to create an encyclopedic article at this time. janejellyroll 20:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as to all above. Article actually reads a bit like "my first chapter book: A guy who wrestles in Hawaii." Cantras 02:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It looks like someone put time into this, but nonetheless seems purely promotional. Not appropriate as Wikipedia article in its current form, and even if it were rewritten, it wouldn't pass WP:BIO Rackabello 05:31, 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 no consensus. WjBscribe 13:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back seat driver[edit]

Well known phenomenon; however, unless some reliable sources can be found, this doesn't meet Wikipedia:Attribution or Wikipedia:Verifiability (whichever of these two policies we're using today). There will of course be brief mentions of this in various magazine articles and books and so on, but I don't believe anything extensive enough has been written to base an article on. Xyzzyplugh 17:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kind of the "Steak and a Blowjob" problem; many of us know it's around, but good luck finding citable sources. Shame because everybody has had a back seat driver before ;) --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Madman bum and angel 19:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this has already been copied to Wiktionary, so no point in doing that again. See wikt:Transwiki:Back seat driver. --Xyzzyplugh 19:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a number of inline references, including --amazingly--one from People's Daily. The term is also used in other senses, and it may at some point be necessary to divide the article. There are now 12 references, several from incontestably Reliable Sources, such as the Economist. DGG 20:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added Category:Slang. It belongs. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Changed category to Category:English idioms. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Very) weak keep. This is a tough one. Before the recent edits, I would have voted delete per Auto without even thinking twince about it and I'm still not too happy with the article as it is. Wikipedia isn't Urbandictionary (and it does feel like this might be just where the article is going, especially with some of the more trivia-ish links) and the article does require quite a bit of clean but as it stands now, I don't see any major policy violations. -- Seed 2.0 00:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even with the added references, I fail to see how the article is any more that a dictionary definition with some identification of where the phrase is used. -- Whpq 17:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My ex-girlfriend had a "back seat driver's manual" in the back seat of her car, I forget who published it. RFerreira 01:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the most notable phrases of its kind, and now has enough sources to allow its existance. Academic Challenger 04:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although this slang term appears to be covered in sources, it still does not belong here: see WP:WINAD. Sandstein 06:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sidabitball[edit]

Not even stub quality, there is no assertion of notability, thus fails WP:MUSIC Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable--$UIT 17:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable, agree with nom. LordHarris 17:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Total Request Live retired videos[edit]

No clear significance; yet another list of music videos — more listcruft. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Baristarim 05:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not merit an encyclopedia article Rackabello 23:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and 95% of the rest of the articles in the lists of songs category. -R. fiend 05:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sohail Rafiq[edit]

I can't decide whether (a) this is true, and (b) whether he's noteworthy anyway. I thought I'd let you decide.... Chris 17:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete It seems to me untrue, but in anycase its definately unencyclopedic and has no reference or external link of any kind to support the articles notability or the origin of the information. LordHarris 17:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think this artical is worthy because he is considered a legend in sheffield and will always be remembered i dont think you should delete this as it can be edited and made better.
i think you should keep this as it is relevent and he is worthy and is encyclopedic
i think that it shouldnt be deleted becaause there is evidence of his lifeon napoleon the rappers page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sohailrafiq1 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The author of the above comments (who is the subject and author of the article) also removed one vote for deletion. Chris 05:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC) i am not the subject of the article i am just his fan[reply]

Speedy Delete - absolutely no references provided, borderline attack page, and no real assertion of notability. -- Whpq 17:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - no references & a statue in the family back yard does not denote notability Exit2DOS2000^{•T•C••} 00:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Random Patrol[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel Bryant 01:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double Dee and Steinski[edit]

This article should be deleted because it fails to establish notability (WP:N), it fails to list or give references or sources (Wikipedia:Attribution) and it appears to be mainly a copied version of text from elsewhere. A cleanup article has been placed since August 2006 but the article has been little improved. The article states they have been influential to other bands, but gives no reference to such a statement. I also feel it fails notability of WP:MUSIC. LordHarris 17:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It looks like a vanity or promtional article to me. No notability established and no refrences cited. Rackabello 18:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Double Dee and Steinski (actually Steinski, primarily) are featured in Doug Pray documentary Scratch about the first generation of hip-hop DJ's, was written about by Robert Christgau (back in 1986 here), and Hua Hsu (a much smaller name critic who still has been published by places like Slate, here), credited as an inspiration to turntablists like DJ Shadow, and et cetera. The Christgau piece is a source in the article already, which already established notability and a level of attribution already. As for the article, careful pruning will bring it back inline with WP:ATT.hateless 21:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article needs a cleanup though.--Sparklism 21:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources noted by hateless appear to be enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC.--Kubigula (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 from IMDb. Xoloz 21:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan cassidy[edit]

non-notable; promotional Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, only a few minor tv roles, agree with user Harrison - promotional etc.LordHarris 17:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Did you even read the talk from the creator. Famous family. Website and IMDB. I think this is unprofessional, too. I don't see any promotion. Just a bio. User:acresplenty — User:acresplenty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Retain Notable. Non-promotional. Concise bio, mentions recent work but is an actor in a recognized family. Has website. I don't think the first two read much of anything. Keep it. 14:00 7 April 2007 User:bluesbelle — User:bluesbelle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment A small page on IMDB does not equate to notability. Neither does a personal website! A famous family does not make this person as famous... LordHarris 18:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LordHarris. Rackabello 18:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LordHarris. Some minor tv appearances does not equal notability. --Lijnema 19:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDB has a lot of credits for set design. No indication of pivotal parts anywhere. Further per LordHarris. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A couple of editors appear to be single-purpose accounts, so I tagged them as such. Pablothegreat85 22:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was in 5 episodes of a sitcom 20 years ago, after that nothing notable (IF you consider those roles notable, doubtful in my opinion), and now has a website whose bio is copied to this Wikipedia article, thus copyvio. Probably autobiovanispam.--killing sparrows 22:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though he has a website, a titanic achievement matched by few even today. Obviously I have a website, but I am special. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty much per nom, and funny comment by JzG. Ab e g92contribs 23:50, 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.

Julie Beier[edit]

The result was Speedy Delete by Soumyasch

Seems to be a non notable individual, no references and only just passing WP:BIO, instead of {{Prod}}, I thought it would be more appropriate to bring it here to build consensus Telly addict 17:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete agree with nomination - no degree of notability or even an attempt to establish one. LordHarris 17:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Super Duper Speedy Delete I agree with LordHarris completely. Rackabello 18:19, 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. Time enough (seven days) were given to add sources, none of which were forthcoming. Consensus is to delete. Daniel Bryant 01:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Richard Aldrich[edit]

COI issues aside, this article does not meet WP:BIO - there is almost no biographical information whatsoever on the subject. The lack of Google hits on the structure Aldrich supposedly built (this article is the only one) also points to NN. MSJapan 17:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator Rackabello 18:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources (much less reliable ones), the article barely mentions its subject (Most of it discuss a building he apparently build and the efforts of two other people to make it a landmark). If "the Castle" ever does gain landmark status, I could see creating an article on that subject ... but not under this title. Blueboar 19:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've no doubt the Castle existed: see [19]. But I mentioned the attribution problem to the author on 26th March, and nothing has been forthcoming. Tearlach 19:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources and no evidence of notability. EdJohnston 23:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, no reliable sources. -Will Beback · † · 01:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator, WP:BIO, WP:NN. --HubHikari 01:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 02:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing on the topic, and no notability. Might even be a hoax, as no sources are given. --Stephan Schulz 01:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete per all of the above.~~ — Athænara ✉ 02:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to wait a bit. I'd like to see the article become a keeper. — Æ. ✉ 08:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please continue this AfD The talk p. says that sources are being addded; let's give it a chance. DGG 07:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't agree with that. The sources being gotten appear to be about the "Castle", not about Aldrich himself, and the fact that the requests are from "local residents" still strikes me as NN. If a thing is really notable, it should not take over two weeks (the time between posts on the talk page) to find a source on it. MSJapan 17:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Been a week since last delete vote. Still reads like WP:NFT. Mystache 00:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 15:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield Supertram stops[edit]

Contested prod. Sheffield supertram stops are little more than bus shelters with a slightly raised curb to allow level boarding. They were all constructed at about the same time, and so do not have individual histories. They can be (are) adequately covered by the Sheffield Supertram article. Delete-- Jeremy (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The articles' contents do not assert their notability, nor can they as per JeremyA. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 20:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Whilst noting the recent Midland Metro AfD, I fail to understand how individual supertram stops are notable. Supertram stops are not significant structures as Jeremy has explained. It might also be worth nominating Template:Sheffield Supertram stations subject to the outcome of this AfD. Adambro 20:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jhamez84 22:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As someone who was born in Sheffield when it had the old trams and now live in a city with trams, and think trams are great, I utterly fail to see the notability of individual tram stops. However, please list all articles on tram stops that should be deleted. --Bduke 23:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, along with all articles on individual Midland Metro stops, PLEASE! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 12:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Guys, we would also appear to have a Middlewood Tram Stop. Must this have a separate AfD, or can it be added to this one? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 16:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I've proded it. Adambro 16:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Since Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) removed prod on all three of these tram articles [20] [21] [22] I'd suggest you go straight to AfD Adam. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 21:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - Yes, that's probably the better idea. I've changed it from a prod and added it to this AfD on the basis that similar prods have been contested recently and that the article is of a similar nature to those already part of the AfD so the considerations are the same. Adambro 22:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. There are several good reasons for keeping stations in their own articles. First of all, individual stations are independent geographic and historical concepts. They may have substantially different history from each other, or different architecture, and may develop separately in the future. To take Pittsburgh's light rail network, you can have stations which are a newly-built part of the "T" and stations which exist from the old Castle Shannon railroad days. Lumping them into one list seems counter-productive (for one thing, you'll have a hell of a long list). Splitting stations into separate articles also allows one to create a sense of geographic expression, through the use of succession boxes (from this station to that station). Speaking from experience, it is tricky to properly express the idea of a junction in the kind of list being proposed. Stations may also belong to one or more lines, which might not even be operated by the same transit company. In that case, we either duplicate the information on multiple lists (yay, forking!), or we place it all in one station article. Furthermore, any station that still exists is an obvious candidate for the creation of free images. Finally, once we start splitting out some stations, it makes sense to split them all out for consistency. Furthermore, notability is not and never has been criteria for deletion. When you all call for delete, you're really calling for a merge. Mackensen (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Sheffield's trams stops are not stations, they have more similarity to bus stops. There is nothing to merge from these four articles as all the information that they contain is already in the main supertram article. —Jeremy (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I withdraw my objection. Mackensen (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all the work put on the Sheffield Supertram and the spot on point by JeremyA, you may consider not merging since Sheffield Supertram#Tramstops treats adequately the subject. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 07:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Jeremy. Warofdreams talk 19:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reasons are the same as all others who have suggested delete. DDStretch (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep are per Midland Metro debate. Andy Mabbett 09:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a new Tramstops of the Sheffield Supertram article, to cover standard features, and any specific items for particular locations - there are over 40 stops, and individual articles for each would be an unnecessary overhead. Either the main page, or this proposed merged page could perhaps also use Wikipedia:Railway line template to good effect. Regards, Lynbarn 10:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the template could be used to good effect, but I still don't see why a new article would be desirable at this stage, when there is so little of interest to say about the individual stops, and what can be said could easily be placed in the main Sheffield Supertram article. Warofdreams talk 00:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I've now made a stab at drawing it up: Template:Sheffield Supertram. Warofdreams talk 00:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to have a look at Talk:Sheffield Supertram#Route Map Warofdreams. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 15:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. D. Perrin[edit]

No assertion of notability, also note definite COI by a family member/lineal descendant). Some of the WP articles on individuals or organizations mentioned in this piece to attempt to assert notability were either created by the same user (User:J._D._Perrin), like Winnipeg Warriors (minor pro), J. D. (Jack) Perrin, Jr., Sgt. William Perrin, and San Antonio Gold Mine, or have no mention of him despite being long-term articles Western Hockey League (minor pro). This will be a bundled AfD. MSJapan 18:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also listing these pages for NN (and please note COI) - they seem to exist only to support this article's supposed notability, especially the individuals - they were clearly not notable on their own.

Delete on autobigraphical, coi, and notability concerns. -- Diletante 19:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these people have almost as much notability as some of the Mississippi politicians we've been seeing at AfD the last few days. This is not intended as an argument for keeping this article, but as a suggestion that we keep a skeptical eye on local history articles of the obituary type. Now that we know the genre a little better, its time we started looking for the others.DGG 21:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 22:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on notability - no secondary sources cited to establish. Could be re-created in the future if secondary sources exist and are cited. MastCell ^Talk 00:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no way to verify any of this information to establish notability. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on. I originally checked your information on the Winnipeg Warriors and found you had the wrong team ( a junior team by the same name from the 1980's ) linked to the minor pro Western Hockey League. I created the Winnipeg Warriors (minor pro) page and linked it to the correct league as well as to the Winnipeg Arena, where again your article had been incorrect. You have many notable sports and business figures in your encyclopedia. The Perrins certainly qualify on both counts in Canada. I know you require references, of which there are many, but I'm not sure how to present them. I'm not even sure I'm making these comments in the right place! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.6.123 (talk • contribs) 2007-04-09 14:03:41
- Simply cite sources to demonstrate that our WP:BIO criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 13:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have {{speedy}} deleted it, but as it has got this far I will wait for consensus. Clearly non-notable.--Anthony.bradbury 16:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with you, but I wanted to make sure all the articles were covered. Part of the deletion rationale is that they were all created by the same user to refer to each other, and that wouldn't necessarily have been clear from multiple speedys, IMO. MSJapan 17:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi politicians aside, you've got all sorts of people from Manitoba in your encyclopedia who are to varying degrees less notable than the Perrins, who have been the subject of countless news stories in Manitoba over the years, in mining, sports, philanthropy, and hotels.

Comment: Then why could I not find a single Google hit on the main search or on the news search to support any of those claims? The only hits I got were for this article and a Manitoba document with one sentence stating that Perrin owned the gold mine in 1919. More importantly, you (because I'm going to guess you're the article creator editing under an IP) can't just say he's notable, you need to assert it with sources, and not your own personal recollections, either. You also can't hangon tag an AfD. Please read the policies before making contributions next time. MSJapan 20:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various published references have been added. More to come.

Comment: I don't think the article about the Winnipeg Warriors WHL hockey team that is one of the tagged articles in this group should be deleted. I am fairly new to the Wikipedia thing but my interest is in minor hockey. I have done a few stubs on minor league ice hockey teams and their history, and while it is admittedly only interesting to those who care about minor pro hockey, those who do care realize that the old WHL really was a pretty big deal in its time and thus is notable enough to warrant articles on the individual WHL teams. I really have no opinion on the local Winnipeg personalities that are the subject of the other articles tagged in this group, so delete them if you want, but the team itself was notable. I thought I would try to help and added a meaningful outside source, a couple of external links, uploaded the team logo, tried to improve the on the history section based on what I found in the sources, and tried to improve the formatting. I hope it helps enough to save the article.

Also, before this Winnipeg Warriors article was written, the Warriors link in the list of teams on the WHL (minor pro) page linked to the major junior team of the same name that existed much later after the original WHL team was gone. Gtgrant 05:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. as non-notable Rlevse 03:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Loflin (2nd nomination)[edit]

Please see this page's previous entry. The result of the previous debate was to merge the article to SAT. However, the merged section was totally out of place in the SAT article, which mainly focuses on the format and history of the SAT, and thus was promptly deleted. It really was not an appropriate solution in the first place to merge the article to SAT, as there was both minimal consensus to do so and the notability and importance of Mr. Loflin is highly questionable in the first place. In saying so, I am aware that I step away from WP:ATT and WP:BIO, as there have been multiple non-trivial instances of media coverage of Mr. Loflin (as was stated as rationale for the merger). Nonetheless, I believe that, per WP:LIVING, the obscurity of Mr. Loflin's accomplishment entitles him to a little bit of privacy. Quite fundamentally, Mr. Loflin's accomplishment, despite being covered by media, is not really of note; many many students receive perfect SAT scores, and being the only (?) homeschooled student to do so is not that impressive given the large rate at which perfect SAT scores are produced. I know many students at my school who have received perfect SATs. I thus advocate the deletion of this article as non notable and as in violation of WP:BLP. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Mr. Loflin appears to be a contributor to Wikipedia with username Trevorloflin. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the same reasons as I used in the nomination of the previous AFD. Garion96 (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reason in the previous AfD (Merge, falling back on Delete if it doesn't fit) He does not adequately meet notability standards. The CNN transcript is of a video from the other news source used as a reference, so I don't see them as 2 separate sources. The "bio" reference is from his employer, so it is not "independent of the subject." The last one, I'm not entirely sure what it is, but Loflin isn't mentioned until the second to last paragraph, so he is hardly the subject of it. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The first source is, as you note, not independent. The second and third one can count as one source. The last one is indeed not about him in its entirety, but that doesn't make the coverage non-trivial. To quote Uncle G, "Non-trivial" has never actually meant "sole focus to the exclusion of everything else". -- Black Falcon 19:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say the last one is trivial, I said he is not the subject. A notable topic should be the 'subject of multiple non-trivial published works. While he is included in 3 sources, 1 is not independant of him, 1 he is not the subject of, and 1 actually fits the criteria, however, one isn't "multiple." Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning toward "delete" ~~Keep~~ per the same reasons I used in the previous AFD: per WP:BIO as he has been the subject of multiple sources that are reliable and independent of the subject of the article. I don't see this as being a violation of WP:BLP given that the article's content is sourced; moreover, Mr. Loflin has not requested the article's removal. I noted in the previous AFD that a merge would work only "if an appropriate section within the SAT article is suggested"; none was offered and I do not think one could have been suggested. -- Black Falcon 19:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further searching for online sources, it seems that the sources included in the article are the only reliable ones that exist (discounting reproductions of the existing sources). Given that, I am now leaning toward deletion. -- Black Falcon 18:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems borderline either way. Doesn't seem notable in respect of the SATs, but is he notable in connection with homeschooling, to any reasonable extent? Alai 20:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge one sentence~~ Delete. ~~Just put in a sentence like "the first/only person to get a perfect score on the SAT was Trevor Loflin in 2001." He doesn't need a whole section.~~ --Wafulz 20:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except he isn't the first or the only person to get a perfect score. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is he the first/only to hit a perfect score despite being homeschooled?--Wafulz 22:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Homeschooled, probably not. Homeless, probably, but I don't think it's verifiable, and thus probably not notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is nothing indicating why getting a perfect score is, in fact, notable. If the article is to be merged with anything, it should be homeschooling as that is essentially the whole point here -- "home schooled student gets perfect score". But I don't think it's appropriate there either. Disclaimer: I did very very well on my SATs. --Dhartung | Talk 22:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Others have gotten perfect scores, especially after the scores were renormed. --not all of them publicize the matter. He's I think perhaps notable as a verifiable example of a very bright student, homeschooled, who chose to go to a university not usually thought of in connection with very high scores.--and therefore a poster child for the home schooling movement. DGG 09:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I object to neither the article nor the nomination for deletion. I've intentionally refrained from participating in the article's creation. I don't consider myself especially notable, though I understand from the media attention some do. If the debate is solely concerning sources, I could provide additional ones, but if there is some doubt, regardless of sources, whether my accomplishments are notable, deletion would probably be the better policy. If I do more in the future to warrant inclusion, I'm sure we can revisit the issue. Trevor 16:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I closed the previous AFD as 'merge' because at the time I felt that was the clear consensus. In retrospect, I think I should have relisted it for further discussion instead of closing the debate. My bad. Having said that, we shouldn't delete the article simply because the previous merge attempt didn't work. If it doesn't meet WP:BIO, then let's delete it, but don't delete it because the content didn't plug in to SAT. KrakatoaKatie 20:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The challenge that this violates WP:BLP is somewhat prepostorous, especially when taking the CNN coverage into consideration. RFerreira 01:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still Pending[edit]

Appears to be band vanity. While group has received some modest attention from some smaller news outlets, they have yet to meet the criteria for WP:MUSIC, and wikipedia is not a crystal ball.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 19:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails criteria. I've personally removed images posted without valid permissiomns, and added references for some of the statements... but it still appears to fail WP:MUSIC. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Does little more than act as a promotional outlet. Band fails WP:MUSIC Rackabello 05:41, 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. Yannismarou 16:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani black metal[edit]

Right, I realise that this has been nominated before, but I can't believe the result last time. The original discussion can be found here, and the result was a shambles, but a merge (there was actually no real agreement on where to merge it too, either). Now, I do not support a merge, and believe that this article should be deleted outright. I have numerous reasons for this. First, I will give my argument agaisnt this merge; which never actually happened. A merge to black metal would be foolish- there is not room within the black metal article to talk about every country's black metal scene, unless it is particuarly relevent to the genre, as, say, Sweden's may be. As for a merge to the music of Pakistan- well, this is better, but there is no assertion of the notability of the topic. As far as I can see, this is not relevent to Pakistan's music scene as a whole. So, that means that a merge is irrelevent- so why should this be deleted, rather than kept? Well, this article could argued to be two things. First of all, it makes a vague attempt to be about a musical movement. There is no evidence of the notability of this musical movement, and so it should be deleted if it is that. However, I believe that the article is not about a musical movement, and is simply a list of non-notable bands. These bands do not deserve articles of their own, and merging them all into one article just because they are vaguely similar is an awful idea. Let me explain why, with an analogy- I come from Furness. Now, I am reasonably familiar with the local school/garage heavy metal bands in the area. None of these are notable, but let's pretend I want them to have a place on Wikipedia, and so I write an article called heavy metal of Furness. This would be a list of completely non notable bands, sourced from primary and/or unreliable sources. On top of just being a dumping ground for non notable bands, lowering our notability criteria, grouping them together in this manner constitutes original research. Because of all these reasons, I think the idea to merge this information was a bad one, and I think keeping it at all is foolish. The only result I would support other than a big delete would be a split- I am not sure if I have ever seen a split at AfD, but I would support any band proven to be notable to be split off into its own article. However, I have a sneaking suspiscion that none of the bands are notable, and so I don't think that would be an option. J Milburn 19:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems like a backdoor promotion of several bands that would fail WP:MUSIC if up individually. --Dhartung | Talk 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well-reasoned nomination. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Baka man 03:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Webkami 16:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are no references to begin with.. Baristarim 05:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i was insulted to say the least by the above, being a memeber of one of the said bands. if any of you have interest and experince of the international extreme metal scene, you will find at least half the bands listed their worthy of your stereo........Dusk, Burzukh,Sifr , Northern Alliance are all internationally known unedrground acts.. So to be precise if a person is into black metal seriously he would have at least heard of some of these bands, if only for the sake of being cult enough. This i have found to be true via inetraction.

i think you should give some of the stuff on the net available a chance before coming down so hard on a scene that is unique and thrives on and in chaos. If anything you can compare it to our well known neighbours, India who have a huge plethora of bands (along with better infrastructure, democracy and a more liberal govt) none of which are nearly half as good or original. That is why i beleive the pakistani metal scene is a recognizable underground scne in asia . I thought the point of this wiki of wikis was to be a open free-for-all repository of data..and not localized to any region / ethnicity....

just because it didnt get reviewed in Metal Maniacs or played on MTV2 does not mean it does not exist. That is what wikipedia is there for. real unfileterd knowledge hopin in the best way possibel to avoid biases. at leastv lsiten to it before jugding

Comment: We are not here to listen and judge- we are discussing the notability of this movement and these bands. Did you even read my reasoning before you posted that long rant? You have provided no information that will help this article survive the debate. You have basically said 'these bands are good, and just because they aren't famous, doesn't mean they don't deserve a place on Wikipedia. Please see WP:BAND and WP:NOT. As a writer of articles about obscure musicians (see Voltaire and Celestiial) it irritates me when people try to accuse Wikipedia of covering only pop music. J Milburn 11:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is now even more of a shambles than it was originally. Anonymous editors have expanded the section on some of the bands, while not providing notability, while the section explaining the 'movement' has been significantly expanded with original research. Another interesting comment placed within it is "NOTE: The concept has never been called Pakistani Black metal. (The original article has been edited, but the popular bands section hasent)" which seems to confirm my belief that this was a movememt made up on the spot. J Milburn 11:34, 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. Daniel Bryant 00:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Ball (educator)[edit]

No proof of notability according to WP:PROFTEST. Created by the subjects family member WP:COI, as part of a vanity user page. Diletante 19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Accomplishment is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given lack of reliable sources. If there was verifiable evidence of his involvement with Sesame Street or Sale of the Century, I would be inclined to keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capitalistroadster (talk • contribs) 02:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
keep A clearly notable educator. If it was written by a member of the family, he did a completely objective job of it. COI raises the question of possible exaggeration, but does not prove it. The accomplishments speak for themselvesDGG 06:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep on proviso article is wikified to also include better citations and sources and brought into line with the biography project, which would give increased providence to the notability of the person. thewinchester 16:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems just notable enough, and doesn't appear to have any serious POV issues, so WP:COI becomes a non-issue. Lankiveil 00:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Not written in the manner of a vanity page.--ZayZayEM 02:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer it kept, but improved by someone else. I'm happy to not involve myself further, recognising my initial mistake in the creation. The external links are to bodies that have records of his employment. I have not been exhaustive. He is retired now, and not likely to ever add to the achievements. DDB 02:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see a few comments saying that the subject is "notable enough." If this is the case, please say exactly which listed criteria of WP:PROFTEST is satisfied. COI is really a secondary concern to me. -- Diletante 15:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand the criteria points satisfied are
1. as Dr Ball is recognised through academic fellowship as the authority on Educational Testing Measurement, he was foundation professor of the Sydney University department, he was foundation Chief Educational Evaluator for Children';s Television Workshop in NY in the US. He was ETS' consultant for university entrance SATs in the US. to give a few examples.
2, has similar arguments adding his work (privalege) as Editor of the Journal of Educational Psychology for nearly thirty years.
3 and 4 are satisfied, and a few of his books are listed
5. his theories on Educational TV are widely known, disseminated and accepted praxis.
6. While, admittedly, his time as Chairman of the Academic Board of Sydney University, and as Pro Vice Chancellor (community affairs) were professional appointments, as was CEO Victorian Board of Studies, as was consultancy to Saudi Arabia to establish an Australian school in Saudi Territory, with Victorian curricula, these were also honorary placements. DDB 09:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ddball (talk • contribs) 09:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per DDB. I would also argue that Chairman of the Academic Board and Pro Vice Chancellor at Sydney University are both very important positions for an academic and make, or at least add to, an assertion of notability. --Bduke 01:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 19:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imakuni?[edit]

This page is totally unsourced (unless you count the external link to a Japanese website). It's an odd mix of information that might be a biography of a real person, but it might also be about a Pokemon character. I have no clue what's going on here. Google doesn't help at all because a lot of stuff seems to be coming up in Japanese. So I believe it should be deleted as unverifiable, unsourced, and the like. Metros232 19:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. I used Babelfish to translate the site, but it could only translate a little bit due to the fact that most of the Japanese wasn't text but on an image. It seems to be a blog of some sort with a weird talking animation (in Japanese) that you can view. Perhaps it's notable on the Japanese Wikipedia, but not English. --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 21:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, terminal whimsy. -- Hoary 03:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I mentioned, if any item is notable just in Japan, or just in China, it is notable enough for any Wikipedia. Let's consider this: many of the people we know that satisfy WP:N in America is not heard of in other places in the world. For me, it is notable enough, simply due to the huge reference by Japanese. Lastly, I want people to understand that English Wikipedia is just that: a Wikipedia presented in a certain language known as English; it does not, and should not, serve a particular country at all. George Leung 22:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can agree that this is bias when the article says, "Little is known about Imakuni?, his significance, or his past" (emphasis mine). I removed the section on what his character says in the trading card game (WP:NOT a game guide). Dekimasu よ! 09:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just looks mere whimsical blather to me. Consider this gem: the musical group Suzukisan (which is Japanese for Three Part or Three Person). Oh really? -- Hoary 10:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I agree with George Leung on some of his points, and the guy does seem to be somewhat notable in the Pokemon music circle (he has some 10 odd CDs/singles and two books on the subject), but the article as it is now is a complete and utter mess. If someone more knowledgable and competent to make this into a more credulous article should show up (I have brought this to the attention of the Pokemon Project), then I shall change my vote to "Weak keep". TomorrowTime 12:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The guy, for whatever reason, has a fictional Pokemon character based on him, so that's where the confusion comes from. -Amarkov moo! 14:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 234 GHits on Japanese name [23]. Mostly blogs and people selling his album. Incidentally, I strongly second George Leung's comment. There is no such thing as "notable in Japanese but not notable in English" and there is no consensus for the Anglocentric view that "no English sources = non-notable". The only policy statement in this regard is Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in_languages other than English, which merely recommends that English sources be used rather than foreign language sources where English sources of equal quality are available (e.g. don't reference a fact to a Japanese book when you could reference it to an English book); it does not mandate English sources as a condition of establishing notability. However, with that said, this guy isn't notable period, due to the lack of reliable sources. cab 23:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I'm inclined to keep any article on an author, and because this person is a well-known member (in Japan) of the group that performs songs of a global pop culture trend. the project desperately needs more people who are able to read japanese because many online sources that would contain info on notable people within the franchise are completely written that way which results in a dearth of info even in articles like Satoshi Tajiri and Ken Sugimori. I have added {{WikiProject Pokémon}} tags to both this article and the related Suzukisan, hopefully the horibble stubbiness can be improved. Ghits are not always the best way to verify notability as web presence isn't the only barometer. and stubbiness isn't the best way to decide whether or not there is enough information. If we don't keep, then merge this article into the band Suzukisan. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep 19,800 hits on Google if you search under "イマクニ？" ("imakuni?" in Japanese). Obviously the article should be written better. RevJohn 14:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, are any of these WP:RS? I tried "イマクニ -blog -auction -amazon -wikipedia -youtube" to filter out all the junk, and was left with only 983 GHits.[24] The fact that even his name written in katakana gets no GNews hits [25] also makes me suspicious of his notability. cab 23:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am no fan of this guy, character or not even Pokemon at all, but I was just a little more than interested trying to find out what this was all about. I have edited the article, to the best I can do through researches on mainly - or almost exclusively (but of course not intentionally) - Japanese materials. Nevertheless, I must say there was no hardcore source that reveals the real name of this guy, or character, but after all it is probably not the most important part anyway. I might also say that "Imakuni?" appears to have a enough notability by the fact he is credited in CD releases apparently popluar, even if the rumor did not have to be mentioned at all. Hope this helps in your decision. --OhMyDeer 06:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep - There are published books, CDs and games that's related to this Pokemon character. I would think it's notable enough to be kept. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 23:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the WP:POKEMON test. ;-) But seriously, there appear to be sufficient sources available for this subject, so keep and continue to develop the article. RFerreira 01:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there may well be reliable sources covering this character or person, no one seems to have been able to come up with any. For that reason, the content is non-notable and generally also original research. Sandstein 06:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boca Acton[edit]

There appears to be no evidence that this place exists. The name of this article appears only to be found in this article and its mirrors.. No supporting cite is provided, and my attempts to find one have turned up nothing. The article is the sole contribution of the contributing editor. The Anome 19:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete For reasons above. I will ~~post the hoax template on the page and~~ (whoops, it's already there) try to contact the creator to see if he/she can provide some sources. -- Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 20:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing confirming claims turns up in Google News Archive or Google Books. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Lorentzen[edit]

Insufficient notability. Singing in commercial for a single item does not establish notability. — ERcheck (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For reasons above. --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 20:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Gwernol 23:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; someone can redirect it if they choose, as it is an editorial decision. Daniel Bryant 00:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murumoya[edit]

Non-notable anime. Squirepants101 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Upon googling "Murumoya", all I found were three webpages in Japanese. Perhaps the article belongs on the Japanese Wikipedia, but not on the English one. --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 20:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While it should be deleted due to WP:N, just because all the infos are in Japanese does not mean it should not be in English Wikipedia. If it's notable in Japan, it's notable enough. Sadly, this anime is... non notable, even in Japan. George Leung 01:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Mirmo!, which appears to be notable and associated with this title. Dekimasu よ! 09:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find any Japanese sources stating such an anime existed. If I'm having trouble finding out whether it existed in the first place (maybe it didn't), I doubt that it meets notability criteria. —Tokek 23:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable anime as it seems. We definitely cannot have entries for every anime-related topics. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 23:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonnotable and WP:NOT. NawlinWiki 20:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merrol Hyde Magnet 7th Grade[edit]

Well, I mean...isn't it fairly obvious? Let's start with non-notable as the official reason. PeteJayhawk 20:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Fits under speedy deletion criteria A7. I added a speedy delete tag using {{db|reason}}, however, to better explain why it is unacceptable. --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 20:36, 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. Daniel Bryant 08:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Vidulich[edit]

Not sure if notable or not. Definitely autobiographical and full of useless trivia Chris 20:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. janejellyroll 20:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Non-notable student government member. --Tainter 22:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Does not assert notability. Maxamegalon2000 05:05, 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 10:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Johnston[edit]

Despite the fact that the article paints her as a superstar of BMX racing, I couldn't find anything on Google.com about this person (other than, of course, this article). The lead says that she somestimes races under other last names, but it doesn't say what those names might be or, in fact, provide any sources at all. Probable hoax. janejellyroll 20:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above. Probable hoax. I posted the hoax template on the page. --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 21:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as possible hoax. I too did a g-search and found nothing with this person's name and BMX. If any part of the article were true, she'd have at least a couple of hits. --Oakshade 23:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil A. Bickley[edit]

local grocer, known only in his very small town DGG 21:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm tempted to speedy it, as I don't consider being named "outstanding citizen" is really much of an assertion of notability. Otherwise, it's just a nice obituary. Accomplishment is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 21:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local personality.--Tainter 22:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual is not notable. Mwelch 05:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO Rackabello 05:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Roitburd[edit]

This has previously been tagged as a speedy db-bio, had that replaced as a prod, which was anonymously removed and has been re-tagged as blatant advertising. Reads to me like a possible copyvio, but I can't hit it with a fast Google. Given the multitude of tags and removals, a firm AfD decision would be the clearest way to go. -Splash - tk 21:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced by end of AFD. I found a couple of Google News Archive mentions confirming he was exhibited in the West as early as 1993 but really nothing since then that isn't connected with a gallery. It's possible there are UA/RU sources that would have to be used in translation. --Dhartung | Talk 21:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- UA/RU? Splash - tk 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ukraine and Russia. See Country code top-level domain. --Dhartung | Talk 22:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. The many articles submitted by the .bereznitsky-gallery have been descending here for some time. I tried at first to judge each one, but it was clearly an upload of the gallery's directory, and i think them worthy of no special credence at all. If any are notable, those who know them will create proper articles. DGG 09:43, 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 deleted by Friday. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Integer donuts[edit]

Trivial, unencyclopedic subject. GregorB 22:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. Ab e g92contribs 23:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Silly, useless neologism. Delete it. Zetawoof^(ζ)
Delete. Unencyclopaedic, etc. Also delete Integer aardvark through Integer Zebra should they appear. -R. S. Shaw 02:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zetawoof. Let's be rational, this new term just isn't natural, so the article should be deleted in whole. —C.Fred (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopaedic, possibly a hoax. BlackBear 16:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a cultural reference that signifies a common feeling in many offices. There just had not been a unifying term for these feelings until now. If you believe it is unencyclopaedic it should be edited, not deleted. With the rise in workplace illnesses, threats of biological and corporate terrorism, and the general poor health of the cubicle residing workplace populace; terms like integer donuts will become more commonplace. Not only will they become more common, they will be become more important to our wellbeing and safety. -DES2928 19:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense sourced from an internet forum. Gazpacho 23:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete patent nonsense Rackabello 05:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic nonsense. -- The Anome 08:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonsense -- Whpq 17:26, 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 keep - good faith nomination but clearly does meet WP:MUSIC per below discussion. Orderinchaos 16:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Venetians (Australian Rock Band)[edit]

This article fails to meet the criteria specified in WP:MUSIC (non-notability). ~Step trip 22:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart (3rd single reached #8 on national charts in 1983). Furthermore 1st 3 singles received alot of national airplay on TV and radio at the time. Can't remember which label they were on though...Soryr, I don't have any 80s music mags lying around. Not much on the net I agree but then we shouldn't reduce wikipedia to sources we can surf the net for. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try Googling the subject or going to your local library, that should give you some source. ~Step trip 23:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already googled several combinations which yielded a little. Unfortunately alot of chart material appears to be off the internet, though there is some. I presume you did too before you listed it here? I have also left a note at WP Australiacheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I remember this band vaguely from the 1980's. Festival Records is certainly a notable Australian label and Chrysalis is an international label. Tim Powles of The Church (band) was certainly a member and the Venetians toured with the Church. [26]. They meet WP:MUSIC for mine. I will leave a message for David Gerard. Capitalistroadster 02:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable enough as far as I can see, I remember seeing them on Countdown several times and they were interviewed/profiled in the April 1986 issue of Countdown magazine. There's a promo photo here. The combination with Tim Powles' membership and signing to major labels mentioned above make this a definite keeper for me. --Canley 02:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable.--ZayZayEM 06:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - hit band in Australia, ridiculously ignorant nomination - David Gerard 11:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per all keep comments above, and this AfD should be resolved as keep with consensus immediatly. thewinchester 16:47, 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. WjBscribe 16:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unforgivable Trilogy[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete. Appears to be a film made for Youtube earlier on this year. 2 million hits....no trouble for something vaguely interesting. But is it encyclopedic? I'm inclined to think not. -Splash - tk 22:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's unencyclopedic and bordering blatant advertising. Oh and Splash, which template is it that you hate? AfD? If so, yeah using it is a pain, huh? -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 22:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The stupid {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} that isn't actually useful for anything and adds junk to a) the nomination process, b) the nomination and c) the closure process. Splash - tk 23:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Blatant advertising? Hodge-Stansson has yet to make any money. I don't work for Hodge-Stansson, nobody does. They're aspiring filmmakers who have garnered a lot of attention in varying youth communities. There's been numerous requests for some sort of wikipedia article on Hodge-Stansson and especially the acclaimed Unforgivable Trilogy. Two million hits is not common for any video that is 'vaguely interesting,' that's ludicrous. Can you cut the elitist bullshit and at least give me a chance to flesh out the page with some third-party critical sources, newspaper articles, etc? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesowen237 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - Comment. You've already been given time. Splash was good enough to make this an AfD instead of a speedy delete. So in theory you have until this discussion reaches a consensus. AfD's take a little time usually, so you should have enough time to improve the article if possible. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 23:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable movie. ArchStanton 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Briefly, what constitutes a notable movie? Will the release of the DVD appease you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesowen237 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm trying to get the rights to a State University of New York article printed on the forthcoming DVD release. Will this help? I'm new to Wikipedia, I'm just trying to legitamize this article. You guys don't seem to realize how many people want to read this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesowen237 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Why would you delete it? It obviously impacts a large number of people and they can relate to the artistic apeals and interests of the artists herein. The deletion of this page is unnecessary seeing as it provides information on artists that provide entertainment and inspiration for millions, it is clear they are on the verge of something meaningful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.243.148 (talk • contribs)
Delete - no references to establish notability. -- Whpq 17:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with Hodge-Stansson Productions -- There are no reliable source citations to establish the notability of either, and as for it's potential notability, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it the place to "legitamize" (sic) anything ... anyone can put their wedding video on YouTube and then sell DVDs, but that does not make it worthy of an article here, unless more than one reliable publication (i.e., not just blogs) reports on it as being newsworthy for the sheer number of sales ... see Wikipedia:Attribution. —68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 20:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Akeelah, you found a spelling error! I said I was looking to legitimize the article, not the concept itself. Thanks for the helpful advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesowen237 (talk • contribs) 2007-04-10T23:04:12

A State University of New York article is soon to be published (to my knowledge, it's not yet been published) on the Trilogy, HSP, and the forthcoming DVD. That's a notable source, and to my understanding I would generally need at least one more in addition to the SUNY interview? Is this correct?

Comment. If you have to try that hard to scrounge up secondary sources, it's probably not notable...and I'm honestly hoping that this SUNY article isn't a student newspaper article, because that doesn't really qualify as a reliable source. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 20:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure at the moment what kind of University publication it is. Just curious, do you guys write much? Or generally just delete other people's articles? And what do you do vocationally?

I'll be the first to admit I'm a bit deletionist. Lately I have been trying to do more monitoring of new articles, but I have created about 20 articles and massively contributed/revamped another dozen articles or so. I'm also an engineer. IMHO, we're not trying to be difficult. However, I think most of us would like Wikipedia to be a comprehensive, proper encyclopedia and as such don't think every POV and idea need be represented. The notability guidelines and neutral point of view policy are good methods of measuring and deciding what should be here. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 21:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer Wikipedia to be in congruence with actual scholarly encyclopedias (ie. Britannica)? What advantages, if any, do you see in a online, public encyclopedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesowen237 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as per comments from 68.239.79.97 above. AfD makes no comment about whether the video is "good" or not, or how legitimate it is. It purely looks at WP:NOTABLE and I find that based on what has been said here and my own looking around, it fails this criterion. AfD should not look at how well the article is written, either - this is purely about whether or not the subject should have a WP article. Right now, I do not think it is notable enough, and WP is not a crystal ball. If it becomes notable in future, then an article could be developed. (It would help if you signed your comments using ~~~~ at the end.) -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. If you believe this article to not meet encyclopedic standards then EDIT it!!! There is absolutely no reason to delete it, as the Trilogy has recently had a HUGE impact and following among American youth. Why delete information pertaining to its existence? Wikipedia is a place where ALL types of information are shared, not a HAND PICKED selection of human knowledge, as is found in Encyclopaedia Brittanica. If this article is poorly written, then edit it. That's the concept of Wikipedia, and deleting this article is doing no good for anyone, except saving a few KB's on a server. 142.157.201.134 21:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Neoelitism 15:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:142.157.201.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now blocked for excessive vandalism. Part Deux 15:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue for this AfD is not whether the article is written well, but instead whether the subject is notable or not. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information the subject of articles have to meet certain criteria, one of which is WP:NOT. Notability requires more than claiming that "lots of people know about it" - it has to meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements, including A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. The depth of coverage and quality of sources must be considered in determining the number of sources required and whether the coverage establishes notability. That is what I have as yet seen no evidence of. If such evidence can be shown, I am willing to change my vote. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 00:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He is aware of WP:NOTABILITY and what it generally implies, as am I now similarly informed. It's been posted in almost every previous "delete" vote, and there's no need to repeat it four hundred times; your vote will do, thanks. I think what 142.157.201.134 is having trouble with, as am I, is that essentially you are admitting that as the series is popular, and has developed a cult following, a significant amount of individuals would find this article particularly interesting. And I (and him as well, I'm sure) am almost disturbed that, as such, you still defer to the archaic Wikipedia Guidelines. I don't even think you would argue that there are really no construable advantages to the deletion of this thread, or at least no substantial advantages. Do you want to save a couple KB's webspace? Do you want to prevent others from taking inspiration and writing articles about their four-million-times-viewed cult phenomena? Or are you just petty sticklers who need rigid guidelines in every aspect of your lives? Jamesowen237 06:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I repeated it because it seemed that the poster appeared confused about what criteria we are supposed to use to discuss this and wanted to try to clarify. As for the "my vote will do" comment, I would appreciate the opportunity to take part in the discussion, as are you. I am not saying whether or not the series is popular or not - I am saying that there is no evidence brought forth here that satisfies WP's requirements for Notability. I'm sorry you find the Guidelines we use "archaic", but that is what we are told as editors to use. If you need changes to the guidelines, then please go ahead with the discussion on the Talk page for those guidelines. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 11:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry about the "vote will do" comment, it just aggravates me that anyone can possibly defer to the Wiki guidelines knowing that an informative, interesting article (for fans of the series) will probably be deleted. In my opinion, there's a time to ignore stale guideline principals and get practical. I'm not saying 'look the other way,' I'm just insinuating that maybe the Wiki guidelines, and what they imply, are not always benevolent to Wikipedia users in general. Do you always do what you're told in real life, as well? Do you not agree that there's a time to break the rules? I'm not arguing in regards to this thread, but in general principal-- it's like you guys worship the rules here. I feel like you're not even considering the implications of this article and its deletion except through the lens of Wikipedia's own beaurocratic stipulations. Have you ever read Kafka's Castle? Jamesowen237 20:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Notability is not popularity, it is source availability, and that doesn't seem to happen here. Internet memes are not notable just because a lot of people view them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. - This article should be kept; however, it requires significant cleanup. It also would sound more professional and encyclopedic to remove many of the vulgar quotes that take away from the formal tone.
More notably in the past couple of months, this video has indeed gained widespread popularity and is becoming a significant underground icon. If detailed articles on other Youtube sensations such as "Numa Numa" and "The Juggernaut Bitch!!" are allowed on Wikipedia, why should this entry be disregarded and deleted? Bonhamfreak48 07:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The problem is WP:A ... note that both Numa Numa and The Juggernaut Bitch!! cite sources, like a New York Times article ... so far, all of the claims of "widespread popularity" are merely unsubstatiated rumors ... if there were any WP:RS citations, we probably would not be having this discussion ... finding and adding some will be the only thing that can save this article from deletion. —68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 08:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: The Juggernaut Bitch!! cites a blog and a false MTV link. The article was deleted and then restored. Currently, it has no actual sources and is not an AfD. Will your efforts to rid this article (as it now stands) be without avail? Jamesowen237 08:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As of now I believe there are no scholarly resources, and, as such, 'finding and adding some' is currently impossible. I understand the article does not, and even cannot, satisfy Wikipedia's various criteria. Personally, and particularly in relation to this article, I do not believe that the Wikipedia guidelines are always, or even essentially, benevolent. As such, I certainly won't delete the article (but I'm sure someone else will). If you've taken an interest in Hodge-Stansson or this particular article, worry not; I've saved an up-to-date copy and will repost as soon as scholarly sources are availible (which, by all estimations, should be soon). As far as omitting expletives, I would definitely opose that. You'll notice that I maintained a scholarly vernacular and tone throughout the article except when quoting Ricky. His vocabulary is crucial to the humor; in fact, it drives it. I believe that these expletives are similarly crucial to any serious discussion of the series. Jamesowen237 08:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also: Bonhamfreak48, as far as besides your said desire to remove expletives, what "significant cleanup" do you believe is "require[d]" ? Jamesowen237 08:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Delete it now. - Ctbolt 09:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The above comment/vote by Ctbolt should be discarded. It is childish, unscholarly and not a valid POV. You can't label something "not notable" just because you've never heard of it. Neoelitism 15:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think the fact that I found this page whilst searching for a Wikipedia write-up on The Unforgivable series is pretty good evidence that you shouldn't have deleted it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.240.82 (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles "The Hammer" Evans[edit]

Text it tag read "no google hits, unsourced, this person probably doesn't even exist", and the non-Google claim is patently wrong. He might, it appears, have appeared on TV? This needs an AfD. -Splash - tk 23:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is a wrestler in OVW [27]. OVW does have a weekly show on The CW, although it's only aired in Kentucky and Ohio right now. TJ Spyke 23:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From what I can tell, we generally only include professional minor-league players if they have made some sort of major league appearance. We have enough unsourced pro-wrestling cruft on here, we don't need more. Fails WP:BIO. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 15:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — even in the world of OVW, he is a "developmental" wrestler. Insufficient notability. — ERcheck (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he makes it to some kind of national exposure in any of the countries where wrestling is a big deal. Doesn't have to be AAA or WWE or NJPW, but it has to be more significant than OVW. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nearly an outright keep but ncs defaults there anyways. Daniel Bryant 00:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veljko Milković[edit]

Is it just me, or do all the sources here trace back to the subject himself? Another anti-gravity inventor. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is just you, and while most references in the article are on his website (which should be changed of course), you should have looked at the talk page where you would have seen this: Nikola 05:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, he is by far not one of the most famous Serbian inventors, but he is notable enough. I have managed to find following newspaper articles about him:

Dnevnik: an article about him, mentioning various things he worked on. [28]
Dnevnik: mentions in passing that he received the November Charter (an award given by the city of Novi Sad). [29]
Vecernje novosti: news about his invention of perpetuum mobile. [30]
Glas javnosti: more about it. [31]
Dnevnik: more kookery. [32]

and there is more. You can see a list of his books if you go here and search for his name as the author. Nikola 08:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as total nonsense, not noticed by anyone , probably because not worth noticing. DGG 05:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Five articles in three nationwide newspapers = not noticed by anyone - how exactly? Nikola 07:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Internationaly non-notable pseudo-scientist , mildly interesting as an example of a peculiar and not always irrelevant Serbian tradition. Stammer 08:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly is nice to know that there is a Serbian tradition that is not always irrelevant. Milkovic however apears to be internationaly notable pseudoscientist. More references I found now include: a Hungarian website, an American website, another American website and yet another American website. Those who want to know more can be informed about Milkovic Two-Stage Mechanical Oscillator and even Milkovic-Berrett Secondary Oscillator Generator at PESWiki. As far as Serbian perpetuum mobile inventors go, it appears that he is the most famous one!

You've found internet links, but I'm not convinced of the reliability of these sites. They don't seem to be reliable scientific research groups. For example, in evaluating one of his inventions, the site says "While our present understanding of physics does not describe nor allow such a scenario, these preliminary findings suggest that harnessing this mechanical amplification effect is indeed possible with the right ingenuity." From the point of view of a reliable source, this doesn't make it for me. If it defies our current understanding of physics, then something might be amiss with the evaluation. — ERcheck (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? When did anyone say that the sites are scientific research groups? OF COURSE that all of this is kookery of the highest order. But this guy is notable, as far as Serbian kooks go. Nikola 17:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean you implied they were scientific research groups. To clarify — if he is a notable researcher, these site don't validate that. There are lots of "inventors" who make items that no one will ever use. Even if they (inventor groups) are all talking about it among themselves, it doesn't mean the inventor or the invention is notable. — ERcheck (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a group of inventors from Novi Sad patting each other's backs, I could agree with you. But he is noticed by his American colleagues, which should account for something. In addition, he did receive several awards for his inventions (the ones unrelated to "free energy"), one of them by the city of Novi Sad, which I believe would make him marginally notable on its own, and wrote a dozen books on various topics which don't appear to be self-published (as they are published by various publishing houses) which too makes him notable on its own. Nikola 19:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now seriously, don't get impression that I think that perpetuum mobile can be created. But this guy has managed to get enough attention from the press and other people independent of him to be considered notable. In addition, there is a dozen of books he wrote, neither of which appears to be self-published, and some of his work related to self-sustainable houses appears to be valid. Nikola 09:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable, third-party, sources. --Pjacobi 13:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refer to five reliable, third-party sources at the top of this very page. Nikola 17:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RELIABLE, THIRD-PARTY SOURCE: - http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Opinion_Dr_Peter_Lindemann.jpg Dr Peter Lindemann (USA) about Veljko Milkovic's invention]
According to the definition of Inventor, the inventor is a person who discovered something new and has at least one approved patent - Veljko Milkovic is certainly an inventor due to his 36 approved patents[33](so far).
City of Novi Sad (his home town) awarded him in 2002 with the greatest annual city award (November charter of the city of Novi Sad[34]) for his remarkable contribution in the field of ecology and energetic. Why would the second largest city in Serbia do that for some guy who is an anonymous and is not worth of it?! That is the highest award and is given for very few people every year.
If he is not a valid inventor why would the Academy of Inventors of Serbia[35] receive him as full member[36]?!. Even Chamber of commerce of Vojvodina [37] organized his introductory lecture[38]and his admission in the membership of that Academy.
If he and his work are not worth of attention and are not valid why would people all over the world start experimenting and finally proving his claims. An independent experimental work validating Veljko Milkovic's claims
His previous work, inventions, patents, awards, acknowledgements etc. definitely ranks him as one of the leading today's Serbian inventor. Ternit 20:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ternit, what brought your attention to this article? You've made just three edits to Wikipedia. Why just this article and why now? Lunch 22:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have specially made a wikipedia account to particpate here due to I am informed about him and his work through his books, TV and newspaper apperances, internet articles etc. and he personally and his achievements deserve the Wikipedia article. Ternit 16:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have few his books - he is certainly a person worthy to have article on Wikipedia. PANONIAN (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on some comments by Nikola:
- Reminding me about the articles in Serbian newspapers is good point. This should be checked further.
- But noticed by his American colleagues is a poor joke. Websites like rexresearch.com, www.free-energy.ws, www.peswiki.com and www.pesn.com are about as unreliable as a source can get. They should (almost) never be used to source an article and even only seldomly used as external link. Pjacobi 21:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think they should be used as sources, but they show the fact that this guy is noticed by these other guys working on similar things (who are geographically far away from him). Nikola 06:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thank you, Nikola, for finding some sources for the article independent of Mr. Milkovic. These articles begin to address the first complaint I made in the {{prod}}
However, I don't agree with you that these sources make him notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article. Three of the five articles you cite come from the same source, Dnevnik, Novi Sad's hometown newspaper. The other two, from Belgrade, are a bit more interesting. Would you know what the circulation of these papers are? And could you provide translations of the articles? (Just what do they say about Mr. Milkovic?) Further, you agree that he's a crank. (Right?) But is he notable enough as a crank (among all cranks) to have an article about him?
My second complaint is that the article reads like self-promotion. I haven't edited the article to reflect what I think is self-promoting material because that would leave little left. I thought I'd wait until the prod (now the AfD) is resolved.
Last, the claims of inventing a perpetual motion machine are dubious, at best. By putting an article here about them, we give them undue weight. Lunch 22:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dnevnik has circulation of 20,000[39]. I couldn't find a reliable reference about Glas's circulation, but few I did found indicates that it's 18,000[40][41] [42] which surprises me, I thought it is more. But Vecernje novosti have freakin' 300,000[43]! For Serbia, these are big numbers. I don't think that I should translate the articles as they are relatively long.
  - Vecernje novosti has average daily circulation of 320,000[44] Ternit 16:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see several areas Milkovic is active in: ecological research (self-reliant housing) which appears to be legitimate and for which he received a few bona fide awards, and writing popular books about it; exploration of Petrovaradin fortress which too appears to be legitimate and for which he also received an award, and writing popular books about it; free energy research a.k.a. perpetuum mobile building which of course is not legitimate but which got noticed by free energy researchers across the pond (and writing popular books about it); and pseudoarcheology (books, too). I believe that he is marginally notable for any of these, save pseudoarcheology, and certainly is notable if they are taken into account together.
- I don't see how is mentioning claims about perpetuum mobile making undue weight. It is a fact that he makes these claims and that some people bought it. No one is going to believe them just because they're on Wikipedia.
- Regarding self-promotion, I will fix the article. For example, I found already that this Serbian Academy of Innovation Sciences is a group of twenty inventors[45]. But I'm not inclined in fixing it if it's going down the drain. Nikola 06:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once mentioned in Dnevnik. I'm impressed. Nevertheless, I suggest to delete this ~~spam~~ PR effort. Fossa_?! 00:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thrice. It may well be that the article started as self-promotion but the guy is notable anyway. Nikola 06:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another article from Dnevnik[46] and it also oftenly informas about his popular lectures[47]. Nikola 06:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are the information how much time he was mentioned only in Dnevnik (Novi Sad)[48]. I found the list of newspaper articles on internet[49] and press clipings[50] showing how much time he was mentioned in newspapers during previous years. Ternit 16:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this. They are selling 8 his books. I think that there is inaf references for his article on wiki. There is also article about him, and few his books --Jovanvb 07:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Djus 18:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I saw him on television several times, and I hardly even watch television. Who knows how many times he actualy appeared. I didn't get an impresion that he is pseudo-anything. --Milant ^Talk 20:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a new independent source - Altra Scienza magazine published by A.S.S.E. (Italy) wrote about Veljko Milkovic 4 times in the last 3 years: Numero 58 (the latest issue), Numero 56, Numero 53[51] and Numero 25[52]. Ternit 21:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ternit, despite not being a vote, it would be less confusing, if you don't put more than one "keep" here.

Yeah, "Altra Scienca -- Associazone Studiosi Scienze Eterodosse", that seems to be the Italian chapter of the free energy guys mentioned above. This is not a reliable source for matters of science, but maybe it can be used to prove that he is notable crackpot. --Pjacobi 21:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, and cleanup any WP:POV issues, unnecessary links. Links in russian should say (Russian) next them, or be removed.Danski14^(talk) 22:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Crackpot or not, there do appear to be enough reliable sources for this individual. RFerreira 06:05, 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 Keep, article has been improved. Patstuart^talk·edits 19:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omegatrend[edit]

Non-notable per WP:CORP. Google news search turns up exactly zero hits.RJASE1 ^Talk 23:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google News Archive which is a better source for judging whether a company meets WP:CORP shows 25 hits and the article cites the New York Post. [53].

On a personal note, someone once asked me to join and it had a sizeable network in Australia in its day. It is verifiable and notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite. Very advertising like in its current state. Cut back to a stub and keep for expansion.--ZayZayEM 05:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (not expressing an opionion on the deletion). looking through the 25 google archive hits, over 1/2 dozen are the same PR report on the MRP software they're using, many relate to their financial trouble, some just mention them in passing, and the rest mention them as part of being an article on New Image International. Seems to be just another Alticor related company that's failed, and been partially revived. Peripitus (Talk) 10:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wrote the first bit, the second bit (the corporate hagiography) was added later. They're important in the field and study of MLMs and commercial cults in Australia - David Gerard 11:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Granted they seem important - I just can't find any news specifically about them ( rather than their financial trouble ). Not expressing an opinion on keeping or deleting the article as I'm keeping in mind WP:TIGER - Peripitus (Talk) 12:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the proviso that there are significant efforts to make the article encyclopaedic. There's some significant NPOV and cleanup issues that need to be looked at, but otherwise could be made into a good article with effort. thewinchester 16:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is in a bit of a sorry state, but seems notable given Capitalistroadster's comment above. Lankiveil 00:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have taken the time to kick this article in the pants this afternoon, removing most of the crap which was out of order or was direct PR copies, adding referencing section, fact and ref templates. It's also been stubbed. thewinchester 05:26, 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. Daniel Bryant 08:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Taylor[edit]

Tag claimed "No adequate source of information, probably self-written", which seems like a good prod reason, but given the assertion of note, isn't a speedy. -Splash - tk 23:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a non-notable performer. Probably is {{speedy}}, actually. Not all assertions of notability are valid.--Anthony.bradbury 00:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If he has appeared on TV and in Playgirl for 30 years (and I'm not claiming he necessarily has), then it's not a speedy in my opinion. Splash - tk 00:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — only "reference" is imdb which points to Peter Lukic, with the only acting credit being "FBI agent #8". The only two "Bo Taylor"s in imdb are non, notable (one played himself in a documentary and the other is a lighting technician in a 1974 film). — ERcheck (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete This article was previously deleted. The original article was even more of a fantasy than this one (in which he claimed to be an Academy Award-winning actor, among other things) but this one still has a lot of unsourced and very unlikely claims, like "owns his own broadcasting company." The creator of the previous article was BoTaylor456, who also created a series of other related hoax pages, which I prod-ed. He was also blocked twice for constantly uploading pictures without the appropriate copyright procedures. See WP:ANI on BoTaylor456 or my user contributions for more details. (Note that apparently he also makes a lot of edits under anonymous IP addresses.) --Proofreader J-Man 02:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as obvious NN. However, any assertion of N, self-asserted or not, must be checked by AfD, and does not fall within the domain of speedy. Speedy is only for unquestionably non-notable subjects. DGG 05:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- we seem to be arguing about whether or not this article fits the exact wording of whatever it says in the current revision of WP:CSD, not about whether or not we should have this article. If we really need to find the right rule to apply, now about speedy-ing it as a recreation of deleted content, assuming that is still a criteria? Jkelly 19:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion only applies to articles previously deleted as the result of WP:AFD that are substantially identical to the deleted version. Since the previous deletes were speedy, this criterion does not apply. — ERcheck (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Oh, yes, you're right. My mistake. Jkelly 17:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that "vandalism" is a criterion, but all suspected hoaxes do not qualify. — ERcheck (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article has recently been completely replaced by its present version. The nominated version, if that's of interest is here. Splash - tk 22:08, 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.