Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 27

< August 26	August 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

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

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

List of number-one songs on Canadian Top 40[edit]

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

These pages were clearly copied from the lists of #1 hits from American Top 40, as the #1 songs match those 100%. I have seen no evidence of a show called "Canadian Top 40" anywhere that has these songs at #1, so I propose that these pages be deleted. FreakyFlyBry 06:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 [[User:Akradecki|Akradecki]. J Milburn 01:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classical & Trendy[edit]

Article fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) Hirolovesswords 00:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete appears to meet speedy criteria as it doesn't assert any notability. Pharmboy 00:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete NN Nothing there. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SD as per the above. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 04:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 YES! Magazine. Frankly, nothing in the article supports it continuing to have an independent existence. However, what little information the page contains can easily be merged into the magazine and that seems the most sensible solution. TerriersFan 23:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Futures Network[edit]

Article fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Hirolovesswords 00:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and appears to be soley for self promotion of organization. Pharmboy 00:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge w/ YES! Magazine which it publishes. Don't forget that it was founded by David Korten, so you can just merge it into that. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 04:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above Rehevkor 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 18:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Roy[edit]

Article fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) Hirolovesswords 23:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of people work in the industry, and lots of other industries. Absolutely doesn't meet notability req. Pharmboy 00:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the most notable producer and recording technician in the Alt-Christian music biz. 767 Ghits. Lots of RS's. I'll work on it now. Bearian 18:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some edits and added cites, hopefully to the Heymann standard. Bearian 19:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources fail WP:BLP#Sources as reliable sources, the article fails to meet the notability standards set at WP:MUSIC dissolve ^talk 00:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 01:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Partnership[edit]

No indication or assertion of notability. Tried the Google trick, but difficult to figure anything out, as "Atlantic Partnership" is hardly an uncommon phrase! Oli Filth 23:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. The last sentence kicker was a bit odd to boot, raising questions. Pharmboy 00:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Claims backing by major notables (Kissinger, John Major, Joe Biden, Sam Nunn, Colin Powell, etc.) [1] Wl219 01:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability - Dont think notability should be inherited Corpx 04:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 10:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Delete per nom and above --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 19:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of rare Radiohead songs[edit]

WP:NOT#IINFO, and no sources. WP:V is difficult here. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The premise of the article is that these are B sides and never played songs, so in short, the article is about the least popular songs from the band. This is kinda of an anti-article. Not notable, not verifiable, idea has original research issues and no sources. Pharmboy 00:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - Note the non-released tracks in Radiohead discography Corpx 04:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deathly Hallows (objects). PeaceNT 11:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter's Invisibility Cloak[edit]

This is getting too crufty, I doubt that it's so notable that it deserves it's own article, merge somewhere like to Magic in Harry Potter or even Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , Harry Potter's cloak plays a very important part in the series, this is an article about HIS cloak. So I think it does deserve its own! As I created it! **Ko2007** 23:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating the article isn't a reason to keep it, and I read all the books it's not that important. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I never said creating it is a reason I just stated I was the creator, and btw its a Deathly Hallow so yes I think its important, and well I guess well see what others think. **Ko2007** 23:55, (UTC) 27 August 2007

Comment. Notability is not inherited. Dbromage [Talk] 01:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Harry Potter per lack of secondary sources to establish notability. Dbromage [Talk] 01:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As HP's cloak is revealed in book 7 as one of the Hallows, merge into Deathly Hallows (objects). Merge stuff about other magical cloaks into Magic in Harry Potter. Wl219 01:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above to HP, even though it looks to be a key element in the series, a lack of sources forces me to go for the merge.--JForget 02:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Deathly Hallows (objects)--Supernerd 10 16:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge wherever. Even if in the universe of HP it were the single most important item, unless someone not related to JK Rowling or her publishers writes about it, it fails to be notable. --Goochelaar 18:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Invisibility Cloaks play an important part in the Harry Potter series. The article is very bad and needs cleanup, but should be kept and not merged

Comment This article is/is supposed to be about Harry's Invisibility cloak, not Invisibility cloaks in general. -Lemonflash_{(do something)} 23:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Deathly Hallows (objects) because the cloak is well covered in that article anyway, and we don't really need another article with it. (But it definitly should be mentioned, it's very important). Shmooshkums 21:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Deathly Hallows (objects). The cloak isn't really that important, besides Harry using it alot, and it being a Deathly Hallow. -Lemonflash_{(do something)} 23:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Deathly Hallows (objects). Happy-melon 16:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All editors arguing "Keep it's important" should note the important distinction between "important" and "notable" at WP:FICT. Happy-melon 16:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does not seem to be notable enough for Wikipedia, and it is almost entirely redundant with the "Cloak of Invisibility" section of Deathly Hallows (objects). (I would agree with those suggesting the merge, but it's really a matter of deleting a duplicate.) -Phi*n!x 19:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for links OR Merge into Deathly Hallows (objects), DISAGREE of deletion It is one of the Deathly Hallows. And it is a important role, so it is not suitable for delete. However, I have no idea of keep or merge. Raymond Giggs 08:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, article was deleted just as AfD was opened, no point in keeping it open. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Winslow Show[edit]

Non-notable student radio show. Google brings up 9 hits. Prod removed by original author. Oli Filth 23:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bellair Plaza[edit]

Non-notable strip mall in Florida. Claims to be the largest in its region, but doesn't back up that claim with any third party sources. I emphasize the fact that it's a strip mall -- almost never has a strip mall ever survived AfD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply because no strip mall article deserves to live without a damn good reason. Why not an article for every apartment complex, too, which are likely more impactful? Pharmboy 00:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Daytona Beach, not quite notable or large enough for an individual article.--JForget 02:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, you guys are brutal. I was led to believe this was going to be a "discussion" page - I was not expecting the Spanish Inquisition. I guess I will just stick with WikiTravel. Gamweb 03:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per - not notable enough. As said, we don't have articles for every apartment complex, and the same goes for strip malls. Actual shopping malls (indoor) are different. To Gamweb: Wikipedia is not meant to be a dedicated travel site. When it comes to locations, Wikipedia gives an overview. If a reader wants to learn more, then can follow the link to Wikitravel. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 04:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have misconceptions what is in WikiTravel. Shopping Malls/Centers do not have their own separate pages; I was surprised when I saw they had their own pages in Wikipedia. Sorry if I offended anyone. Go ahead and delete the page, by all means. Gamweb 18:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken, at least not on my part. Please don't think that getting an article deleted means that we're all trying to yell at you or something. It's just the process of cleaning up Wikipedia to follow the guidelines and policy. If you see any other articles that are similar in manner, in other words, strip malls that don't assert the importance of having their own article, please bring it to someone's attention, or suggest a deletion yourself. A merge is also possible, sometimes. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 00:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Question on notability by user:Crassic has been considered and properly addressed. -- Camptown 07:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Timander[edit]

I believe that the person has no relevance to any form of history, other than possibly Swedish dentistry(?). Crassic (^T+^C) 23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per lack of verifiable sources:"If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." She doesn't clear notability for her acting, but it does look as if she might have an award-winning documentary about her. Searching English news sources, I've found blog-style references to her as a public persona, but nothing per Wikipedia's policy. ~~If these can be produced, I may well change my opinion, but in the absence of them her notability seems unverifiable.~~ --Moonriddengirl 00:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Changed opinion to Keep. Now that it's confirmed that it is an award-winning documentary about her, and in consideration of other changes to the article, I have changed my opinion. :) The award-winning documentary seems to satisfy Wikipedia: Notability (people) with "The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography." It would be nice if there were English sources, but the lack of them is not inherently fatal. --Moonriddengirl 12:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was one of the most well known celebrities in Sweden. Swedish National TV recently made a 2 hour documentary on Timander etc, etc... ~--Camptown 08:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would be truly ridiculous to delete this article. Bondkaka 11:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 18:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer White[edit]

There's something fishy about this. Article claims she participated in several movies, IMdB confirms only one of those, in a minor role. I'm not saying "hoax", maybe she did appeared on those in very minor roles. Still looks not notable. - Nabla 21:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (or merge to Eddy Shah) - nothing at all fishy. Google easily confirms many of the details in newspaper and magazine articles ("Eddy Shah" Jennifer). Couple more of the films here. The IMDb isn't a terrifically RS; no harm in leaving out unconfirmed ones. But I'm not 100% convinced of her notability: she played only a minor part ("one of David Niven's squeezes") in Casino Royale [2]. Gordonofcartoon 00:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 23:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her real claim to fame is as a "top model"--but I haven't been able to find any references for that. Her acting career does not meet notability guidelines for entertainers. Her "top model" career seems unverifiable. I've added reference to her acting career to the mention of her in her husband's bio--and at this point, it's the only thing in that bio that is sourced. If you strip her article to what is verifiable, there's practically nothing left. ~~I can't even find anything stating that a woman named Jennifer White is married to Eddy Shah that doesn't refer back to Wikipedia~~. Well, at least I found a reference to the fact that his wife Jennifer was a former model, but still nothing to establish her notability. --Moonriddengirl 00:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd say keep onlyif there was some large biography. Maybe a mention in Bond Girls, if she appeared in Casino Royale. Mbisanz 02:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 09:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rudi M. Brewster[edit]

expired prod of a bio of a U.S. Federal Judge, weak on sources but may be notable - perhaps given his position inherently so? - procedural nomination, no opinion Carlossuarez46 23:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm inclined to say federal judges are per se notable, but just in case, I've dug up some sources on cases besides the Microsoft case: Qualcomm v. Broadcom, Ritalin class action, civil claims against Iran. Wl219 00:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Wikipedia: Notability (people), "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." Federal judges are not elected positions, but are political appointments. He has sufficient secondary sources. --Moonriddengirl 00:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the importance of the case. There are only 268 such positions, which makes them a very high-level office, and I think they would all have occasion to issue particularly newsworthy or encyclopedia worthy opinions. It will simplify matters to consider them all notable. DGG (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would agree that federal judges are notable generally as their actions will be reported in reliable sources. This one in particular does has enough coverage in reliable sources. Davewild 18:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. I believe all U.S. federal judges are notable, and I certainly hope they are, as I've written a few dozen articles about various of them myself. This one should be improved in due course by our judicial bio editors. Newyorkbrad 00:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 01:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinohide[edit]

Not notable; PROD'ed two months ago; PROD challanged ASAP; no subsequent improvements RossPatterson 23:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not a true nerd, but the references seem insufficient, and the lack of context is a fatal flaw. Shalom ^Hello 02:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I am the primary author.) With regard to notability: It describes middleware that fills a unique technical niche. It is like the Common DOM API, but goes further in providing XML support etc. Not many Java developers need that yet, but for those who do, there is no alternative. For that reason, it is notable. With regard to improvements to article content/format: I can fix most anything, if prompted. But I cannot ref secondary sources till sources appear. That will take time (2 months since last PROD was not long enough). Michael Allan 21:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. I'll format it. Bearian 19:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Looks notable, but there are COI and OR problems. Bearian 19:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the person who prod'ed this - it's a nice project, but it's not notable yet since there aren't any secondary sources. Dreamyshade 21:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it seems to be an interesting project, but there doesn't appear to be any reliable soruces to attest to the notability. -- Whpq 15:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gotta agree with the above comments --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LUUP[edit]

An m-commerce business that allows users to send and receive money via their mobile phone. An spa is being persistent with this article. Is it spam / non-notable? -- RHaworth 17:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not spam! The company is one of the main players in the M-commerce industry Unclezoot 11:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article is cited with some independent sources. The company website alone is inadequate.--Appraiser 14:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:CORP. --Aarktica 22:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Nevermind... --Aarktica 20:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 23:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - media mentions have been added since the delete comments were made, including a significant feature in The Guardian. I am therefore relisting to enable editors to consider the new material. TerriersFan 23:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to pass WP:RS now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the guardian article meets notability to me. [3] [4] Carlosguitar 00:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM per RHaworth. Article content limited to product description, but once this is stripped this away, the article fails to demonstrate notability criteria for companies per Aarktica . A case of an over-enthusiastic staff member failing to read the WP:CORP guidelines perhaps? --Gavin Collins 12:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a search of news articles shows they are being written about, so meets WP:CORP with reliable sources. As for spamminess, that can be editted away. For example, the accolades section should probably be removed. -- Whpq 16:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Web Solutions[edit]

Delete nn company; claim of $8.2 million in revenue is quite small under our guidelines WP:CORP, it had only $240k in revenue last year - percentages are meaningless unless we decide notability of businesses that open on December 31 and sell $100 manages to jump to the most growth company the following year by selling $36,500 or the same $100/day. Carlossuarez46 22:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't the FCC, this is the Wikipedia. Multiple independent sources=Notability. Apparently also gotten coverage in Entrepeneur magazine - Anyone got access to it? It's subscription now. More cursory coverage found in http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695203805,00.html That said, need more references in article to back up case for note. Don't see case for deleting based on revenues. MrZaius^talk 23:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Companies of this kind surely get more known w/ Wikipedia but again it has been talked about by Inc. and here by Entrepreneur Mag back on 2005 (the link MrZaius was referring to). -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 05:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that - All I found initially were pay-only reprints MrZaius^talk 14:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC) PS: Now implemented. Case for note fairly plain now under WP:ORG[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Keep notable --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shapoundit[edit]

nn neologism, see WP:NFT. Prod removed by original author. Oli Filth 22:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete for being borderline nonsense. Pharmboy 00:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At best it's a neologism. It borders on "silly vandalism": creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages. --Moonriddengirl 00:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as non-notable neologism made up at the track one day. —Travis ^talk 01:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as patent nonsense. As noted the article refers to the phrase having been made up one day. Unlikelyheroine 03:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 17:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Magazine[edit]

Non-notable magazine. Article is written by the magazine's editor, thereby violating WP:COI and WP:SPAM. One unlinked outside source. Verification spotty to impossible. Realkyhick 22:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to improve the article (not actually noticing the COI), but I just tracked down the newspaper article used as a source [5]. It does not really source the article or prove notablity. All it does is proves the magazine exists. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. Corpx 04:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JimMiller 05:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC) I have done my best to follow the standards expressed by Wikipedia since the first article I helped write about Vision Magazine. As I have become more aware of the policies at Wikipedia, I have striven to improve as an editor for Wikipedia's purposes. A perusal of my editing history should reveal that I have contributed to the community by editing a number of articles. I also edited several articles anonymously before I learned the ropes and set up a login. I understand the necessity for objectivity, and I have on at least one previous occasion asked for help from the community at large in making this article more objective. I was "rewarded" for my forthrightness by having the article deleted. I spent several hours researching the policies and practices of Wikipedia over the course of several months before working up a new article.[reply]

The original version of this article was largely a copy of the one that was deleted. As you can see in the history, I quickly edited this version several times to bring it to a neutral point of view. Several years of experience losing writing projects to the inadvertent deletion monster have taught me to save early and often, which is the only reason I saved the original version before making any changes. I believe I have limited this article to simple facts, and that does not constitute spam.

Regarding the assertion of non-notability, Vision Magazine serves a niche of a niche: churches that use multimedia. This discussion may not be salient to all of the public, but within the American Christian church, it is a fairly hot topic. Search an online bookseller for "church multimedia" and you'll see a rather large number of books on the topic. In the Wikipedia articles for Seacoast Church, Fellowship Church, and LifeChurch.tv, their use of -- perhaps even reliance upon -- media is properly noted. These churches are consistently listed among the fastest growing, largest, and most innovative churches in America, and Vision Magazine has covered all three of these churches. My point is that if these churches are notable, and Vision serves as a source for their articles, it doesn't make sense that Vision is considered not notable.

Regarding the assertion of COI, the policy specifically states, "Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest." The statement that my involvement as editor violates COI is not self-evident, and no further evidence is presented. Evidence against the charge of COI is as abundant as it could be in such a short time. In addition to my own edits to remove a bias, I have opposed my own staff's changes when they even had the appearance of bias. When Mr. Z-man made corrections and RKessel restored something Mr. Z-man deleted, I asked him to revert his changes to not interfere with Mr. Z-man's attempts to help neutralize the article. Further, the fact that I use my own name as my user name should be a clear indication that I am not trying to hide anything. Everyone who reads this page can see who I am. There is no way for anyone to know for sure who Realkyhick and Z-man really are. (Not that anyone should. If I were in your positions, I would prefer to keep my legal identity under wraps.)

Finally, the Charleston news article that notes the existence of Vision Magazine also identifies its focus as being on multimedia, and it quotes me in my position with the magazine as an authority on the subject. Given the fact that the article doesn't attempt to describe much more than this, I believe it is inaccurate to discount the validity of the reference for these purposes.

Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion on this matter. I don't dispute that I have a vested interest in the subject, but that doesn't mean I can't squelch bias. I believe I have acted fairly and reasonably for the betterment of the community. I leave it to this community to judge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimMiller (talk • contribs) 05:17, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Comment: First of all, Jim, thank you for your forthrightness. However, there's a difference between "merely participating in" and have direct managerial involvement. You are writing about a magazine that you run, not merely one you work for. That's a different level entirely. Then there's the issue of notability, as recognized by other reliable sources, and of verifiability. I realize that church media is a niche subject overall — I used to work on the media staff of a large church, and still run video/computer screens each Sunday — but it is not so small a niche that your publication would not be recognized by others if it were notable. The source you cited is OK, but it would be better if there were a link to an online version of it so we could verify it. Circulation figures might help too, though we would likely have to take your word for those under the circumstances. Realkyhick 09:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position, Realkyhick. Vision is an emerging publication in an emerging field. It may not be our time yet for encyclopedic content. I would like to make a point concerning the use of the word "merely" in your response, if I may do so respectfully. I believe you may have used the word out of context. (It is an honest mistake.) In the COI notice, the context for "merely" applies to the fact of involvement, not the level of involvement. A paraphrase of this statement might be: "The fact that you are participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest." In your distinction between participation and direct managerial involvement, you attached a value to the word "merely" that is not indicated in the original statement and in fact contradicts the spirit of the statement. The purpose of that statement, as I see it, is to serve as a caution for those who have a potential conflict of interest, not an automatic disqualifier. Whether or not this bolsters my case on this article, I would urge all editors to note this distinction when addressing COI issues. The first question when the possibility of COI arises should be this: If anyone else had written this article as it is, would you accept it? Those who would attempt to take advantage of COI would likely violate other principles of Wikipedia (as I myself did when I was a Wikinoob, and as the original posting certainly did before I began hacking away at it).

You mentioned circulation. Our ezine is circulated to 7500 church leaders via email each week. We have about 20,000 page views each month on our website. (Internal page views deleted.) For what it's worth, if I were going to make up numbers, I'd make up some bigger ones.

If I may ask a question, how are other magazines verified? I spot checked several magazines such as Wired and Sound and Vision, and they cite their own "about" pages as references. Wired -- a national magazine with a relatively long life and much buzz -- could only manage to muster one reference apart from a footnote reference to their own cite. That one reference is a book, which may carry more weight than a newspaper article that quotes you as an authority, but my point is this: If Wired only has one reference, what hope is there for anything else?

I know this is a borderline case for more than one reason. This is a good discussion that I hope will benefit all who read it. I know I've learned from it. Thank you. JimMiller 15:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the author of the book (Gary Wolf, not the Gary K Wolf of Roger Rabbit fame) on which the Wired article is based was a staffer at the magazine, according to the Publisher's Weekly review of the book that appears on Amazon.com. [6] JimMiller 15:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:N. --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent references to establish notability per WP:N. --Alksub 00:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 00:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:N, WP:COI.(RookZERO 03:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. @pple 04:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Top 100 Games List[edit]

This has been an article here for 3+ years, but still lacks 3rd party reliable sources showing that this web "survey" is notable. It was tagged speedy, but given that it has had a fair amount of editing it probably belongs at afd instead. Carlossuarez46 22:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable text file, no third party references, and the ~~criticism~~controversy section is probably original thought. --Alksub 23:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability for this list Corpx 04:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keepwarpozio 12:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update, Citing sources Rewrite as recent period of the page, and citing all following information: Reliable sources, method, ranges of net games, based of sales? downloads? how many people playing or played the game(s)...... Roded86400 15:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the sources cited come from the website that seems to be part of the subject of an article. Per WP:RS, we need independent sources to prove notability and verifiability. --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very very weak keep, and delete if no half-decent sources are added by the end of this AfD. Italia^vivi 19:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still no reliable sources. But even if someone adds them, I don't see how we're going to meet WP:N. --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - the list is reasonably well-known, but fame is not notability, and there are no reliable sources. -- Whpq 16:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As of December 2005, 727 contributors have submitted 79,537 ratings. That does not sound like notability to me. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton[edit]

Listcruft. Apparently created to support some point or other, but not otherwise very informative since it contains no information about any of these translations -- "versions" is distinctly the wrong word -- other than their dates and un-explicated translators/editors. Another, correctable, flaw is that it's artificially inflated, with serial translations by the same parties listed separately, but that probably goes more to the point that's being aimed at here than anything else. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to TCC's AfD I would like to point out that this list has already been assembled by a Biblical scholar and quoted in a Catholic Magazine referenced at the bottom of the list.

The list is of interest to readers of the following articles: Tetragramaton, Septuagint (because most uses of YHVH in the NT are quotes from the Septuagint), New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures and Jehovah as well as many others dealing with the divine name or the New Testament.

There is a debate among bible translators and readers as to whether or not the Divine name was originally in the New Testament. While the List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton in no way proves any point it is important to allow readers to have access to the sum of human knowledge on the point.

Is the purpose of this list in line with what a Wikipedia List is?

In a word "Yes"

Information. This list contains valuable information not often assembled for readers information. And the list is arranged chronolgically which allows users to draw their own conclusions from the information.

Navigation. This list could be used as a navigation point for wiki articles about each Hebrew Translation of the New Testament and already points to a couple of the translators. More articles may already exist.

This is not List Cruft

The list was created to support several articles: Jehovah, Tetragrammaton in the New Testament, Tetragramaton and New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
Many readers interested in Bible Translation will be interested in this point.
The information is Scholarly and orderly
The information has been published in a Scholarly journal.
The list is quite long already and could be expanded to include many more members.
The list has a finite scope
The list contains dates, names of Translators and locations of copies
The information is both Scholarly and Encyclopedic.

What is this list?

not a dictionary
not original thought
not a soapbox
not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media file
not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site
not a directory
not a manual, guidebook, or textbook
not a crystal ball
not an indiscriminate collection of information
not censored yet

I cannot see how this list conflicts with such Wikipedia concepts as Original Thought, Soapboxing, Indiscriminate Collections of Information or Textbook-like behavior. Nor is this list a form of gaming or disruptive editing. The information presented has been assembled by Matteo Pierro and published in "Revista Biblica." Thus,I believe that this list is supported by outside evidence as a list of value to readers interested in the divine name in Jewish and Christian sources. Losing this list would diminish Wikipedia.

I don't mind if it needs a name change, generalisation of the name or additional information but it's a start of something interesting.

I am concerned that this AfD may be an attempt to protect a point of view. TCC has complained that the list is artificially inflated indicating his/her dislike of conclusions that could be drawn from a larger list.

Please be broad minded in your voting. I would propose some options to vote on: Keep, Delete, Move to "List of Translations of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton."

SV 06:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, please, especially if you're going to blather on at such length in the first place. I have no point to make except that there's no point to including this list. (And you must know perfectly well that this is not a pointy AFD. The other one which I nominated at virtually the same time, on which you have also commented, was arguing in favor of the point you accuse me of making here.) There's indeed nothing to be made of it either way except for whomever created the article in the first place. We are told nothing about the people making the translations or why they were made. Without that information a bare list is virtually useless.

I should also mention that we have not been given a reliable source for this material. The original article is not cited, but an English translation found on a Jehovah's Witnesses website. This group is obviously not neutral on the subject, and the original text itself cannot be verified.

But if all this is supposed to be is source material, it can be cited just like any other source. We do not typically create articles just to make a copy of sources. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should put the gloves back on. Words like "blather" lower the tone into ad hominem attacks. SV 04:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for me to lower the tone. You did that yourself quite effectively. And you need to read up on what an ad hominem attack is. It's not a personal insult, or anything perceived as a personal insult. It's the argument such as you are engaging in when you say things like, "TCC has identified his point of view as trinitarian, opposed to the idea of YHVH in the New Testament." Instead of engaging an argument directly, you try to disqualify the person presenting it somehow. As I said earlier in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (2nd nomination), argue on the merits or not at all.

"Blather" is a perfectly valid characterization of your contributions to this discussion. You are a fairly new user, so I suggest you take a look at a number of AFDs to see the relative terseness of how arguments are presented. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete the stuff in the article is not needed and is unimportant. basically, no one cares about it. ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓ ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) 09:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are there any Hebrew versions of the New Testament that don't have the "Tetragrammaton"? As I understand it, tetragrammaton is a 14 letter word for a word of 4 letters -- for Jehovah or Yahweh. What's the alternative in Hebrew to using the four letter version? And if all the Hebrew translations use that version, what's the point of the article?Mandsford 00:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The alternative is to not insert it at all. The original is written in Greek, and neither YHWH nor one of its Greek transliterations appears at all. You have to make a theological decision about when the Divine Name was intended in order to put it in. Any procedure of this sort is dodgy. In the 1st century the Name was not pronounced by anyone except the high priest, and only on the Day of Atonement. Since the usual substitute "Kyrios" occurs not in narration but only in people's speech, that's where you have to place it. In so doing you create a text where at least one person is saying something he is not in fact recorded as having said.
- Which is interesting, but IMO beside the point of the AFD. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 04:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 04:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth is this a Judaism-related deletion? The New Testament is a Christian text no matter what language it's translated into. I'm removing it out of courtesy to those who watch it so as not to clutter it up with irrelevant material -- which, to judge from SV's argumentation style, is going to be quite voluminous. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TCC has identified his point of view as trinitarian, opposed to the idea of YHVH in the New Testament. see Talk:Tetragrammaton in the New Testament Is TCC using this AfD to push a POV? SV 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is once again a presumption of bad faith, which I again demand you withdraw. Or should I urge everyone to discount anything you have to say on the grounds you're evidently JW? (This is not the same as impeaching sources as biased. I don't think any religious organization is interested in presenting anything other than their own POV. What we do on Wikipedia is -- or should be -- an entirely different matter.) "Opposition to the idea of YHVH in the New Testament" does not, in any event, have anything at all to do with Trinitarianism, as demonstrated by the vast majority of historical non-trinitarians who did not advocate redacting the New Testament. It is, instead, simple honesty about what the ancient texts we have actually say. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list serves no useful purpose, is nothing but a verbatim copy of material from elsewhere. I would support deletion.213.84.53.62 21:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give the editors a chance mate! The list is only a few days old there are other sources. SV 04:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not to the point. This is source material, not encyclopedia article material. It's the kind of thing we cite, not host. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I find that the content is sort of short and bare by itself, but if we merged it to Tetragrammaton in the New Testament, maybe this could be a reasonable compromise. bibliomaniac 15 Prepare to be deleted! 20:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 21:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is not paper. This is the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia cooler than paper encyclopedias. It is a compilation and listing of information that would be harder to find and sift through without the article. The subject does not interest me, but I can see that it might help someone down the line. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge very simple - this material fits into the Tetragrammaton page naturally. MarkBul 22:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Among Bible scholars, "version" is the accepted (and correct) term for a Bible translation. Hence "Authorized Version", "Douay-Rheims version" and so on. RandomCritic 15:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It is perfectly useless, as it is. It is not as if it were so long that it cannot be incorporated in a relevant article.--Goochelaar 18:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rather pointless, needs cleaning up regardless. Rehevkor 19:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this inclusion criteria is a very common way to categorise Bible versions. Most of these versions will eventually have articles of their own. John Vandenberg 01:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 an indiscriminate collection of information, especially useless information. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of self-referential songs[edit]

Throughout it all, this list remains to be nothing more than subtrivial list-cruft, failing the very basics of our WP:FIVE pillars. The previous two nominations have resulted in "no consensus", but it is my hope that the community has matured enough to reach a decision on what to do here, as nothing within the list constitutes encyclopedic material. Thank you for your time. Burntsauce 21:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete incomplete list that will never be complete. Nothing more than listcruft. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is an unreferenced indiscriminate collection of information. No evidence presented that anyone cares. Moreschi ^Talk 22:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To my mind, the important questions are: 1) is there anything in the literature about self-referential songs in general, and 2) what specific songs have been identified as self-referential in secondary sources? Without these, this is non-notable original research. Jakew 22:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To answer question 1: Here're some possible links from the last discussion: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you. I'm prepared to consider the concept of self reference in music and verse. Supposing that we were to keep this article in some form or other (and I'm not necessarily saying that we should), is a list of examples sourceable? Jakew 23:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The publication/copywriting of the song is the primary source. ~~There are a number of lyric sites that can serve as secondary sources. For example, [15]~~ Oops. Such sites clearly violate copyright protections. Rubioblanca 15:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assuming a site with copyright permissions was found, I'd still view it as a primary source. Assuming that the lyrics were accurate, the information is exactly the same as the source itself. Printed lyrics are no more a secondary source than a reproduction of a book. Jakew 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft. However per Jakew I would also support a more generic article on self reference. Dbromage [Talk] 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete making a list of songs, by what they mention in passing, is a list of loosely related info + pure trivia Corpx 04:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most lists will ever be complete if time is open ended, there will always be one more president and pope. The reference is the actual song lyric. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't understand what that means. MessedRocker (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Open ended collections/groups belong as a category. Lists are for finite sets of data. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not aware that lists are by definition finite. Is this a wikipedia rule/pillar I missed? I am new to this.Rubioblanca 23:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment its not a hard rule no, its common practice and in many essays. Re-read this "Is the list's criteria so open-ended as to welcome infinite results?" In this case, yes it is, because songs will always be written. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "The usefulness of lists in Wikipedia is very clear as it often provides the starting point for readers to research a particular subject" is the start of the second paragraph in this I believe that to be a valid purpose of this list. Typefaces are also always being invented (the 'good' example from the article also in paragraph 2) making that an open-ended list as well. Is the potential size of the list the biggest problem here? Would it make sense to propose a restriction that the song be from a notable artist? Rubioblanca 01:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment the fact that artists in said list should be notable should be a no brainer. Personally I think there shouldnt be any entries in the list that are redlinks. If you dont have an article yet, your likely not notable enough to be an entry in the list. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, potentially infinite listcruft, and an indiscriminate collection of information, which Wikipedia is not. --Core desat 06:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably fascinating material for a website somewhere, but not very encyclopedaic - somewhat subjective, potentially huge, and many of these songs aren't themselves very notable. Out! Brianyoumans 21:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, Premise: Self reference is a concept of interest in the philosphy of language. Argument: A list of self referential songs has merit in that context as a resource. If that is an agreeable assertion, then the list rises above the level of trivia and the information in the article should be retained. Rubioblanca 18:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC) — Rubioblanca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, people.... stuff like this is what Wikipedia excels in. Its what makes us different from other, regular, encyclopedias. This list has a very well-defined scope (hence it is NOT indiscriminate), making it absolutely not unmaintanable or infinite. The article could do with proper sourcing, but that is a request for improvement, not deletion. Also, categories are markedly different from lists. Lists are simply a different way of providing information and navigation through articles, they are complementary rather than redundant to categories. Also, nominating ONE month after the previous discussion with the main argument being "I hope that the community has matured enough" shows disrespect for the earlier discussions. I am not gonna argue about specific policies or WP:ANOTHERACRONYM. Lists like this make us what we are. We should be proud of this and improve, rather than delete anything that seems slightly out of the ordinary. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia may excel in non-encyclopedic trivia, but that sure as hell doesn't mean we should be encouraging it. This is precisely the type of infinite listcruft we should be avoiding if we ever hope to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia. RFerreira 22:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extraordinary that people keep wanting to delete material like this. This is one of the types of things that makes Wikipedia great. Sheesh. older ≠ wiser 02:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Saying WP:ILIKEIT is not really a valid argument. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC) See below[reply]

Weak Keep per Rubioblanca's notability comment and reference. Only one question: is there a copy vio issue here with the song lyrics, or does it constitute fair use? --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point. Excerpting songs for nonprofit educational purposes appears (not a copyright lawyer) to be fair use. However, none of the excerpts are fully attributed (which would include authorship of the lyrics as well as name of the copyright holder and date of copyright). That lack should be repaired. Rubioblanca 17:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How exactly does WP:NOT apply? If your point is that this falls under 2.9 as an "indiscriminate collection of information" then I respectfully disagree. The article Self-reference discusses the general topic. A list such as this is a useful adjunct to that topic. The criteria for inclusion in the list is clear and thus not indiscriminate. A google search for: phd thesis "self reference" yielded 160,000 results. My point earlier is that self reference is a major topic in philosophy (from Descartes to Derrida) and that this list is potentially useful in that context. As a new member of the community (this is my first topic), I don't understand the fervor for deletion. Is there an incentive to remove data from the Wikipedia? Rubioblanca 00:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in a word: yes. I agree that self-reference is a notable topic, which is probably why Wikipedia has an article about. But Wikipedia is not a collection of every possibly useful bit of information, it's an encyclopedia. Just because something is potentially useful to someone somewhere does not make it notable. (Ie, can we find impartial and reliable sources that discuss it?) --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~I don't how to make an external reference yet [Sorry]. If you Google: phd thesis "self reference" song; and look at the first result:~~ [16] Does that meet your criteria? There are a boatload of articles mentioned there, at least a few of which specifically discuss song and metalanguage. Rubioblanca 02:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, I think it does. I wonder whether it would be worth including a brief introduction to the list (and include that as a ref), or if that would run afoul of formatting issues. In any event, I'm happy enough about notability now. --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Similarly WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion either. The list is hardly indiscriminate--the criteria for inclusion is pretty clear. And while the list will never be "complete", that in no way means it would be better as a category. older ≠ wiser 02:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally indiscriminate list. DWaterson 23:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although this list approaches the listcruft definition line, it does not cross it. The Wikipedia definition of listcruft includes “Lists of songs containing the sound of a woodpecker.” If there was such a woodpecker list, then the list of other lists would be pretty infinite: songs with thrushes singing, with robins tweeting, cows mooing, frogs croaking, and so on. These lists would be listcruft and probably would only be of serious use to a collector of amusing lists. However, I believe a list of self referential songs is different in that it serves a proper encyclopedic purpose. I can imagine someone undertaking serious research being appreciative of finding such a list. Wikipedia has approaching 2,000,000 English language articles, when it is at 20,000,000 or 100,000,000, some will be on major issues that will be referred to constantly and some will be on pretty obscure subjects. This article may be at the obscure end of the spectrum, but is a learnéd and valid contribution. Rickedmo 02:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Where else will I get this information? Reubot 07:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Wikipedia is the prmiary source for this, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be a primary source. You mis-spelled delete, by the way, since your argument indicates that the article fails policy. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You can get it from a category. --MagneticFlux 17:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm usually an inclusionist and would usually support something like this but this is cruft on crack. It would be one thing if we were going by titles but to micromanage the lyrics to find one bit of self reference is just going too far. MrMurph101 18:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I don't see how this list could be useful. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can a passer-by's opinion help? I chanced upon this article, am interested in metafiction and self-referentiality in general, and found it handy. --Kizor 08:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per Reinoutr. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 22:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:NOT. Talk about an indiscriminate list. JasonCNJ 19:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is the very model of self-referential cruftery. This is a canonical example of a loosely associated collection of information, and in most cases the definition of self-reference lies with an editor who may or may not understand what self-reference means, and it may or may not be a significant part of the song. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, however, IMO, the article is still weak and doesn't explain the band's notability. They are from St. Louis, they formed in 1999 and had a 4 year hiatus. They have toured and they had an album. Perhaps work on expanding the prose, and explain why the band is notable could help. Remember, we are an encyclopedia, so aim for writing an encyclopedia entry. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honeytribe[edit]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC except may possibly meet the disputed national tour criterion if it's covered notably. Carlossuarez46 21:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see the one interview there was removed, but they have been covered in several other places. [17] [18] [19]

[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] In addition to a tour in the US [25] and Canada.[26] Me5000 22:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barely Keep I think this one gets in by the short hairs. Last time I checked, Canada was a sovereign nation, so it passes the WP:MUSIC test. Also, the minimun of citations are there. I'd say delete but by the rules they get in. MarkBul 22:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added content and sources to the article, found that they also toured Europe, [27] [28]and found more sources that have covered them.

[29] [30] [31] [32] [33] Me5000 00:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added more content and 11 sources total, does the article still fail WP:music? Me5000 19:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple reviews and toured internationally; passed WP:BAND. John Vandenberg 01:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 19:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carnival Ride[edit]

~~Unconformed album, can't find any offical sources, basicly it's just WP:CRYSTAL.~~ --Caldorwards4 21:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing my vote now that sources have been found. --Caldorwards4 08:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Why? Because unless it's more than a rumor, it is not encyclopedic. If, perchance someone could confirm the rumor and show a link here or on the talk page, that would be different.~~

Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to KEEP per User talk:24.211.19.240 and thanks. Why do they make it so hard to find and link too? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as unsourced album, violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as crystal ball material. Can easily be recreated if the article was actually true. Pharmboy 00:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Delete withdrawn. Should have been properly sourced to start, and KEEP crowd should learn to [don't be a dick] about other people's noms. Like 12 year olds. Pharmboy 20:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP it's confirmed.. um, check her label's website. Jrecords.com - can't link to it because the url always remains jrecords.com, but click releases on the top bar and then on the upcoming releases section, just scroll down.. pretty obviously official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.19.240 (talk) 03:36, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Information builds along as the days pass by. It would be pointless deleting this article for the 2nd time. Now we have the name of the album and it's in her record label's website. Bull Borgnine 15:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a link? Does the source meet WP:V? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The name and release date of the album is on the studio website [34]. DCEdwards1966 18:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Hmm the link provided does not seem to mention Carnival Ride that I can see. God I hate websites that automatically play music. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

I am happy to read about Ultimate Santana, though. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Google search for +"Carnival Ride" +" Carrie Underwood" +"release date" only yeilds 3 blogs/forums. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

*Delete until there is a source. - eo 23:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then wouldn't that be keep since a source has already been provided? DCEdwards1966 01:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.... change to Keep - obviously there are appropriate sources now. - eo 13:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP* stop doing this crap. there IS a source. it's just not possible to link to it due to the nature of the website. JRECORDS.com the top nav bar has a link that says Releases. click it and then where it says "upcoming releases" carrie is listed with carnival ride for 10/23... does anybody actually think that's not good enough? this is a pretty anticipated album, having the page makes perfect sense since it IS confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.19.240 (talk) 00:46, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I agree! Wow, you are the first person to post such a strong response. XD He's right, the website might be running with Java or Flash, so it's not possible to see the link. Stop trying to delete the article... it really gets kind of annoying, besides seeing all the scratching on every reply. [Except mine =D] Bull Borgnine 03:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So sorry you may find the AfD process "annoying", but this is an encyclopedia, not a Carrie Underwood fan site. We need reliable sources for articles and this kind of thing happens a lot with anticipated future music release articles. Wikipedia is not the place to throw unsourced rumors into articles... this includes grabbing information from fan-created websites, gossip pages and message boards. If people are so adamant about creating articles for future albums and singles then they need to be providing a reliable source - and not one that requires the reader to click through 25 screens, enter search engine criteria or register their personal information to get the results. If her record label has put the album on their release schedule with the title Carnival Ride or if Underwood's official website announces the album with that title, then these are the types of sources that prompt people to vote "Keep". - eo 11:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't find it annoying at all, but only when people want to delete an article for the second time. Have you noticed I used a the instead of generalizing? I was here in the first AfD "process" of this article, when it was untitled. I replied putting a Billboard link, which is a very reliable source, but the article got deleted anyway. But you are right, Billboard didn't have the album's name, so I suppose it's not a reliable source, yet it had its expected release date. Now we say there's a link and we can't show it to you because it's in Java or Flash, and it's Carrie Underwood's record label's official website. So just because people can't click on releases it's not reliable either...? And I really doubt that ARISTA is a Carrie Underwood fan website... I'm just sure of it! XD Bull Borgnine 15:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Agree with Bull Borgnine, information posted at Arista's Carrie Underwood page — and quite possibly Carrie's official site as well — I don't think are fansites. That said, I wonder if a discussion on the general topic of articles for albums to be released should go elsewhere (if it hasn't already); that's where I see this discussion headed. [[Briguy52748 17:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Speedy keep as it has been sourced. CrazyC83 23:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Keep There's been a press release with cover art. http://aristanashville.com/pressreleases/details.cfm?artistid=1000011&pressid=1000307

Let's face it, there's no reason to be having this debate anymore. DGR 02:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not remove the AfD notice until this AfD is over. I have restored the template. Acalamari 18:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletionists run amok. Wasted Time R 18:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty much everything is sourced. Smokizzy (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep Everything is sourced now, it has been confirmed that it is her second album. The source is here. Omghgomg 07:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When can we remove the Afd tag? σмgн gσмg 12:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 19:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Brewer[edit]

generally unsourced BLP, with some asserted - but not verified - notability so not a speedy candidate, so I bring it here. Carlossuarez46 21:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I must have missed the assertion of notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real assertion of notability. If the charity and business she started aren't notable (enough to have their own articles) then how can their creator be? Oli Filth 21:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seems to be very little coverage in third-party sources, so little evidence of notability per WP:BIO and sourcing per requirements of WP:BLP may be unachievable. Jakew 22:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Washington State Route 99. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Way (Everett)[edit]

Every city has a set of urban arterials; what makes this one special? The only notability it has would stem from the fact that it was once part of U.S. 99 (though certainly not in the early 1800s!) I don't believe this makes it notable enough, hence, delete. —Scott5114 ↗ 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per polaran. If it's interesting enough for someone to look for it here, the redirect will suffice. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge content to Washington State Route 99. It is already mentioned there. --Polaron | Talk 21:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This was created two days before it was submitted for AfD. I don't know the road, but it's possible that it is notable. Small residential streets are not notable, but main city streets may be - give the page a chance to grow. MarkBul 22:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Polaron. Not notable. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Polaron and Rkitko. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 05:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 23:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From someone who lives in the area and just drove on the road today, the problem with merging the article into the Washington State Route 99 is that very little, if any, of SR 99 actually runs on Evergreen way (the portion which is Highway 99 being signed as such instead of Evergreen Way, which is only designated as such after SR 99 is diverted on to Everett Mall Way, which is long before Evergreen Way ends (it extends another several miles without a designation into the northern areas of Everett.) While it is a heavily travelled thoroughfare in Everett, so are a lot of other roads. The only notability would be a point of reference for locals. The Artak 06:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acuvate[edit]

Started as a neologism dicdef, then rewritten as a corporation article with no assertion of notability. Alksub 21:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, company article with no content and no assertion of notability. So tagged. --Dhartung | Talk 21:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, advert, empty. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 19:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Ross & DJ Kroink: We Are The South (The Reel South)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 21:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Google. Empty Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With only about 25 googlehits, not all related to the subject, I doubt the subject meets notability requirements and note no verifaiable sources that subject has encyclopedic signficance. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree fails WP:MUSIC. By the way Dlohcierekim, WP:GOOGLEHITS. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 14:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Hoggan & Associates[edit]

Delete nn company, fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless third-party sources can be found. Currently only two are cited, one blog and one press release. Jakew 21:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I found some questionable sources. [35] [36] But seems to be no notable. Carlosguitar 00:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: This PR piece about a PR firm qualifies as WP:SPAM. --Gavin Collins 12:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Mario characters[edit]

This isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. Pretty much all of the important information is covered in the plot summaries in the associated game articles. The rest is quite trivial. — Malcolm (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge trivia with other information. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Mario series characters.--PrestonH 04:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per PrestonH. Shoester 06:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This provides characters on the whole series, and includes characters NOT on the individual articles of the games in the series. C. Pineda 20:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to a suitable article. Nothing from it needs to be merged anywhere, and it certainly doesn't need to stand on its own. TTN 19:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; I find it somewhat trivial how an article covering characters in a game trilogy is being nominated for deletion, and those LoZ, MOTHER, Metal Gear, etc. articles covering the characters appearing in one game are untouched. (Characters in TLoZ: ALttP for example) -- Lord Crayak

You're entitled to your opinion, but it could fall under WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I'd suport the deletion of most other articles like this, too. — Malcolm (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or whatever then. -- Lord Crayak

KEEP: The article includes information that is not found in the main game articles themselves and goes into more important details about the characters. 75.185.101.79 18:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shorten the information on party members, then merge to their respective game article. I doubt the rest need to go anywhere. You Can 't Review Me!!! 18:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, List of Mario series characters is too broad for this series, and most of the associated game articles have this article as their main article for the characters, so in the very least a merge back is required, but that would need to be thought out properly, and nobody has provided a clear approach here. John Vandenberg 01:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 19:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Bright[edit]

non-notable company. Google news search finds no sources. Page reads like an advertisement New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 20:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, largely because the advertising tone violates WP:NPOV. If neutral sources can be found, the company looks notable: 50 years old, and it sells goods internationally. Shalom ^Hello 02:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article presents no independent evidence of notability per WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins 12:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Andrew c ^[talk] 02:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FreethoughtMedia[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. Not notable, no references. Hornet35 20:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. _TheIslander 22:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reginald_Vaughn_Finley,_Sr. i.e. The Infidel Guy under a "Projects" section and redirect this article link to same. Ttiotsw 08:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Notability is attached to finley rather than the organisation. ornis (t) 08:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above Lurker (said · done) 09:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Weak Delete Not notable on its own.PelleSmith 11:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Weak Merge As stated above, not notable on its own. Sapienz 12:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Infidel Guy's page. Italia^vivi 19:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseth Moore[edit]

Not notable person, not elected to office, or subject a serious biography Mbisanz 20:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minor local coverage, some for a confusing "incident", presenting BLP problems even if he were clearly notable, which he isn't. --Dhartung | Talk 21:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see any real coverage for his books or his activities as a delegate Corpx 04:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he's a published author with several novels in print and while I'll agree that the article is poorly written that's a strong case for editing, not deletion. - Dravecky 19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The books are self-published through Authorhouse, his other accomplishments are minimal. I'm sure he's an interesting fellow, but he doesn't need a Wikipedia article. Brianyoumans 15:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - novels are self-published with no indication of any critical review, and only minor coverage or mention in press on his activism. -- Whpq 16:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of placenames containing the word "new"[edit]

Its an unencyclopedic list. See WP:NOT#DIR New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 20:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ridiculous waste of time. Imagine the slippery slope if we keep this. What's next, "list of placenames containing vowels"? Tendancer 20:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT#DIR.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 20:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Tbo_157. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomj (talk • contribs) 21:12, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete Nothing new here, but it could have been made an interesting article if there were more to it than the indiscriminate blue links. Naples (Neopolis), Novgorod, New Town all mean the same thing, and there was an "old" Jersey, Orleans, England, Mexico, York, etc. before the new ones were founded. As it is, however, it really is just a list of placenames containing the word "new", just like it says. Who knew? Mandsford 21:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list has been around for long time. Deleting it now is deletion for the deletion, and of no use. As Mandsford states, adding some background would enhance the article. LHOON 21:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Survival does not grant notability. Which means

Delete. MarkBul 22:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - directory of non-associated topics with nothing in common past a coincidence of name. Otto4711 22:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Mandsford. A more general article and list might have a point, but this one does not. DGG (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm surprised it's survived for so long. WP:NOT#INFO. Shalom ^Hello 02:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More pointless and indiscriminate than any list I've seen in a while. Crazysuit 02:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random list. - Shudde ^talk 03:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per list of loosely associated topics. Sharing a word in the name is not a strong relation between these places Corpx 04:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One option could be to replace the article by a category placenames containing the word new ... LHOON —Preceding unsigned comment added by LHOON (talk • contribs) 05:07, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unmaintainable. LHOON got a good option. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 05:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmaintainable, unrelated mess. Shoester 06:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly unmaintainable listcruft and a textbook example of why even legitimate list articles are having a hard time surviving on Wikipedia. 23skidoo 16:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP THis is a cool page!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morspecs911 (talk • contribs) , August 28, 2007
Delete as an indiscriminate list. It's probably as indiscriminate as a list of all placenames containing the words "North", "South", "East", or "West". --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt (using cascading protection).--Fuhghettaboutit 09:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nine ix lives[edit]

Delete possibly meets only criteria 4 because of their international or national tour including both Belfast and venues in the Republic of Ireland - if this tour was covered in reliable sources (not in the article). Criteria 4 has been hotly debated and is even footnoted in the guideline as disputed. If that's the only claim to notability for this group, even if the sources that the tour actually happened are found, the article ought to be deleted. Otherwise, the trick to having a WP article - bands now listen up - is do a national tour of Liechtenstein or Monaco and get in their local papers. Carlossuarez46 20:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability past a tour (which doesn't even have a reliable source). No way this passes WP:MUSIC. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt has been previously deleted twice already and was up for speedy again today until AFD came about. Fails WP:MUSIC miserably. Jauerback 20:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Jauerback--WebHamster 20:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 14:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Belisle[edit]

Delete superintendent of schools for a medium sized city even if he has a school named after him is not meeting WP:N. Carlossuarez46 20:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all notable. A lot of schools name their school after a famous principal, staff worker, or superintendent. FamicomJL 20:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. NHRHS2010^Talk 20:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 21:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim to notability under WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 21:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 23:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete Listing in Who's Who in America (Who Was Who in America. A component of Who's Who in American History. Volume 3, 1951-1960. Chicago: Marquis Who's Who, 1966. (WhAm 3)) Kate Davis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akatie (talk • contribs) 12:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hill College House[edit]

Was tagged speedy and contested; it's a dorm that was originally designed by Eero Saarinen. He's notable, but the dorm doesn't seem to me any more notable than the usual dorm. Is every building by a notable architect inherently notable or must they still pass WP:N? I think that they must and this doesn't. Carlossuarez46 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The building itself may be mildly notable. I found two refs that appear to be about it. Jakew 21:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep on the basis of those refs. I think it quite likely that every major building designed by a famous architect is notable, as articles and book chapters tend to be written about every one of their major works. I wouldn't like to say it as a general principle, though. DGG (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think that we need more definitive evidence as to the notability of this dorm. TerriersFan 02:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage from independent sources. I really dont think we should have articles for every dorm on every campus - Too much directory information. Maybe merge into Campus Housing at UPenn Corpx 04:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As written, the article is less about Saarinen's work and more about a dorm. If it is kept, it needs to lose the dormcruft aspect and emphasize its architecture. Unfortunately, I don't have much on Saarinen in my library, or I'd give it a rehab. In general, under proposed (but never adopted) guidelines for architectural notability [37], this building would qualify. Even so, some buildings by notable architects shouldn't qualify - for instance, Frank Gehry did some unfortunate strip malls early in his career that wouldn't, in good conscience, pass notability criteria. Hill House, however, was a semi-major work from the peak of Saarinen's career, using a design element (an atrium) that was unusual for the time. ... I'll take some pruning shears to the article and we'll see what's left. Acroterion _(talk) 12:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on references and a Eero Saarinen designed house is notable. Yes, some notable architects designed some non-notable dogs (i.e. the Gehry strip mall example above), but this major project isn't one of those. --Oakshade 23:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It doesn't appear to be the most famous building designed by Eero Saarinen, but the building has features that distinguish it from other college dorms. The large atrium, rough brick exterior, and a symbolic "drawbridge" are elements that you won't find just anywhere. This article says that the house was recognized as an architectural masterpiece when it was built. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Acroterion (and his edits). --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 teetered between 'keep' and 'no consensus' as a) a significant contribution to the original nomination had been fixed by the end of the AFD period and b) both outright Delete opinions are based on the notion that this is trivial information indiscriminately organized, neither of which is the case. However, concerns about sourcing are legitimate as the three indicated sources are data repositories good for verifiability but not really well suited for establishing notability of individual entries or the topic as a whole. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juggling world records[edit]

Disaster of a page. Seems to be an indiscriminate list, almost entirely unsourced, or "personal claims". I guess the page could be cleaned up, but there'd be very little left. Oli Filth 19:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. Guinness World Records has a section on juggling, and they, too, enforce a standard of notability (not the same as ours, but it counts). I believe Wikipedia should have an article on this subject. Shalom ^Hello 20:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is wiki going to be a mirror for Guiness now? This kind of stuff is what Guiness World Records themselves are for, not here. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Tendancer 20:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Even if this had sources it would fail WP:FIVE as trivial information. Any records of note can be mentioned in the juggling article instead. Burntsauce 20:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hesitant Keep. I agree that this article is tending toward being a repository of trivial information, but at least in the juggling world the notability of these records is very relevant. Now that the "personal claim" records have been eliminated, and the persistent spammer has been blocked, I think that the page is in much better condition. I agree with Shalom--let's leave the article, but keep an eye out for trivial additions and work towards making the article more encyclopedic. Regards, Rahzel 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I removed all of the "personal claims" and records "without publicly available evidence." However it still remains a list of records which seem to be mostly posted on one website. So while it may not be as bad as it was before, I'd still be hesitant to keep it. Fightindaman 00:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikisource. I think these sort of collection of records/statistics are more appropriate for there, in my opinion Corpx 04:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is not trivial for people wanting to know about juggling. Guiness is a primary source. This content isnt appropriate for Wikisource, as it isnt a single "work". John Vandenberg 01:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reynaldo aquitania[edit]

First tagged for DB-BIO. De-tagged by creator. As article claims subject invented Wild Cherry flavor for Life Savers, I gave the benefit of the doubt and prodded, asking for verifaible sources. Creator de-prodded without any sourcing or mention of a verifiable source. So here we are. I only get 2 unrelated google hits Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The deceased subject appears to have been a flavorist in the Society of Flavor Chemists, (which does not have its own article). He seems to have been a leading light within that organisation, but notability has not been demonstrated in the article. — BillC ^talk 20:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. NHRHS2010^Talk 20:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless sourced. He might possibly be notable, but we need some more information.DGG (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --GreenJoe 20:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 19:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raed Mehsen[edit]

The article as it stands does not ascertain notability. If one's notability is based on starring on a redlinked film, then the actor's probably not notable. Wizardman 19:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shalom ^Hello 20:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed this guy fails WP:BIO. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Given the multiple postings, I have salted as well using cascading protection.--Fuhghettaboutit 09:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theory Of New Sinology[edit]

Article has been speedily deleted several times (by me). Text dump of some essay (presumedly written by the creator of this article); Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought/research, nor a soapbox. Regardless of whther it is actually a speedy candidate (and it should be), strong delete. - Mike Rosoft 19:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I note that the author has actually made some attempt at wikification but it is still original research / spam for the author's website. -- RHaworth 19:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Oli Filth 19:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOR. Sandstein 19:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May I suggest to the creator of this article to provide his/her expertise on the main article on Sinology, with appropriate sourcing, of course. This topic does not currently pass muster as a stand-alone article as it does appear to be a wholly unreferenced text dump that has not really been wikified. I'd be willing to bet that this article isn't entirely OR, and that content would be an asset to existing articles relating to the topic. LaMenta3 19:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above : the Sinology article gets the tone right, and cites appropriate sources. Further, it's not a large article by any means, so there's some scope to add a theory section there. --Oscarthecat 20:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. I prod'ded the first incarnation of this article under the title Brief Introduction Of New Sinology--article has since been speedied twice under the original title and four times under the current title. --Finngall ^talk 21:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Could probably be speedied again but let the AfD run so CSD G4 will apply in future. Dbromage [Talk] 01:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam OR. Salt as well. Although, I agree that the author should try to contribute to the existing Sinology article instead. —Travis ^talk 01:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No single book i could find dealing w/ 'Neo'. - GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 05:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author Sinology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 48 hours for repeated reposting of this article. Shortly afterwards a sock account (NewSinology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) posted the essay again as New sinology. Oli Filth kindly rediected it to this article and gave the sock an "only warning". --Finngall ^talk 15:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And I have permanently blocked the sockpuppet account and extended the main account's block to one week; use of sockpuppet accounts to avoid a block and re-post an inappropriate article is not something I appreciate. - Mike Rosoft 07:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete with no prejudice to re-creation when more information is available. WP:CSB can't override policy here, and a Western film with nothing but an IMDB listing would also fall prey to this. ELIMINATORJR 18:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paco and the Magical Picture Book[edit]

Page on an "forthcoming" movie, with IMDB as the only source. IMDB is not a reliable source, though. So, without reliable sources, this is very much a WP:CRYSTAL page, IMHO. TexasAndroid 19:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have a confirmed movie that is filming, by a well known Japaneses director with three of the cast noteworthy enough to have their own wiki articles. And now IMDB is a crystal ball?

How does deleting a stub which passes WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOTE, of a future event that we currently have little information on make a better encyclopedia?Sethie 19:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands, this doesn't warrant its own article. And there seems to be very little else out there with more details, right now. --Oscarthecat 20:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. Have to be careful this doesn't fall victim to systematic bias. As it stands the article the article fails WP:V and WP:RS. IMDB on its own isn't reliable enough, but I have no reason to doubt that the movie is confirmed and noteworthy. Presumably media references can be added, even if they are in Japanese. Dbromage [Talk] 01:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to cry "cultural bias" even though I was thinking it... and I'm glad you did. Sethie 17:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I found a page for an upcoming American film that was as badly sourced as this one I would have AFDed it just as fast. "Cultural bias" played zero role in this situation. The article as it stands fails verifyability standards, it's as simple as that, nothing more. - TexasAndroid 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Despite the assertion above that reliable Japanese sources exist, there's nothing here or in the article. If IMDB is the only source that we have on hand, then I'd agree to delete it for the time being.--Chaser - T 17:33, 5 September 2007 (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 Keep. Nomination withdrawn. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 05:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X tax[edit]

Prod removed a year ago, so not eligiable for re-prod. Not really a speedy candidate. No assertion of notability. No sourced. The linked economist was just deleted as an A7 speedy. So IMHO nothing here really worth keeping. TexasAndroid 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X it out: Unsourced, orphaned stub. RGTraynor 18:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy - per the above. Unverified. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep We need to be sure about what we are talking here. These kind of subjects are not Pokemon-like ones guys.

Tax Planning Under The Flat Tax/X-Tax a paper by americantaxpolicyinstitute.org
Beyond Bush: A Simple Plan to Tax Consumption an article by Business Week
The X Tax in the World Economy by David Bradford, a notable Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School Professor. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 06:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, no, one doesn't need economics expertise (the concept about which, as a subscriber to The Economist, I'm chuckling) to identify obscure stubs that lack sources, assertions of notability or text. If you'd like to apply your expertise to expanding the article to something useable, feel free. RGTraynor 12:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand - there are enough sources and notability to create a decent article on the topic. There is also a lot of research on VAT taxation that could be interwoven into the article in regard to tax policy effects, criticism, etc. This article is in line with other tax reform proposals in the U.S. such as Competitive Tax Plan, Efficient Taxation of Income, Flat tax, and FairTax. Morphh ^(talk) 12:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I started an expansion. Morphh ^(talk) 13:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominator changing opinion. The article as it now stands is far from the unsourced stub that I nominated originally. - TexasAndroid 13:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G7 (put up for deletion by original author). ugen64 18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bussey[edit]

Non-notable footballer. Has never played in a professional league. Mattythewhite 18:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Notable enough. The club he plays for is professional. The sunder king 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the usual "hasn't played professional" criterion. Move along. The Rambling Man 18:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave my article alone, now. The leagues actually are professional because they are notable The sunder king 18:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OWN. Nobody owns an article. Mattythewhite 18:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. Okay, but just stop it. I think it can survive on wikipedia. It has references, and is well written. The sunder king 18:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the opinion I used to have in my early days. But I'm sorry, it fails WP:BIO. Mattythewhite 18:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. He is notable, and I mean it. The sunder king 18:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Does not meet the requirement of WP:BIO that he should "...have played in a fully professional league...", which is determined by WP:FOOTBALL to be the Premier League, the Championship, League One and Football League Two in England. Nick Bussey does not come anywhere near to meeting this. --Malcolmxl5 18:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close- put up for CSD a7 by me. For stopping you pratts from pratting me around. The sunder king 18:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil, sunder king. --Malcolmxl5 18:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of it. Are you happy now? Now I need someone other than User:Hal who can teach me the wikipedia policies. The sunder king 18:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think we are doing this to annoy you? I'm just going by Wikipedia guidelines! Dude, keep cool. You need to discuss things. Mattythewhite 18:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did think under those lines yes. I also felt annoyed at when they ruined your Requests for adminship, and I still believe you meet the criteria. Wikipedia policies are annoying. The sunder king 18:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly can be, but we have to get on with things the best we can. Mattythewhite 18:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dover Bluff Road[edit]

There's probably a quadrillion county roads out there, thousands of which connect two communities. Without a number and a shield, there's not much to set Dover Bluff Rd. apart from any other. Delete as non-notable. —Scott5114 ↗ 17:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability and we're not a directory of county roads. I can see notability for interstate highways, but county roads? Corpx 17:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. No notability asserted whatsoever. _TheIslander 18:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability demonstrated. --HowardSF-U-T-C- 00:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A county road that connects two communities. --Oakshade 03:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but to cite an example near me, Drummond Road connects Wanette and Byars, Oklahoma, in separate counties, and even has a bridge from the 1900s along it, but you've never heard of it, because it's just a little paved road that winds through the countryside. It's just not notable. Also, nearly any road that doesn't have a stub end could be included within a routing connecting two communities if you don't draw it directly :) —Scott5114 ↗ 05:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I see no reason why this is notable. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 23:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phi DeKappa[edit]

No episode by this name or even with this general plot synopsis (Ep 15 is sort of close) ever existed. There is no content here anyway. Oren0 17:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EPISODE - whether or not this is real, it is lacking coverage from reliable sources Corpx 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Psych episodes, which is in need of heavy changes). Going here:[38], shows us that it is in fact a real episode, just not stated in the list. --Patar knight 22:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to tell you that Yahoo is misinformed (Psych wasn't even debuting new episodes last November, it was on hiatus from August to January). I believe the Psych official site and TV.com are better authorities. The episode that this page is supposed to be referring to is "Scary Sherry: Bianca's Toast". I don't know why you want to merge, I don't see any content here that isn't already on the List of Psych episodes page. Oren0 05:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge if information is not present). Yahoo was not misinformed. After a bit of research and going here: [39] shows that Phi DeKappa was the working name for the very episode that you described, "Scary Sherry: Bianca's Toast". Since this article contains minimal content, it should be deleted, or if the information is deemed relevant enough to be added to List of Psych episodes, then it should be. --Patar knight 15:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Per Patar knight's reasoning. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If in fact it is not a real episode. If it is, merge and redirect to the list. i ^said 02:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Greene[edit]

this is a vanity page, maintained by the subject himself under the user name "profg" Despaminator 17:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Losing Congressional candidate, otherwise best known for a website rankning ~1.7M on Alexa. Not much here. --Dhartung | Talk 17:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Getting 3% of the votes tells me that he was not a serious candidate and hosting a local radio show is also not a claim to notability Corpx 17:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No particular claim to notability other than a by-election at which he came in sixth with sixteen hundred votes. Six months as a local talk show host? A so-called "PhD" from a diploma mill? This is reaching, badly. Ravenswing 18:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NHRHS2010^Talk 20:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the subject of this article, I was as surprised as anyone to discover it here; it is not a vanity page, for I did not create it. However, I have attempted to correct and update it as often as necessary, as I have noticed one particularly biased individual from North Carolina has repeatedly included incorrect and/or misleading information. In response to a couple of the comments here: I don't just have a website with low Alexa "rankning", that website is the homepage of the grassroots activist organization I head up, which currently has one million members/subscribers (email-based, not web-based). I was not just a "local talk show host," our talk show was broadcast nationwide and distributed even further via webcasting and podcasting. Again, I am fairly indifferent as to whether the article is deleted or not; however, I will continue to correct it if biased and inaccurate information is inserted. --profg 22:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the article, he earned an ABD. Reminds me of the legendary title, so and so, B.A. (failed). DGG (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addenda. I have to add, that the original reason that this article was recommended for deletion - that "this is a vanity page" - is actually not allowed as a reason for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion - 7.1 How to discuss an AfD - "The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided [40], and is not in itself a reason for deletion.") As a result, I recommend that the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator. In addition, in response to the above comment, ABD is a valid title, as the Wikipedia link in the article itself shows. --profg 17:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Indeed, that is correct, but matched that with a failure to meet the standards of WP:BIO, and there you have it. Ravenswing 18:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Again, it doesn't matter much to me whether a Wikipedia article about me is deleted (honestly, there are New York Times articles on me I would love to see deleted, as incredibly biased and non-factual as they are), but I have to ask: in what way is there a failure to meet the standards of WP:BIO? Just saying it doesn't make it so. If the article does not assert or demonstrate notability, then delete this discussion, and use the {{db-bio}} tag to request speedy deletion. If this article doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but is an "uncontroversial deletion candidate," then use the {{prod}} tag. It just looks to me like this article was nominated for the WP:AFD process without merit on the original basis ("vanity"). --profg 13:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and DGG. Bearian 19:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I think his notability rests pretty much on RightMarch.org. I think this article should be deleted, but the material could be part of an article on RightMarch.org. There are plenty of references to the site online, and the organization raised over $100K last year, according to OpenSecrets.org - not huge, but not nothing either. Brianyoumans 16:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The subject is notable and sources were found. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 01:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Margo (soap)[edit]

NN brand of soap, no assertion of notability, borderline spam. Tevildo 17:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, preferably a product will be covered in the article about the company, but two apparently reliable sources turned up in the first five google hits. [41][42] --Dhartung | Talk 17:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more coverage found on Google News Corpx 17:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung and Corpx, maybe create a page on the company. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Corpx and Dhartung this one just needs expansion, the notability is evident. Burntsauce 20:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree it has sources so Keep it. Anybody wanta Snow this discussion. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I do, I do :-) --Boricuaeddie 01:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 01:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffyverse tracklist[edit]

Delete - for the same reasons that many other song lists from TV shows were deleted, including The Office (US), The Office (UK), House, Skins, and many others. Directory of loosely associated items. Otto4711 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is a list of songs that were played in a TV show. Completely in universe plot information with no real world notability. Transwiki to [Buffyverse] if deemed appropriate. We shouldnt get in the business of documenting every song ever played on any TV show Corpx 17:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, because incredibly extensive, well-organized article about a notable show. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is more than just a list of songs played in a TV show, but rather a list that has been sorted by episode. This is in some ways equivalent to the score of a TV show, and in other ways, a notable marketing tool. [43] and there are others. At the least though, this might be redirected to the existing soundtrack.FrozenPurpleCube 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It almost seems a shame to edge towards delete, as clearly a lot of work has been put into this list. However, it violates a chunk of WP:NOT, namely WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#STATS. _TheIslander 18:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics? No, as there's nothing long or sprawling about this. Directory *may* be closer, but I'm not sure it's actually persuasive in this case. There's nothing loosely associated about this, these are songs that featured in a television program. That's a clear and explicit criteria. White Page? Nope. Program Guide? Resource for conducting business? It's not a Sales Catalog either. I suppose with a literal interpretation of "directory" it could be construed as such, as it is a list of information, but sometimes that's the best way to organize this kind of information. It's not like we don't include songs that were featured in Movies, or in episodes of television shows in the articles themselves. FrozenPurpleCube 18:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, poor choice of link on my part. I was refering to this: "6. Trivia collections. Large sections of indirectly-related details should be avoided as they diminish articles' overall readability and utility." Now, maybe this isn't 100% relevant here, as it's a whole article as opposed to a section, but my view is that it still applies. As for WP:NOT#DIR: "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". I'm sorry, but in my opinion this list is very loosely associated. You could come up with hundreds of thousands of such lists by looking at different programmes - it's just regurgitation of information. To further my argument, I feel that this article also fails WP:N, specifically "Significant coverage". Yes, the programme most definitely has significant coverage, but the specific music within it, and thus this list? Not a chance. _TheIslander 18:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia? No, I'm afraid that this list is in no way related to a trivia collection. A trivia collection is far less related than this, which is actually a solidly connected theme, namely the songs played in a given television series. That's not loose at all. I don't see that significant coverage is needed overall, that's often a false standard, especially in this case where it doesn't matter what coverage there is, this is basically just facts, nothing more. These facts would be included just as easily in the episode articles, and this is nothing more than a collation of the information from those pages in a conveniently accessible form. And it should be on those pages. It's not like the music that appears in a series isn't credited *or* often important. Sometimes the inclusion of music is a marketing ploy. (Though in the cases where that would be claimed, I'd suggest a source for the marketing.). It's not like they don't make soundtracks based on songs used in a series. FrozenPurpleCube 00:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, grouping songs together based upon which television show they have been used in appears to be little more than a collection of loosely related topics per WP:NOT. If the background music of the show were somehow more relevant to the series itself an argument might have been made for this list, but not as it stands. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, this is just more buffycruft. Burntsauce 21:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffycruft, in fact, any argument which dismisses something as cruft, is not a persuasive argument. It reflects an opinion, but gives no reason for that. I suggest avoiding usage of the term. FrozenPurpleCube 00:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Buffycruft, repeat Buffycruft. Transwiki if Wikia will have it. Dbromage [Talk] 01:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above. It's a bad idea to dismiss things as cruft instead of explaining the reasons for your position. FrozenPurpleCube 01:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft refers (to me) articles created by fans of a fictional work, which is completely in-universe, and lacking any real world notability Corpx 02:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's inapplicable in this case, since it's not in-universe at all, but then, you didn't call it cruft in your own statement anyway. I do think you're mistaken, but that's your look-out. In any case, cruft to me means nothing more than "I don't like this" except a bit more derogatory. I advise avoiding its use. Say things like you did, and I can at least respect the argument. FrozenPurpleCube 02:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. On the contrary, I do not think lists of things mentioned in a fictional work has any notability outside the show Corpx 05:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's one thing, but it's not what I was objecting to in what you said, which was that the page was completely in-universe. These two things are not the same at all, and I don't know why you're confusing them, but it is certainly not accurate to claim they are in-universe. Most of the time the music is actually completely out of universe as the characters don't hear it at all. The times when it is "in-universe" it's usually played by the Artist in question, which is actually something that does attract notice in the real-world. Just look up the Michelle Branch appearance. So if anything, it seems to me that the in-universe things are actually the ones most likely to be independently notable. But I don't think independent notability is really worth getting into here. I simply consider it valid to include the lists of songs that are used as a soundtrack. FrozenPurpleCube 05:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a directory of loosely associated topics. The songs aren't related by being in the shows. Picking two songs at random may show closely connected songs, but that's coincidental because the same bands were used multiple times. Jay32183 18:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Long and unnecessary, violates WP:NOT#DIR. Just because it's "extensive" and "well-organized" doesn't mean it's worthy. Rehevkor 19:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat^♫ 04:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Network Alchemy[edit]

Doesn't seem very notable, and could probably be deleted under CSD A7. Instead of that, I'd recommend we redirect this to Nokia, who acquired the company. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as nonnotable. Shalom ^Hello 20:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as minor claim notability has passed. --Gavin Collins 12:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you guys are quick - I was going to add more content. Anyway - redirection to Nokia seems fine, and if the content ever grows too big for one page it can be split up again. --Greg Harewood —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregHarewood (talk • contribs) 15:21, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm personally a bit more swayed by a merger because the article is short and not foreseeably expandable. Though, the notability has been established, and it is interesting that it is officially recognized by the U.S. However, the keeps are in the majority. I would ask that editors interested in this subject please work to improve the article, or perhaps if that doesn't occur , another merger (not a AfD) can be proposed further down the line.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic whirl[edit]

An article on the logo of an organization which is only moderatley notable at best. The only reference comes from the website of said organization. Hornet35 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with American Atheists Lurker (said · done) 17:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. _TheIslander 17:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It isn't just the logo, it's a symbol of belief (or in this case, non-belief), and is one of those officially recognized by the U.S. Veterans Administration for placement on military headstones[44][45][46] (although only a fraction of atheists are members of said organization). A version was proposed to balance the infamous Alabama Ten Commandments and has been proposed for inclusion in public holiday displays.[47] --Dhartung | Talk 18:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:29, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This is not a vote, you must provide a reason as to why you think this article should not be deleted. --Hornet35 20:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with American Atheists. Notwithstanding the provisions of WP:AADD, there is plenty of precedent here for indicating that logos do not inherit the notability of their parent organisation. — BillC ^talk 20:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to American Atheists. If later sources turn out that show its notability to be independent of that org, the the article can always be recreated. ornis (t) 06:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the symbol is one of the symbols (and only Atheist symbol) that is approved by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs for use of US Government supplied graves and markers. This means it is notable independent of the actual association. I've updated the article to reflect this. Ttiotsw 06:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Ttiotsw. Even though it's trademarked, the symbol has a life of its own. Skarioffszky 09:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if there is precedent for articles on other religious symbols. I see we have Christian cross, Star and crescent, and Dharmacakra; the only question I have is whether these articles have some motivation other than their use as religious symbolism. RandomCritic 15:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per fact of official recognition.PelleSmith 12:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think there's a full article to be written here, even if it hasn't been done yet. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 18:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Taneen[edit]

The article is about a house within a residential school, the American Hebrew Academy. While the school is notable, nothing in the article demonstrates the notability of this house. A merger into the AHA article was proposed, but no support was gained for the merger. Accordingly, I'm nominating for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of coverage from RS Corpx 17:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability of its own. Massive precedent that individual buildings at schools are not notable in general. DMacks 18:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Schonemann[edit]

Subject does not meet notability guidelines for academics. Notability is based largely on publications in professional journals, which is very common for almost all academics. Most sources illustrating notability were written by the subject. Ward3001 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wouldnt publication in these peer-reviewed journals make him an expert in his field? Corpx 17:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was the case that publication in journals qualified an academic for notability, the vast majority of college professors would be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If you examine Wikipedia for articles about academics, they have acquired notability beyond journal publication, such as publishing a textbook (not just a chapter), or becoming known to the general public (such as Skinner). Think about your college professors; many are/were well published in journals. How many have Wikipedia articles, or deserve one? Ward3001 18:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Seems notable on its face per WP:PROF, though the article as written is pretty weak (long prose where a list of works would do, prose/lists-of-works seeming only for the purpose of propping up notability instead of talking about the person and his ideas. However, all claims of being an expert or being originator/major player for novel ideas are self-written (lack of secondary sources). If his ideas about IQ and racism are notable or novel (vs fringe ideas...not to belittle them, as even Nobel Laureats can have fringe ideas), surely someone else would have written review articles highlighting his ideas. DMacks 18:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nicely written, references given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:30, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Keep A weak keep, but a keep. Getting published in a peer-reviewed journal is no big thing - it depends on the journal, the field, and politics/friends. And textbooks are given too much emphasis by Wikipedia - textbook companies get hacks to write books or chapter in many fields. In fact, textbooks are often cut-and-paste jobs from other books. By the independent references, he does seem to have contributed to a contentious subject enough to make the cut. I think the article could be improved into a definite keeper. MarkBul 20:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What independent references? The article cites a few sources by writers other than Schonemann, but almost all are "Schönemann’s influences" or "Schönemann, in line with authors ...", etc. As DMacks states above, how many authorities in the field have written review articles highlighting his ideas? And notice the reference for the statement "a foremost expert on factor Analysis". Ward3001 21:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the primary contributor to the article removed the citation for "a foremost expert on factor Analysis" after the preceding comment was made. Ward3001 22:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 21:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even the person responsible for nominating this article makes a case for notability. Burntsauce 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- important and notable academics are praising him as an expert in peer-reviewed journals. This is the definition of recognition by the community. (an article or two probably isn't enough to establish notability, but 90+ articles is not anything close to what the average professor attains). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am unable to understand the basis for even suggesting this deletion. Obviously academics are notable for their academic work, which consists of publications in peer-reviewed journals and equivalent monographs. Artists are notable for their paintings, actors for the acting, and so on. I begin to wonder if its the tendency of some of the published work--see the article. DGG (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not my area, so correct me if I'm wrong, but 90 papers seems well above average for an academic, and a couple of his papers are highly cited according to Google Scholar: 'A generalized solution of the orthogonal procrustes problem' (227), 'Fitting one matrix to another under choice of a central dilation and a rigid motion' (100). I believe the subject meets WP:PROF for these reasons. Espresso Addict 22:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Buffyverse historical flashbacks[edit]

Delete - for the same reasons that the related Buffyverse chronology articles were deleted, namely WP:PLOT. Otto4711 16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Otto4711. --Hornet35 16:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no reason why an encyclopedia should contain this. WP:PLOT and probably WP:CRUFT as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto and Hersfold. Some articles about "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" are fine; but when you have an entire "Buffyverse", and the unreasonable expectation that goes along with it, there's a problem. Mandsford 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopeless plot summary. --Phirazo 17:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whedon-cruft. Artw 17:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - NOT a Buffy encyclopedia and just plot details. Transwiki to a Buffyverse Corpx 17:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Corpx. This is not an encyclopedia article and it is only plot details. NHRHS2010^Talk 20:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, again. Burntsauce 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Buffycruft. Transwiki if Wikia will have it. Dbromage [Talk] 01:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 18:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROMO Analysis[edit]

Borderline spam. Subject is a proprietary method of analysis promoted by a single company. Only source is a link to that company. Cannot be verified at all. Realkyhick 16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability and could be seen as advertising. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Almost satisfies WP:CSD#G11. _TheIslander 18:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 → Universal Pantheist Society. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pantheist Vision[edit]

Fails WP:NB. Not notable, no references. Hornet35 16:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, cannot be verified, likely non-notable house organ anyway. Realkyhick 16:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete publication by an organization who may not pass WP:N Corpx 17:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:32, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I will agree with this one, because all of the potential sources I find are on Pantheistical websites. Nothing reliable. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Universal_Pantheist_Society - I have copy+pasted the text back to the Universal_Pantheist_Society article so this one can be redirected to that.Ttiotsw 08:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to UPS per above. ornis (t) 11:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above.PelleSmith 12:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Pantheist Society[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. Not notable, no references. Hornet35 16:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Realkyhick 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm finding several mentions of the agency on Google in what appear to be reliable sites. This seems to be one of the few preeminent Pantheist organizations. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you post links to these "mentions of the agency"? --Hornet35 16:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it seems to be one of a few, or perhaps the only Pantheist organisation today. Lurker (said · done) 16:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Google hits I see are Web directories, not articles on the organization. Not notable. MarkBul 17:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cant find any significant coverage either Corpx 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:32, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Keep Gosh, Hornet35, what was the sermon about yesterday? All my preacher talked about was the Beatitudes. For the most part, your nominations appear sound, but I don't care for mass (no pun intended) nominations of a particular topic. Mandsford 21:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming there's a real source or two, which shouldn't be difficult. DGG (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve as one of the only pt societies that's lasted this long. Also, nom is a pretty egregious breach of WP:POINT. ornis (t) 06:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - hold on - please just tag with references needed. I'm having trouble keeping up with the number of AfD by Hornet35. I know he's a new user and enthusiastic to get articles correctly cited but has raised so many interrelated AfD and I (we ?) have so little time. Ttiotsw 08:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is referenced and seems to meet minimum criteria for notability.RandomCritic 15:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pantheism ought to be represented. Sourcing could be stronger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanging Jack (talk • contribs) 15:17, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 16:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Inquiry (magazine)[edit]

Fails WP:NB. No references, no assertion of notability, obvious link spam. Hornet35 16:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Accusation of linkspam is patently false and may fail WP:FAITH. It is usual for an article to link to the main website run by the article's subject, after all. Magazine is published by a well-known organisation, has well-known contributors and made the news after Borders books refused to carry an issue due to controversy over cartoons of Muhammad. Also note that Hornet365 seems to be nominating quite a few atheism-related articles for deletion, such as Why I am not a Christian. Lurker (said · done) 16:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Long-running (up to vol 27), published by notable organisation, the Council for Secular Humanism, with contributions by world-famous writers. Note that WP:NB specifically says that it does not provide guidance for magazines. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The only third-party source I can find in Google's top 20 on "Free Inquiry Magazine" is the AP Press release that was just referenced about an hour ago. Since notability is not temporary, I believe this would merit deletion. If other sources can be found, I may change my opinion then, but I'm not seeing them right now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources below and added to the article. Two minutes with Google works wonders. Nick mallory 00:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Council for Secular Humanism. Skarioffszky 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Plenty of room in Council of Secular Humanism article, and no need for an independent page. MarkBul 17:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a long running and influential magazine. The attempt by Borders to ban it, which was covered widely, would make it notable too. Here the story is covered by CBS News [48] and the Washington Post [49] and the New York Times [50]. It's discussed by Slate.com here [51] and, by Christopher Hitchens, here [52]. It made international news as well, here the story is covered by The Times of India [53]. All these stories relate directly to the magazine itself, not the Council for Secular Humanism. Nick mallory 23:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is sufficient independent coverage of this long-running magazine. --Dhartung | Talk 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on what Dhartung has written, if proof of such coverage can be provided. Regarding the failure of WP:NB, no one cares! This is a magazine. :-) RFerreira 23:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely not link spam, and it seems notable enough. Agree with the above comment regarding WP:FAITH as well.PelleSmith 01:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable even without the Borders controversy. Undoubtedly notable with it. DGG (talk) 06:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable publication, with highly notable contributors. ornis (t) 06:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the publisher is notable, the contributors are notable and it has stirred up some controversy which makes it notable in its own right separate from the publisher or contributors. It is illogical to merge it to anything else and certainly illogical to delete. Ttiotsw 08:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep published by a notable organisation, plenty of notable contributors, and multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. This is certainly not "linkspam". Hut 8.5 08:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wish the nominators would actually spend a couple of seconds doing research before submitting the articles. Reinis^talk 22:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not aware of any relevant guidelines, but long-running, widely distributed periodicals seem to have an inherent notability. Espresso Addict 23:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This magazine keeps being referenced to in current debate, e.g., by Christopher Hitchens at the August 2007 Google Talks (Time Index 22:00), and should be available for looking up on WP. gyokusai 03:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 17:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soheil Ghassempoor[edit]

Non-notable biography; google finds only a couple of blogs. - Fordan (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no verifiable sources (what is this "Persian Music Encyclopedia," anyway?), not notable. Realkyhick 16:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Deniz^T_C 19:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. Dunno about the "Persian Music Encyclopedia" (this thing? [54]) but "سهیل قاسمپور"(subject's name in Persian; did I spell that right?) gets precisely one GHit [55], while in the Roman alphabet you get 5 more GHits [56], which are all Wikipedia or blogs. Other spelling variants like single vs. double "S", "O" or "OU" instead of "OO", etc. add a few GBooks results [57][58], but nothing relevent. cab 00:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 17:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motnahp Haj[edit]

Either a non-notable street performer, or a hoax: Google books has the cited source online, and the index makes no mention of Haj. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 16:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, smells very hoax-y. Realkyhick 16:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious AFD-baiting hoax. Motnahp is phantom backwards, Nodnol is London backwards, bal-con-y, etc. --Dhartung | Talk 18:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy metal slang[edit]

Unnecessary page, not a page for an encyclopedia, merely a page of heavy metal derogatory terms. Dan 16:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A page like this needs references for every single term. There are no references at all. The topic might be unencyclopedic, but my main concern is lack of references. Shalom ^Hello 16:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is screaming "original research" and I am not sure what this would be doing in an encyclopedia anyway. More of an Urban Dictionary thing. As is, it is just a list of terms and definitions, ie: OR laden heavy metal glossary. Pharmboy 17:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no way establishing what expression is the most notable, and which would belong to the article. Also, WP:NOT#INFO Grinder0-0 17:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Since it probably could be sourced if the author tried. Mandsford 19:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely original research and I dont think we should be a guide to these terms Corpx 04:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The overwhelming majority of the list smacks of original research, but there's the odd term (Beauty and the Beast vocals being the first one on the list which I can see) which has wide currency in descriptions of heavy metal music and may just be sourceable somewhere out there. In its current state, however, this isn't a good candidate to be kept. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the way up to 11 All unreferenced original research. Lugnuts 07:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 16:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where to begin? No cerdible sources, original research, listcruft. Realkyhick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realkyhick (talk • contribs) 16:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These lists of slangs have been on my list for a while, so thank you Danorama for saving me the keystrokes. Burntsauce 21:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it's original research. --SunStar Net ^talk 21:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just clean it up a little. I shall Mezmerize you! My edits shall Mezmerize you!! My articles shall Mezmerize you!!! 23:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Keep Keep Keep! Me and my friends use metal slang all the time, we saw this page and saw how right it was. The only source slang comes from is teenagers like myself. Morspecs911 12:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a vote. Please read WP:USEFUL, filed under arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Thanks! Burntsauce 18:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with the nomination that all the terms are derogatory, delete as listcruft. — Moe ε 19:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mothwingdust[edit]

Non notable myspace music artist, no third party sources, fails WP:MUSIC. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 15:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No credible sources (WP:YMINAR), promotional. Realkyhick 16:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. Rehevkor 20:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G10. Non-admin closure. _TheIslander 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Horn[edit]

Delete. This page appears to be a hoax and an attack page. Note that the article is about a person who is supposedly gay with a middle name "Gaye." --דניאל - Danielrocks123 15:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLASE Remove THE Simon Horn PAGE NOW!!!! Have you read it ?????? I am Simon Horn!!!!!,,,,,,,,,I'm not a DJ and I'm not GAY!!!!) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonhorn (talk • contribs) 15:50, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/move. Andrew c ^[talk] 02:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist Universe: Why God Didn't Have A Thing To Do With It[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Atheist Universe: Why God Didn't Have A Thing To Do With It

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). Self-published book, with no references, or assertion of notability. Hornet35 15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to ~~Athiest Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism~~ Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Corrected typo). This is the title of the second edition of the book, and with an Amazon sales rank of #912 and 169 customer reviews (as of 27 August 2007) [59], the second edition of this book is hardly non-notable. Neil916 (Talk) 16:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (note spelling), per Neil916. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move, per Neil, but with Squiddy's spelling. Skarioffszky 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Squiddy, notable book per Neil916. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to correct title. Shoester 06:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless there are actual published reviews from reliable sources. Customer reviews on Amazon do not make it, regardless of number. DGG (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to correct title, per neil. ornis (t) 06:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into David Mills (author) article and add redirects (including fixing what would be a double redirect on Atheist Universe) . The book has reviews (odd hits here and there) but most reviewers concentrate on Dawkins and the other biggies so this gets little airtime. As long as we deem Mills to be notable enough for Wikipedia then we can add his book titles to his own article. Ttiotsw 06:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and tag with {{expand}}. — TKD::Talk 17:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Verve[edit]

I don't think concept cars are generally concidered notable, baring some sort of media coverage, none of which is shown here. TexasAndroid 15:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand A simple search reveals several reliable sources: [60] [61] Wl219 19:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - the article have several sources already. // Liftarn

Sourcing now looks good. A little bit WP:CRYSTAL for my taste, but that's not a massive issue in this case. - TexasAndroid 13:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand --Djsasso 17:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - more media coverage will come shortly as this car will soon debut at the Frankfurt Motor Show. --Vossanova ^o< 13:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - there is vast media coverage, eg. [62], [63], [64]. A simple search shows tons more. -Livedo 15:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 01:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Police Department in media[edit]

Delete - laundry list catch-all article seeking to capture anything in which the LAPD appears, regardless of the importance of the LAPD to the fiction from which it's drawn. Tells us nothing about the LAPD, nothing about the fiction it's from, nothing about the real world. Otto4711 15:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Otto4711. --Hornet35 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy and Wikipedia:What Isn't Grounds for Article Deletion in order to address Otto4711's concerns by adding references and more regular text. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It took me awhile to read WP:LIST and understand what it means when one refers to a list of "indiscriminate information", but this is the classic example... a list of things with little or no explanation as to why they're there, beyond what the title of the article implies. Improve, or delete Mandsford 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clean-up to be like the List of films featuring the United States Marine Corps article. Which probably needs some further work on it, especially the lead section. FrozenPurpleCube 18:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a "catch-all" clutter/trivia guide. RobJ1981 23:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little more than an indiscriminate trivia list, from a book about the Manson Family murders to an episode of Punk'd. Crazysuit 02:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article. I pared the insanely long list way down into prose that flows a lot better. It now contains what I think are the most relevant mass-media representations (except for the non-fiction books; I really don't know about those).--Chaser - T 02:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, as suggested above. The LAPD is used in media as an iconic police department, and the collection of this information is encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can of course cite reliable sources that novelists, filmmakers, television people consider the LAPD "iconic" in any way? Or could it possibly be that since many films and TV series are set in Los Angeles that we just see the LAPD more often because it's convenient? Otto4711 15:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

following your logic, would you agree that articles on the use of other police departmens are encyclopedia-worthy? DGG (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that articles that are actually about the topic of the use of XYZ police force in such and such medium that are backed by reliable sources and are not simply collections of "in the movie Attack of the Blug a Fumblebuck PD police officer got eaten by the blug" are encyclopedia-worthy. Lists of cop-spotting references are not. This article is a cop-spotting list. Otto4711 19:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total trivia, not a notable subject. Dannycali 22:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We generally determine notability by ~~references~~ sources, of which there are now two in the article and many that DGG listed below.--Chaser - T 04:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)20:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References I think Otto asked for references that this was not just a matter of convenience: a quick look finds from Gooogle Scholar
Staging Murders: The Social Imaginary, Film, and the City NM Klein - Wide Angle, 1998 - muse.jhu.edu ... 1997. Since the Rodney King incident in 1991, the LAPD has been routinely portrayed on film as a pack of psychotic buffoons. In ..
[BOOK] Cop Knowledge: Police Power and Cultural Narrative in Twentieth-century America CP Wilson - 2000 - books.google.com ... Gid Powers,Joe Domanick, and Claire Bond Potter have demonstrated so well, by FBI and LAPD sponsorship of the “G-man” style of policing in film, on radio ...
Mapping the Hood: The Genealogy of City Space in" Boyz N the Hood" and" Menace II Society" PJ Massood - Cinema Journal, 1996 - JSTOR ... Again, these are most literally signified by the presence of the LAPD. While there is an absence of surveillance helicopters in this film, the police still are ...
Drug Wars: The Political Economy of Narcotics D Wars - The Journal of Popular Culture, 2005 - Blackwell Synergy ... in 1930s Los Angeles, where control of Mexican labor, imagery, and drug use was a key factor in the Hollywood film industry and the empowerment of the LAPD. ..
Mike Davis, Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster (New York: Metropolitan …T Hamm - Journal of the Southwest, 2001 - questia.com ... critiques of the corrupted city put forth in hardboiled fiction and film noir from ...describes LA, in the process spotlighting the role of the LAPD in brutally ...

This is a quick list from only the first 20% of the GS hits, , to demonstrate that sources do exist, not yet a contribution to the article, for which of course the articles need to be read and evaluated more carefully, but it certainly indicates that multiple academic sources consider the role of the LAPD in film to be significant in ways other than just co-location in Los Angeles. and so on,

Assuming that the people proposing deletion of the article would rather improve it, this shows that it could be done. I wouldn't like to say that they want to delete it regardless of the importance of the topic and the presence of sources. DGG (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to write an article using those sources that is actually about the subject of the protrayal of the LAPD in the media. As the current article is shite, its deletion will provide you with a clean slate. Otto4711 19:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now written an article using sources that is actually about the portrayal of the LAPD in the media. There are only two media portrayals discussed, but just because an article is short is not grounds for deletion.--Chaser - T 03:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary fork. All relevant info can be placed in the LAPD article.--Jersey Devil 03:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Such "delete and merge" options are discouraged by the GFDL, which encourages preservation of attribution history.--Chaser - T 04:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Durham Students' Union. I'd lean more towards keep if there was anything of value in the article. I have redirected - I leave it to interested editors to perform the merge. ELIMINATORJR 18:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durham Student Theatre[edit]

Article reads like a great-big advert for this organisation. Article asserts no notability whatsoever, particularly through a lack of external, reliable sources. _TheIslander 15:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you don't read most the university pages on here as the majority of them are adverts for that particular university. AlexD 08:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Durham Students' Union. DWaterson 01:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DWaterson. Would fit fine under services in the Durham Students' Union article. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Making DST part of the 'DSU services' article would be foolish - DST is not a service of DSU, it is an independent society. Status as an advert is accepted, apologies, will reduce it. It's entirely notable, however. An organisation which puts on some 50 shows a year and includes 700 members is certainly of interest to anyone doing research on Student Theatre in the UK, Durham's theatre scene or theatre in the North East. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulhc (talk • contribs) 13:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palatinate (newspaper)[edit]

Article a) cites no sources whatsoever, but much more importantly b) appears to be completely non-notable, and cites no links to assert notability. _TheIslander 15:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source, long standing newspaper, NUS/Independent Student Newspaper of the Year, with several notable former editors--Jac16888 15:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Using that logic, you could take any notable person on Wikipedia, trace back through their lives and find a dozen societies/clubs/organisations etc. that are thus notable and deserve an article. That logic doesn't work for me. Also, your opinion is 'Keep and source' - this article has had over 16 months to be sourced; far too long, in my opinion. _TheIslander 15:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could do so, but i doubt you would find many groups with more than one "notable" ex-member, and it is more than just the ex-members that make it notable, plus you're ignoring the award it recievedt, hat could probably be sourced without difficulty, and also, see WP:TIND --Jac16888 15:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As this article is up for deltion then all other student newspapers in the category mentioned below ought be as well. Personally, considering every single pokemon is mentioned on here, I hardly think a Student newspaper should be deleted. AlexD 08:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Jac16888. --Hornet35 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing inherently notable about a student newspaper. Notability is not inherited from one article to another - the former editors are not notable for what they did at this paper. MarkBul 15:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As MarkBul says, student newspapers are not inherently notable. What is so special about this one that gives it significance or importance above others? --Malcolmxl5 19:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that in 2001, Palatinate was named the NUS/Independent Student Newspaper of the Year? ~~if thats not enough, fair enough, delete~~.--Jac16888 20:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not being sentimental here about an article I've edited, but it seems to me that Palatinate is one of the more notable British student newspapers, certainly moreso than the majority of publications in Category:United Kingdom student newspapers. Not only due to the award and the now-famous former editors, but having a quick Google about, I note that:

A Palatinate article has been republished on an official government website
In 2003 a journalist on the paper came runner-up in the Best Student Reporter (Sponsored by the Daily Mirror) category
Apparently Hunter Davies is another notable former editor (I've added this to the article).
Article from The Northern Echo about the paper, describing it as, "one of Britain's best-known student newspapers". (I've also added this.) I think that should be enough to establish notability, and it's slightly better referenced now. Cheers, DWaterson 21:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it being a student newspaper made it not notable in the notability guidelines, didn't know there was a category of them, in which case i see no grounds to delete at all, seems very notable--Jac16888 22:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the introduction to better assert notability, which rests on three things, it seems to me, a) being well known, b) having won a coveted national award and c) having several notable former editors. I have also rearranged the text elsewhere a little and added Oliver Brown to the historical timeline. An independent source for Pier Merchant being a former editor would be good and can anyone confirm that it was recently judged best Varsity newspaper in the Guardian media awards? Independent references are essential and the more the better. --Malcolmxl5 00:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has won a 'coveted' national award, has been described as one of Britain's best known student newspapers and with a number of notable former editors. --Malcolmxl5 00:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.atheism[edit]

Non-notable internet discussion group. Fails WP:WEB, no assertion of notability. Spam. Hornet35 14:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article needs a lot of work, but the subject is probably notable, based upon the possible sources available (see Google Books and Google Scholar). Jakew 16:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-known discussion group Lurker (said · done) 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just because you feel it is well known, does not mean it passes WP:WEB or that it is notable. This article has no references. --Hornet35 16:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply If it is underreferenced, tag it as such. This is one of a bunch of atheism-related articles you seem to see fit to remove from Wikipedia today- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danish Atheist Society, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheist Universe: Why God Didn't Have A Thing To Do With It, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Inquiry (magazine), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why I Am Not a Christian. Lurker (said · done) 16:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Apart from being well-known, alt.atheism is used in information & comp sci fields because it is a high-traffic discussion board, if the (many) google books/google scholar hits are anything to go by. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources exist, as mentioned above. A quick (< 3 minutes) Google search turns up several scholarly papers discussing the group in a number of contexts (traffic metrics/handling, online community studies, sociology...) as well as criticisms of group in non-scholarly contexts. Unfortunately, I don't have time to parse all of these sources in order to add them to the article. However, it is inappropriate to AfD an article just because it is unsourced if you aren't going to make a real attempt to determine if sources can be found. Just tag it as "unsourced" and be on your way. LaMenta3 19:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that "alt.atheism has long been one of the most active discussion newsgroups in the USENET hierarchy" is probably the best assertion of notability for a newsgroup. Tag for references? Sure. Delete? No. Wyatt Riot 22:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: alt.atheism is not a website. Do we have any notability criteria for Usenet groups, or non-web forums in general? Judging by List of newsgroups and Category:Newsgroups, there are quite a few newsgroups with Wikipedia articles - I feel that this should probably be discussed at some higher level to establish some consensus on newsgroup notability. Mdwh 22:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a group that I'm familiar with, but as much as WP:ILIKEIT, the actual article fails our standards for WP:N without proper references. RFerreira 23:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is everything with the word 'atheist' in it being nominated for deletion today? Nick mallory 00:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per RFerreira. Borderline assertion of notability but lacks secondary sources. Dbromage [Talk] 01:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like a directory listing... no significant content that isnt shown on a google groups page. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The major usenet group on a notable subject should be considered notable. They contained major discussions over the several years before the modern internet. DGG (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Notable long running discussion group. Nom pretty clearly fails WP:POINT. ornis (t) 06:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination fails WP:POINT as nominator tagged article as unreferenced 1/2 an hour before then tagging it with an AfD. Whoa - 30 minutes just too little time to do stuff. It needs to be a few weeks given global timezones and holidays ! Remember we don't get paid to edit here !. Ttiotsw 08:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources, appears to be a WP:POINT nomination. Italia^vivi 19:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MastCell ^Talk 17:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Radio[edit]

Article reads very much like an advert. Also, subject seems completely non-notable; fails to assert any notability, for example through external links to organisations other than itself. _TheIslander 14:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Webradio, no AM/FM component, and only transmits web content during school. Close to db-web criteria. Acroterion _(talk) 15:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable web radio station. Over-the-air broadcast history is insufficient. Realkyhick 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Durham Students' Union. DWaterson 01:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with either the Students' Union or with the main Durham article in the student life section. AlexD 08:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. There was a balance of views. The keepers pointed to the awards but the deleters highlighted the lack of significant secondary sources. Since the awards are sourceable, though unsourced, there is no failure of WP:V and hence no over-riding policy reason to delete. TerriersFan 20:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durham21[edit]

Again, another article from Durham which lacks any form of notability whatsoever. I'm sorry to those at Durham who clearly feel that each little part of the university deserves an article, but it doesn't. To get back to business: Subject seems completely non-notable; fails to assert any notability, for example through external links to organisations other than itself. _TheIslander 14:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign of possible notability. MarkBul 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, regularly wins award for best site from NUS, chief political commentator from The Independent even publicly complimented it. How much more notability do you need. Only problem with this article is that it needs sourcing. Do you have some sort of vendetta against Durham Uni?, you seem to be AFD'ing a lot of its articles in one go.--Jac16888 16:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No vendetta - just happened to be looking through the articles, and was fairly suprised at how non-notable they all were. It's all well and good the notability being pointed out now in an AfD, but it should really be evident in the article in the first place. _TheIslander 16:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are evident in the article, where do you think i got them from? it just needs a source--Jac16888 16:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So where are the sources then? Nothing to prove the assertions. Realkyhick 17:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment to your !vote below. KTC 20:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not proved, no sources aside from a link to the site itself. Realkyhick 17:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. the awards, doesn't hurt to search on Google a little [65]. KTC 20:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as winners of multiple awards from National Union of Students of the United Kingdom. KTC 20:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - winners of the NUS Student Website of the Year five times! A clear assertion of notability. DWaterson 00:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Speaking as a Durham student, this is an extremely popular website for Durham students and has won awards 19:31, 05 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.90.35 (talk)

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

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

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. _TheIslander 18:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durham University Centre of Cricketing Excellence[edit]

~~Subject seems completely non-notable; fails to assert any notability, for example through external links to organisations other than itself~~. _TheIslander 14:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. —KTC 14:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. —KTC 15:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. —Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it says in the article, this is the name of the University's team when they play First-class cricket matches in addition to their cricket coaching program. First-class cricket in England is professional (with the exception of that of the four universities, including Durham) and inherently notable. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It's a university team, yes, but officially first class which is automatically notable. Howzat? Realkyhick 17:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(aside to Realkyhick) *shakes head* Not out. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course. First-class team. 'Nuff said. Johnlp 17:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK, fair enough, seems I don't know enough about cricket. Sorry for the nomination, though I can assure you it was in good faith. Nomination Withdrawn. _TheIslander 18:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quackwatch[edit]

Content is not encyclopedic, seems to be authored by the organization portrayed, it might be considered blatant advert, sources are mostly self referencing and magazine articles in which the organization is mentioned secondarily Jenny ^Len☤ 14:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this nomination were about a person this nomination would be a BLP violation bordering on libel. As it is it reveals either a (1) very limited understanding of the site and article, (2) a pretty warped bad faith POV attack, (3) gaming the system by misusing an AfD, (4) a poor understanding of the inclusion criteria for articles here, or (5) all of the above. I don't know exactly which. In any case it should not have been raised. There are indeed other types of problems with the editing atmosphere around the article, none of which justify this waste of time. When is this improper AfD going to be ended? There is one comfort and side benefit from all of this - at best for the nominator a Pyrrhic victory, yet, even though there is no hope of this being passed, the long-lasting effects a la a Pyrrhic victory will be harvested as a win by the pro-Quackwatch (IOW anti-quackery) POV. This is all in harmony with the policies here which state that the appropriate weight should be given to such topics - the scientific majority is given the weight it deserves. Message to the nominatress - before nominating articles for AfD (as you did this one), please exercise due care to ensure that the article fails the policy or guideline in question. Needlessly disrupting Wikipedia (either unintentionally or to make a WP:POINT) is frowned upon and will neither get you any friends nor increase your credibility. -- Fyslee/talk 05:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment. I think if this AFD has shown us one thing is that many people feel that the existing article is a lopsided one written more as a promotional piece rather than a neutral article. There is a group of editors hellbent on excluding/removing any and all criticism (of which Quackwatch garners quite a bit). The sort of article ownership is frowned on here at Wikipedia. Bringing this to light to other Wikipedians certainly was not a waste of time. No one is obligated to comment here, so if you feel it is a waste of your time, then do what you like. I haven't found this process to be disruptive whatsoever, but helpful. I encourage more neutral editors to come to the article and help turn it from a PR piece to an encyclopdic article. Bottomline, Quackwatch is a critical site and thus one can expect it receives a lot of critical backlash. Right now, this side of the Quackwatch story is hardly told. And - for anyone following the current discussion on Talk:Quackwatch - of the remaining two minor pieces of criticism, the "pro-Quackwatch" editors (as Fyslee calls them) are trying to remove even one of those. There is systematic whitewash at play here and again I encourage some article supervision by some more neutral and expert Wikipedians. Thanks. In conclusion, I do think that Quackwatch passes the notability threshold and should be kept as an article; it is just that the current article is far too promotional. The biased POV at play here is exemplified above by Fyslee, where he aligns Quackwatch with "the scientific majority" and thus writes off all of its detractors as minorities which need not be mentioned in the article, but rather swept under the rug with edit warring and ludicrous policy arguments which at the root are tantamount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT at best. I certainly feel that this AfD is over and can be closed expeditiously. I hope what it has shed light on though will stay with us and that we have a better, more complete, article to look forward to in the future. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. —--Rrburke^(talk) 15:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced, appears notable. If you think it reads like an advertisement you should edit it, not delete it. --Hornet35 14:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Hornet35 (talk · contribs) may in fact be a PEAR (talk · contribs) sockpuppet.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides, the nomination is made in bad faith. Digwuren 14:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you prove this charge? Realkyhick 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I can point you towards User talk:Isotope23/Archive 11#Quackwatch, which, to my knowledge, is the first where Jennylen raised the "issue" of this article. Digwuren 18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, and please try and actually give some sort of reasoning for your opinion...--Isotope23 ^talk 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, it's not necessary, as the nomination is absurd on its face. It's a prime example of a kook trying to pretend a skeptic is another kook, and a fringe one at that. Digwuren 18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're right, it isn't "necessary", but you run the risk of your opinion being discounted because it isn't supported. I won't be closing this because I've been administratively involved in the article, but if I was I would discard your opinion as an WP:IDONTLIKE vote.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        In this case, let's spell it out explicitly: the nomination does not provide any valid basis for article deletion, and is, in fact, deliberately misleading. If there is no reason for deletion, the default option is keep. Digwuren 15:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - This seems like an unneccessary personal attack. Please consider removing. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Under WP:SPADE, there's no reason for removing this. Digwuren 09:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It is most unfortunate that the discussion has been carried to the grounds of "defending what I want" with discredit. I don't think that to carry here the same discussion bteween "supporters" and "non supporters" of the organization, as it was happening in the edition of the article, will help, this is about criteria for deletion and it was presented in good faith, nothing less nothing more. Some people also try to carry here the same groups debating at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, that is not necessary, please don't project. This is not about Quackwatch but about an article which after having for some time the chance to change, is still PR and qualifies in my view for deletion, that's all. The energy should be used in building a good WP article instead of mending the pieces of something that has no mending. And of course, WP:NPA and WP:CIV Jenny ^Len☤ 07:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known site; well-referenced article that easily meets WP:WEB. Really dubious nomination. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self referencing, authored by bias, tries to transmit an "image" of the subject not encyclopedic information. It has been protected for a while. Daoken 15:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well referenced article, meets WP:WEB. Hut 8.5 15:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a couple of legit citations, and the subject is for real, so it stays. It could use some editing, like most Wiki pages. MarkBul 16:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yes, the subject is a divisive one and the quality of the article is suboptimal. But the topic is undoubtedly notable - see the various secondary sources provided. The site has been reviewed by The Consultant Pharmacist, JAMA, US News and World Report, Forbes - and has been mentioned in a more minor context in many other sources (again detailed in the article). It's also been the topic of at least some notable criticism. While I would almost rather the article go away simply because of the nastiness that surrounds it on Wikipedia, I don't think there's any stretch of the imagination by which this subject fails WP:WEB. MastCell ^Talk 16:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As is, belongs to AfD, with more "no-club-members" authors and better third sourcing, the article could deserve a place even if notability is limited to USA only.ℒibrarian 2 16:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not USA-only; see e.g. this search of searchmedica.co.uk SearchMedica - The GP's search engine. The same search of its USA counterpart searchmedica.com is also interesting in this context. Avb 09:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence of non-trivial coverage in third-party sources per WP:WEB. The vast majority of the sources are pages at Quackwatch's website, which also fails to satisfy WP:SELFPUB ("the article is not based primarily on [self-published] sources"). The exceptions are generally news articles including very brief mention of the subject. Jakew 16:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Article's sources seem a bit heavy on self-referencing, but still enough reliable sources given. POV problems, but those are somewhat unavoidable given the nature of the subject. Realkyhick 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to have enough reliable sources amid all the self refs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, the article is a POV mess and has a bit too much reliance on WP:SELFPUB, but at the core it meets WP:WEB.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps some issues over neutrality and the use of self-references, but this is a notable enough organisation, its website alone being in operation for over a decade, and with thousands of ghits. — BillC ^talk 19:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep page has over 30 sources, at least 15 or which look to be not by the org/org's leader. Well-known organisation/site.Merkinsmum 20:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keepas per comments by Merkinsmum. Also, Quackwatch is well known and is one site that helps find the difficult alternates. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep From what I've seen, Wikipedia's threshold for notability is quite low. The U.S. News & World Report, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of Scientific Exploration, The Village Voice, and Forbes magazine refs look like enough to keep it. But its notability is rather low, as acknowledged by the fact that someone saw fit to write a section of the article called "Notability." I think it should be better sourced if possible. –––Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No criteria for deletion is given.
- Jennylen claims the "Content is not encyclopedic" - this is not a reason to delete.
- "seems to be authored by the organization portrayed" - this is not a reason to delete. If Jennylen has any evidence to back this accusation, a COI report should be started.
- "it might be considered blatant advert" - "it might be"? this is the only deletion criteria given and it's unclear even to the editor creating the AfD if it is.
- "sources are mostly self referencing and magazine articles in which the organization is mentioned secondarily" - this is not a reason to delete.
- The article needs work, but none of the editors above have given any criteria for deletion. There are more than enough sources provided to meet WP:WEB as noted above by others. --Ronz 21:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but start over. The article as is has been mostly written and protected by Quackwatch adherrents and supporters (some have even worked for Quackwatch directly). This is why the current version of this article reads like a PR marketing brochure. Even just today as the article became unprotected, one of Quackwatch's chief adherrents effectively added some more "whitewash" to the already fluffy fluff piece. And though Quackwatch is most notable for the controversy surrounding its critics, I have personally watched helplessly as these adherrents have edit warred the criticism section down to just a few short sentences (whereas, it was once rich with criticisms from a whole host of notable sources, as MastCell alludes to above). I've been involved with this article for quite some time and it seems that my mere presence there stirs up animosity from the adherrents. That being said, when this article is deleted and/or rewritten, I would agree to step aside and let fresh eyes construct the new NPOV article if all of the adherents would agree to do the same. Sound fair? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Deletion is not a solution for the content and behavioral problems you describe. --Ronz 01:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The romantic visualization of the doomed attempts of a lonesome NPOV warrior singlehandedly defending the encyclopedia's neutrality against hordes of pseudoskeptics certainly sheds some light on Levine2112's mission here. His self-imposed article ban (or proposed POW exchange, one Levine leaving the article freeing up a host of adherents to go elsewhere and spend their time productively) seemed attractive to me until I realized what Levine2112 would be doing with all the lost time thus regained. Avb 10:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Huh? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is notable hence the various sources and references provided in the article. The argument(s) to delete appear confused and none involve Wikipedia policy. Shot info 23:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep There are no good reasons given to delete it and the article is sourced. Nick mallory 00:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick mallory, MastCell, Ronz et al. Avb 00:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs work and more secondary sources, but appears to meet the relevant policies. Dbromage [Talk] 00:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close per WP:SNOW. THF 01:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. None of the arguements to delete are both correct and valid deletion arguments. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agreed. Wonderstruck 18:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Weak keep. Needs third-party sources, but seems notable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 05:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are more than enough third party sources, and way more than the minimal notability. a example , if anything, of a highly notable organization. Those who dislike its goals or practices should not be trying to delete it. In this case, I do see how one might well doubt the good faith of the arguments. I think its a pretty good article too, well balanced, and with many contributors. DGG (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are unfortunately prejudging. I presented the article to AfD because after a good time protected and a good time under debate, the article continued to be a PR plataform instead of an encyclopedic article. The organization's aims may be good from my professional (MD) point of view, but that doesn't justify a PR article which self reference and qualify as advert, I would rather see this article deleted and a new encyclopedic article instead of it than to let continue a never ending dispute characterized by opposition of well defined groups . A new, Wiki compliant article with encyclopedic content and far less selfreferencing substituted by reliable sourcing will provide more credibility to the organization's entry than the present article. The authors had the time and chance to change it, it continues as PR and mainly self referenced, must be deleted. On the other hand I sincerely hope a good article shows up substituting it but Wikicompliant.Jenny ^Len☤ 07:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of one's view on the merits of the content, proposing for deletion seems to me a remarkably disproportionate response. I apologize for any implication about whatever any particular individual's actual motives may have been. DGG (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, the solution to a perceived problem with the tone or POV of the article is not to delete it and start over. That resolves none of the underlying issues, and there's absolutely no reason why the same people won't be having the same arguments on the brand-new article. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the solution to make this article become less of a PR piece and more a neutral encyclopedic article? My thought is to have the "same people" (of which I am certainly included) take a break from the article and allow new and hopefully more neutral parties whip the article into shape. But do you or anyone else have an alternate suggestion? I am definitely open to considering anything at this point. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new editors without a pre-established opinion can be helpful. The article is probably never going to be uncontroversial, by the nature of its subject. "Skeptical" articles are second only to nationalistic ones in terms of their inherent contentiousness and volume of related ArbCom cases. The solution to making the article more encyclopedic is to base it on good sources. There are quite a few good independent secondary sources dealing with Quackwatch, some critical, some supportive, and some merely analytical. Problem: there are also a lot of truly crappy/unreliable/non-encyclopedic sources out there on Quackwatch. The challenge is to highlight the good sources and ignore the bad ones. The problem is agreeing on where to draw the line. Honestly, speaking only for myself, I'm in self-imposed exile from any article relating to Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett, etc for my own sanity. With the energy expended in a week of discussion at Talk:Quackwatch, one could power the Eastern Seaboard, or at least write a featured article or two. MastCell ^Talk 19:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(-: Truer words have never been spoken. So would you suggest an RfC to get new editors without a pre-established opinion? What is the best way to determine if a source meets V/RS when two groups of editors disagree? WP:RS/N? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This organization is notable. Axl 06:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Article is major need of non-biasing editing. The more 3rd party sources the better, but will be difficult. Repeating the Mission Statement of an organization always has to be done carefully, if at all, and not in the intro. Organization is very noteworthy, but its claims of scientific veracity are dubious. It is a highly political, contentious organization with an agenda far beyond "health information." Article should get specific about what the organization attempts to discredit, how and why. Historical connection to American Medical Association's "Committee on Quakery" should be explored. See articles such as Wilk v. American Medical Association, Chiropractic, History of osteopathic, etc. Lots of interesting history related to this group/founder. Osteopathic Freak ^T(usurpation of User:Hopping in progress) 06:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many of the editors who have shown up here seem less invested in promoting or fighting the subject than some -- but by no means all -- of the article's regulars. If this interesting group of editors would be able to spend some time on the article, editing it may be possible again without incessant & stifling interference by a handful of editors who are engaging in real-life conflicts instead of describing them to the degree acceptable sources allow. In summary, this article desperately needs more editors who have no particular personal bias here, or can set it aside, in favor of producing a neutral, encyclopedic article. Summarizing the summary: please help. Avb 10:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This page wages a campaign of vilification, in the media, against any researcher whose ideas its author doesn't like. There's a strong suggestion of Scientific Fundamentalism here, because Barrett is talking theologically (IN ABSOLUTES) almost all the time, and resorts to modern scientific epistemology only when a new model affronts his prejudices. This site is saying, in effect, "The models of science we want to believe are 'basic physical laws' and hence absolutes and no others exist but the models we don't want to believe are -- only models. DETETE, in order to lower the level of slander at Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.10.229 (talk) 15:28, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Comment Criticisms of the website can be handled in the body of the article. This isn't a rationale for deletion, just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Rrburke^(talk) 17:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Any problems with the article should be solved by editing, not deleting. What makes Quackwatch so special is that its clear POV makes it the canary in the mine," and many who find their beliefs and practices challenged and/or exposed would love to kill that canary (hence the opposition to this article, often using other excuses). We all know what happens in a mine when the canary dies and no one notices it has died. The same applies to Quackwatch. The assassination attempts continually attempted in the real world must not be allowed to succeed here at Wikipedia. It's notability has not arisen in a vacuum. It has a POV and is not afraid to stick up for it with references and documentation. Quackwatch does not claim to be a neutral source, but a source heavily indebted to the scientific mainstream POV. It judges methods by those standards and finds some of them wanting. That makes it unpopular in non-mainstream circles. Fortunately the reliability of sources is not determined by their popularity. -- Fyslee/talk 01:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, special pleading. The problem with the canaries is that some of the heroic little bodies have been found to be laced with H5N1 or SARS, and the townspeople are starting to grumble about mystery epidemics over the last several decades. After many bad experiences, the townies & miners are starting to insist on accurate "Right to Know" information from the owners and distributors of the birds, so far mostly ignored.--I'clast 09:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?!? Shot info 09:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Regardless of the personal feelings individuals may have about the website, no one has clearly articulated what specific wiki policies this article violates. Djma12 ^(talk) 02:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: I am not an author of the article but the site and organization is very notable. See the notability section in the article. Pocopocopocopoco 03:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Can't understand what wiki policy this page breaks that would put it up for deletion. An informative and controversial web site. An informative wiki page. MBCF 16:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not an editor here either, but its obviously one to be kept and improved. Its strongly science oriented and supported so deleting it would seem to me to be quite against majority oriented viewpoints. Spoctacle 03:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

I thinks that are worth here some reminders:

About why the article is for deletion see WP:DEL#REASON, in bold are possible reasons for deleting this article.

Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following:

Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising related subject)
Content not suitable for an encyclopedia
Copyright infringement
Hoax articles (but not articles describing a notable hoax)
Images that are unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic
Inappropriate user pages
Inflammatory redirects
Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed
Newly-coined words or terms (i.e., neologisms).
Overcategorization
Patent nonsense or gibberish
Redundant templates
Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
Vandalism that is not correctable

Please also see: WP:SPAM ;

Advertisements masquerading as articles

Blatant examples of advertising masquerading as articles can be speedily deleted by tagging the articles with {{Template:db-spam}}. Other advertisements posted on Wikipedia can be dealt with by either proposed deletion or listing them on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. ...

...When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view. Elements of articles about products or services with brand names can also be combined under a common topic or category to facilitate unbiased and collaborative information by including information about the competition and about different alternatives.

::Comment Reading the history of the article it is obviously beyond salvage and was given a fair chance to be salvaged for a reasonable time.

Some editors must also be reminded to read WP:AFD:

How to discuss an AfD

The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments.
Please have a look at the article before making a recommendation. Do not base your recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator. For understanding the situation it may also help to look at the history of the article.
Also, please read the earlier comments and recommendations. They may contain relevant arguments and further useful information.
Start your comments or recommendations on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *), and sign them by adding ~~~~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple *s).
Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article.
Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight.
Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted.
Usually editors recommend a course of action in bold text, e.g., "Keep" or "Delete".
Please make only one recommendation; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between ~~and~~ , as in "Delete Speedy keep".
Arguments commonly used to recommend deletion are: "unverifiable" (violates WP:V), "original research" (violates WP:NOR), and "non-notable" in cases where the subject does not meet their respective notability criteria. (In the cases of non-notable biographical articles, it is better to say "does not meet WP:BIO" to avoid insulting the subject.) The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided [1], and is not in itself a reason for deletion. The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either.
If you wish for an article to be kept, you can improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out references, and diffuse the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples from our good and featured articles. If the reasons given in the nomination are addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin.
Try to avoid contradictory or confusing recommendations, such as delete and merge.

Above is clearly stated what you must not do (keep in mind also "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article."), why the article was considered beyond salvage and the possible violations justifying deletion (keep in mind also "include, but are not limited to,"). The right thing is to avoid trying to put words in the mouth of others, to stop trying to suggest hidden agendas and act neutraly and to the point with no discussions about the article's subject itself but just about its content. ℒibrarian2 07:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Librarian2, thank you highlighting which issues you believe the article violates. For future reference, please only list the relevant AfD issues rather than including the entire article -- it only clutters the AfD. Disclosure: I am not affiliated with the website in any way.

1) Advertising - Please specify *why* you believe this article is an advertisement, as it does not promote or endorse a specific product or service. Yes, it is about a specific internet site. By that logic, however, we shouldn't have articles about Google either. What is important is notability, which brings us to...

2) Content not suitable for an encyclopedia - No rationale is given to support this accusation. Websites should not have a different threshold for suitability than any other topic, namely notability as addressed by neutral third party sources. Both of which have been addressed in the article proper.

3) Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources - Article has a fairly extensive and detailed citation list, so I'm not sure where this accusation is coming from.

As far as I can tell, no support has begin given for the accusations at hand. The complaints raised seem to simply be a large, unsupported laundry list in the hopes that the sheer volume will persuade a conclusion. Djma12 ^(talk) 15:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see...

a) If I didn't include the whole article someone would jump saying that I just choose what to take from it (happened before)

b) Was not refering to you about disclosure

c) The article enhances the image of the org, it lacks "observer" talk

d) The largest percent of sources are selfreferencing

e) Assumptions that someone "wants" to have the article deleted are self-marginalizing, the article is assumed to be "evaluated " as deletion candidate or "evaluated" as non deletion candidate, no wanting or agendas, good faith goes a long way.

f) No need to insist on debate, outcome must be by the qualities of the article not the qualities of the subject or the editors involved in the AfD.

Thank you for sharing your opinion ℒibrarian2 19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain The problem here is not that Quackwatch isn't notable enough or does not have available V RS material. The problem is that the article is an obdurately one sided entry that is promotional, fiercely resisting coverage of legitimate, V RS criticism, that after a year, has only marginally improved coverage, including the deletion of links soliciting donations and subscribers. I would most regret deletion simply because of the loss of edit and talk histories that might lose prior points, perhaps inviting re-invention of the wheel. May our "bones" (of contention) reproach the real pseudo-whatever partisans. If this article can't be better balanced, and less an ad, I suppose stubbing it to the current intro and locking it there for 6 months might be appropriate, to chill out things.--I'clast 09:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close this AfD. This nom is still listed? . . . is this the process now? If the article doesn't look like you think it should, delete it? (and possibly start over? To what end?) Plenty of refs are there, if we delete this article, then we need to get rid of a lot of the rest of wikipedia. It's notable and sourced, this nomination is ridiculous. R. Baley 09:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Bad faith nomination resulting from POV-pushing. What a bunch of crap. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 01:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magno[edit]

This person doesn't seem to meet the criteria in WP:MUSIC. No multiple, reliable sources asserted, only a MySpace link. A search of his albums returns little to no results from non-trivial sources. Spellcast 14:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have no idea why twinkle listed those non-related AfDs. Spellcast 14:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe the template screwed up and listed everything beginning with "Mango". The other AfD's listed are unrelated, as one might be able to tell at a glance. This is the FIRST AND ONLY nomination for this page. (Note added later: additional listings have been removed) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (actual !vote this time) Article establishes notability according to WP:MUSIC, we just need sources which can probably be easily found. Rhapsody, while not necessarily reliable, can at least attest to the discography. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly a non-trivial mention. Notable artists on Rhapsody at least have a biography. It in no way asserts he is notable. Spellcast 14:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a sniff of notability I can find. MarkBul 16:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources (WP:YMINAR), can't be verified. Realkyhick 17:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, Lack of reliable sources. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 17:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Atheist Society[edit]

Non-notable, small atheist group. No assertion of notability, no references. Hornet35 14:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, A7. Does not assert notability of the group. Jakew 16:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, doesn't assert notability, recently formed, only a few hundred members. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 300 members is not very impressive. Skarioffszky 17:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, not notable, not reliable sources. Realkyhick 17:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a speedy, but 300 members is not a notable organisation, so delete. — BillC ^talk 20:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. I have no problem with a future article on this organisation if notability can be established, and my vote should not be taken as support for future speedy deletes. Mdwh 22:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom.PelleSmith 01:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nominator is a sock of an indef banned user, although the article lacks notability the AfD is done in bad faith and should be closed so a good faith AfD may be started by a reputable user. Darrenhusted 14:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The status of the editor has no baring on the value of the AfD. Are all the delete voters here socks too? Appropriate action against editor behavior should be taken up elsewhere.PelleSmith 14:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no proof that I am a sock-puppet, your claims constitutes libel. --Hornet35 08:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're advised to read WP:LEGAL before going down that route. Ttiotsw 13:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the deletes above based on number of people is a fallacy that disregards the small size of Denmark - around 5 million people. Extrapolate out the ratio of the Denmark population to the US and this would give 60:1 * 300 = 18,000 members. Notability for small groups in non-English language is hard to obtain but the issue for Wikipedia is if it is referred to by 3rd parties,....

Article in Danish here referring to the organisation (ps: My Danish is shit - not only I don't know how to ask for a beer in Denmark, I couldn't afford many anyway from what I saw when I visited Denmark in 2005 - nice people though) and Kristeligt Dagblad is in the Danish Wikipedia - [66] so it a reliable source as any. Related link here [67] plus google for "Ateistisk Selskab"+Dagblad gets hits, albeit nothing much in English.
Listing here on Richard Dawkings net. Now you could argue that Dawkins web pages are partisan but who cares - Dawkins is a well known scientist so it's really a matter of showing that his web site is unreliable in its content management.

Thats all folks.Ttiotsw 13:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds like a case for notability on the Danish language version of Wikipedia.PelleSmith 21:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Whats the policy here ? Personally I see all EU languages as legally equal (the core EU ones at least anyway). If something is notable in one language then wouldn't it be notable in all other languages by default ? Ttiotsw 14:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I agree that the group doesn't appear to have gained sufficient notability (yet?), I'd like to annotate that this has not much to do with number of members. There are and have been internationally notable groups with a similar or even smaller number of members. WP:CSD#A7 is not applicable however due to the existence of a number of websites that appear to demonstrate minor notability at least within the atheist and secular humanist movement [68] (listing on the Atheist Alliance International website), [69], [70], [71]. —AldeBaer 14:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 vote for a recreation of the article. Here are my arguments:

I think a member number of 300 is suffict to warrent an article. As pointed out earlier, seen relative to population of the US this organization has some 18.000 members. There are wiki articles on other organizations in Denmark with a similar "low" number of members who have their own wiki articles. For example Dansk Front, a right-wing organization which only had some 500 members. Another example is Danmarks Nationalsocialistiske Bevægelse (the danish nazi-party) which will not even reveal how many members it has. I do not see organization with low member counts get to be in wiki just for being radical when Danish Atheist Society (DAS) is not?
I do think it is notable.

On the initiative of DAS a beer called Gudeløs was launched. This beer is now sold in seveal bars and beershopS in the country. This shows the organizations influence in society. The story was also covered by a major newspaper in Denmark. 1. A google search for "Gudeløs "Ateistisk Selskab" " produces 877 hits of google.
A search for "Ateistisk Selskab" (which is the danish name for the organization) produces 12.800 hits on google. Not bad for a country of 5.5 million people i think.
The "Ateistisk Selskab" group on facebook has 740 members. Compare this to the estimated 500 members of the danish nazi party.
Besides from the beer story the organization has been mentioned several times in various danish newspapers. 2 3 4
Lastly, there is a wiki article on this topic in danish, is that suposed to be removed as well?

Based on the above arguments I will recreate the page within near future.

--Shivan (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2009 (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 merge and redirect to xXx. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry L. O'Connor[edit]

This article does not conform to Wikipedia:Notability standards. An IMDB page does not designate notability, and while there is some information about the person available online it would be best suited to be added to the xXx page. The notability of this person mainly falls under Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary. Mike 14:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to xXx per nom, sad, but not really notable enough for own article--Jac16888 14:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough information about him on the Internet to suggest notability. This article could be improved easily, and he's far more notable than the subjects of a lot of Wikipedia articles, there is no need to delete. --Hornet35 14:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NEUTRAL/UNDECIDED. There is apparently enough to at least suggest notability. If the article can be expanded enough to include referenced sources beyond IMDB, then KEEP. It might be to early to DELETE the article. Give the author and/editors enough time to save it. BaldDee 15:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, just so you know, this article has existed for over 3 years, with less than 50 edits in that time, and only has two non wikispace pages linking to it(xXx and April 4--Jac16888 15:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 17:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Packed to the Rafters[edit]

This show is not due to air until 2008. Until then it is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Remy B 14:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Per WP:CRYSTAL--Jac16888 14:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. Additionally, much of the material, particularly the synopsis, was unsourced and unable to be verified. (I originally put a {{prod}} on this article.) Realkyhick 16:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems verifiable, and when the show is broadcast someone will probably end up just recreating this article. Appears to have been officially announced by the network. I've added the future TV series template to reflect its status. DWaterson 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Even "officially announced" shows have a way of not always making it into production and/or broadcast. If it does make it to air, we'll revisit the issue at that time. Realkyhick 09:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 12:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reallyhick. :: maelgwn - talk 12:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per WP:CRYSTAL - Longhair\^talk 23:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW because consensus is clear and notability is amply demonstrated. I encourage the addition of references, some of which were cited in this discussion. Non-admin closure. Shalom ^Hello 20:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why I Am Not a Christian[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. —--Rrburke^(talk) 15:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable essay, no assertion of notability. The only reference is a link to the essay. Hornet35 13:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Over 60,000 Google hits. Included, for example, in New York Public Library's "Books of the Century" as one of the "books that helped shape and define the last hundred years." Frankly, this is an absurd nomination. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Google hits don't mean a whole lot, can you find a source for it being on the NYPL's list? The article currently has no sources (except for a link to the essay). --Hornet35 14:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

Diefendorf, Elizabeth. The New York Public Library's Books of the Century. New York: OUP, 1996. p.92f.[72]

While Google hits may not mean much, 60,000(!) of them speak volumes. But really, this kind of rudimentary legwork should have been done long before nominating a seminal, widely-known, widely-read, much-discussed work like this. That someone could seriously call this work "non-notable" really leaves me at a loss for words. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete References could probably be found (I don't really have the time to check myself at the moment), and it could be arguably notable as the author is apparently notable himself. However, it is a borderline WP:SOAP, and could perhaps provide a bit more background and a bit less quoted material. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betrand Russell is "apparently" notable? Look, maybe some more editors having greater familiarity with the subject area need to be encouraged to participate. In the mean time, I think I need a Valium. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me. Just because I may not know who this person is, does not mean I don't understand Wikipedia policy, which is what matters in this discussion. If you read my comment, that was a reason against deletion, which seems to be what you rather strongly favor. My !vote to delete was based mainly on the tone of the article, not notability. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you mean you didnt even follow the link to the author? DGG (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE and MERGE/REDIRECT. No assertion of notability. No reference to reliable independent sources. No information to assert that the essay has any historical significance whatsoever, other than the fact that it was reprinted in a collection of religious essays, and can be purchased on Amazon and other sites. Show me otherwise, then I'll change my vote. The collection might (or might not) qualify as notable if it can be shown, but so far, the essay itself has no asserted notability on it's own. The essay can be covered sufficiently in the author's article. BaldDee 14:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Good Lord. Try this. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This book was mentioned in my philosophy class, and I've seen it in my university library (which is not large). The author is one the most noteable philosophers and mathematicians of the last century, and it is well known that he was an athiest. This book contains a concise account of why it is that he held this position, and I think that merits its continued presence. The fact that you are classed as a 'christian wikipedian' suggests a possibility of conflict of interest here. On what grounds do you back your assertion that the book is 'non-notable'? Your suggestion that this article should be removed seems dangerously close to a desire for censureship. 84.65.168.134 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC). Oh, and please stop deleting my responses here.[reply]
- Comment Something being mentioned in "your philosophy class" hardly makes it notable. Suggesting that my religious beliefs should prohibit me from editing Wikipedia is absurd and amounts to Discrimination against Christians. --Hornet35 14:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment What does make something 'noteable'? What I was suggesting was that it's notability is what led to it being mentioned in my class, rather than vice versa. If a self proclaimed muslim said he wanted to remove an article on some book I knew, say 'A former believers reasons for rejecting islam', and I said that seemed like a conflict of interests, would that amount to a discrimination against muslims? If a self proclaimed materialist and athiest wanted to remove an article about a book which exposed some of the deficits of materialism in accounting for qualitative reality, I'd also see a conflict in interest. I don't think your voice should be silenced, that would be absurd. But I don't think you should take up a practice of looking to censure books which seem threatening to your own beliefs. If you are convinced that your position is correct, then you should recognise that the arguments against it must be unsound, in which case, a great deal can be learned be examining and exposing where people like Russell have gone wrong in forming them. I cannot endorse this kind of censureship; you accuse me of discriminating against religious censureship if you like, but please do not interpret this as any kind of attack towards your own chosen beliefs, which you have a right to express, as should all others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.215.36 (talk) 14:56, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Comment "What does make something 'noteable'?" Please see Wikipedia:Notability. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BaldDee. --Draken36 14:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Bertrand Russell revolutionized logic and mathematics, founded analytic philosophy and is a Nobel Prize for Literature-winning author "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources." From Wikipedia:Notability (books). This nomination is ridiculous. Skomorokh ^incite 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Rrburke and Skomorokh. This link to the New York Public Library can be used as a reference that it was included in their "Books of the Century" exhibition and publication. Skarioffszky 15:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT/CLRAIFICATION. I would like to clarify my vote. There are two different discussions regarding two different subjects going on here. My vote was in reference to the article regarding the essay. There is also a book by the same name, which included, among others, the titular essay. Clearly, the author is notable as, more than likely, is the book. Every assertion of notability so far has been in reference to either to the author or the book. If someone can show an assertion of notability of the essay as a stand-alone, seperate from the book, then it may warrant it's own article. Otherwise MERGE the article into either a section within the article regarding the author or an article on the book. (BTW. "Good Lord" was excellent - and appropriate - turn of phrase Rrburke!!) --BaldDee 15:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The most famous essay by one of the most notable modern philosophers. Mcwatson 15:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The essay/book distinction is academic, since the book is named after and includes the essay. That's like saying Stairway to Heaven is not notable because it was neveer released as a stand-alone single. AfD is not for articles that need work. bobanny 15:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very relevant essay by notable individual. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Highly notable work, by one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century. ornis (t) 15:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reviewed in Washington Post 1957, New Republic 1958, still in Print after near eighty years, authored by a Nobel Prize winner who is probably a "top ten" philosopher of all time. Acceptable as a spinout of his biography; may need cleanup or attention but this should be accomplished through normal channels. Eleland 15:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep references are available, at least two are cited already, therefore it passes WP:N. The very fact that it was written by a highly notable philosopher ought to be enough to make it notable in its own right. Hut 8.5 15:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is what The New York Times calls a "classic 1927 essay". As stated above, it definitely passes WP:BK because "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources." Spellcast 15:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Very famous essay by major philosopher. Really, WTF? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cold fusion-powered strong Keep this nomination terrifies me. Bertrand Russell was arguably the most important philosopher of the last century. His essays are beyond notable. What's next? Principia_Mathematica? --JayHenry 16:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move this deletion nomination to WP:BJAODN Lurker (said · done) 16:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we can't. Hut 8.5 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, it's like losing a friend. RIP BJAODN. Lurker (said · done) 16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note This user seems to have a thing for deleting athesism-realted articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danish Atheist Society and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt.atheism Lurker (said · done) 16:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- note. Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Inquiry (magazine). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - note I just noticed that. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheist Universe: Why God Didn't Have A Thing To Do With It, though that may be a simple mistake as it was published later under a different name. Lurker (said · done) 16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic whirl, the logo of a prominent atheist organisation Lurker (said · done) 17:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also note Nominator is a suspected sockpuppet of User:PEAR. LaMenta3 19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - per User:Skomorokh above, as Russell was one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th Century. Oli Filth 16:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very famous essay by famous essayist. Fys. Ta fys aym. 16:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable, but could maybe do with more references in the article. Mdwh 16:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom StoneGiant 17:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I couldn't disagree more with the essay, but it is notable and has been referenced many times. Needs more sources to show notability, though. I do sense a bit of a vendetta in submitting atheism articles for AfD's some of which do have merit. As a Christian I obviously disagree with atheism, but I don't think it should be swept with a broad sword from the databases of Wikipedia. Realkyhick 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not about how I feel about the essay, but on the essay itself. When I was a student, I've come across this one on more than two dozen Philosophy textbooks in the University library. It appears that this essay is often quoted as an example argument against the belief of a deity (and, usually, contrasted with another essay from another equally-recognized philosopher or theologian like St. Thomas Aquinas). I'd agree, though, that this article needs more references and discussion. I'd love to see some additional material, such as other philosophers who wrote counter-arguments to this essay. --- Tito Pao 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and obvious keep - very ill-thought out nomination. Otto4711 18:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:35, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Keep as notable and encyclopedic, but I'd like to see the article developed more. — RJH (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Astonishing that this was even nominated. older ≠ wiser 02:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MastCell ^Talk 18:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship maintenance[edit]

Article is simply a large essay, mostly OR, has no links to it, and would require a complete rewrite to make correct, if its even notable enough Jac16888 13:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. --Hornet35 14:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps not OR, as there are a ton of references at the bottom, but it's written almost to imply that the majority of the article is a word-for-word copy of some of those sources: "In 1993, Kathryn Dindia and Daniel J. Canary presented four principles of Relational Maintenance:" ... "Canary and Stafford (1994) divided relationship maintenance behaviors into two distinct types:" and etc. This also seems like it's trying to give medical advice (relationship counseling could be considered a medical field; psychology, etc.), and even if it can't be interpreted that way, it's definitely written like a guidebook. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essay. Realkyhick 17:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. According to Wikipedia Original research (OR) "is unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." This article uses quotes and citations from respected Communication Scientists and can be found in various professional and scientific journals. Relationship Maintenance is a valid theory (research originating back to the 1980s) that Communication Scientists use to help explain the forces that keep a relationship together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate1055 (talk • contribs) 18:06, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Delete. The style of this article is not a guidebook. The purpose of this article is to present a Communication Theory. The authors do not write in a way that is in support or against the theory as it currently stands. Nor do the authors present any new research that is not covered in the governing references. The tone of this article is to present the theory of Relations Maintenance is an accurate and concise manner. The complaint that “it's written almost to imply that the majority of the article is a word-for-word copy of some of those sources” is inaccurate. The line between plagiarizing and reporting is very tenuous. The authors attempt to give credit due to the scientists who conducted the research and accurately report their findings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate1055 (talk • contribs) 18:19, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:36, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Delete as complex copyvio from a variety of sources including [73] and [74]. Just try googling some of the sentences. DWaterson 23:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Noted on Copvio. Will make correct citation or will remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate1055 (talk • contribs) 12:41, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Comment - you may not vote more than once. DWaterson 20:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but this isn't a vote remember, heh. Although it should be noted that, they have made one edit on the article in question, plus these 3 here, thats it--Jac16888 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh alright, "assert an opinion on the matter in a voting-like manner" :-) DWaterson 17:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not really trying to vote. I just want to show that there is some value to the page and want it to stay up. I am willing to respond and change to any criticism. The copyvio was correct and it has been changed. That does not change the value of the information. I believe the OR and Guidebook comments have been successfully addressed as well. If there are more specific comments, especially on the essay format or the way we speak, please point out some instances and I will change to meet Wikipedia's standards. Thanks for the feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate1055 (talk • contribs) 10:50, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The article has changed substantially since the nomination, and looks encyclopedic now. At worst, this should be transwikied to Wikibooks, not deleted. utcursch | talk 06:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Speedily deleted. Horrible preaching, contents do not match the title. May fall under criterion G11 - blatant attempt to promote some entity (in particular, the religion of Islam), possibly also A1, A3, A7, and in any case WP:SNOW. - Mike Rosoft 19:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gulzar Sabri[edit]

Essay/OR. Two earlier versions listed this as "the message of a LIVING FAKIR named Gulzar Sabri", for which I A7 speedy deleted it. Current version makes no such message, so if not as obviously a bio article, and thus not as obviously A7 bait. AFD can also show, once and for all, that WP is not the right place for this stuff. TexasAndroid 13:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE. This is a no-brainer: Non encyclopaedic. Amounts to nothing more than proselytization. BaldDee 14:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uber-Strong Delete Not sure this quite fits any of the CSD criteria, but it definitely does not belong on Wikipedia. WP:NOT may not say "Wikipedia is not for converting the masses to your religion," but I think that would fall easily under WP:SOAP and probably a few others as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest delete. It's a sermon. Realkyhick 17:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to someone's sermon.Harlowraman 19:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 08:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cereal Song[edit]

No assertion of notability (doesn't appear to be a single, etc.), so fails WP:MUSIC. Was prod'ed, but removed by original author of article. Oli Filth 13:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

all songs should have their own articles, all your doing is decreasing the amount of information on wikipedia. Moezzillas world 13:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. No assertion of notability, no referenced sources. And no, Moezzillas world, even as liberal and open-minded as I am, "all songs" should not have their own articles. They should have some notability. If someone can produce a reliable independent source that has covered this song, then I'll consider changing my vote. BaldDee 13:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or add notability - This article is poorly written and doesn't show any notability for the song. If the artcile would explain why the article is notable, then it could be kept. TheInfinityZero 15:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I can appreciate Moezzilla's viewpoint, if every song had its own article, then everything else would be entitled to its own article too Mandsford 17:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, easily fails WP:MUSIC. Realkyhick 17:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as a violation of multiple Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:SYN and WP:V. FCYTravis 05:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban Supporters[edit]

This article is unencyclopaedic, subjective, poorly written, not sufficiently sourced, and is almost certainly a breach of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. It is also possibly libellous, and should not appear in Wikipedia. I previously nominated the article for speedy deletion, but this nomination was removed woithout explanation by MZMcBride. RolandR 13:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy KEEP but edit. Some of the language is certainly unencyclopaedic ("The big cheese"?) and needs to be cleaned up, but clearly both the organization and individuals are notable and their associations are on record by reliable independent sources. The article could definitely use some cleaning up with more referenced sources and detail, but is obviously a keeper. BaldDee 13:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet. ELIMINATORJR 22:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per User:BaldDee. --Hornet35 14:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One can view this as a POV fork of either Taliban or the individual biographies, and I agree with the nominator that there are some WP:BLP issues, too. Jakew 14:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete (borderline speedy) POV fork, list titled as an article, arbitrary or absent inclusion criteria, attempt to spinout core vital information from an article; nothing is wrong in principle with a List of people alleged to have supported the Taliban or List of alleged Taliban members but this is a long way from that. Eleland 16:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Look at the Taliban page. There is no need of this article - it seems to have been created by someone with an extremly limited knowledge of the subject. Thus, it is a grab-bag of names taken from who-knows-where - blogs? MarkBul 16:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A complete POV, this doens't belong here. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete adds nothing to info in the Taliban article, or the individual biographies. Looks like an attempt at a POV fork, and violates WP:BLP. --NSH001 16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Blatant POV fork and listcruft. Realkyhick 17:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for several reasons: redundant to Taliban (we don't need an article specifically about the people who agree with their ideology), the article is insufficiently sourced for such a controversial theme, and the creator claims that this is an "attempt to stifle the discussion", making me think this is a POV fork. Hut 8.5 18:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, a blatant and unnecessary POV fork. RFerreira 23:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as speedily as possible, given serious WP:BLP issues. I have already deleted one obviously poorly sourced allegation. --Slp1 00:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to Taliban and possibly violating BLP. Dbromage [Talk] 00:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 01:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikin (trojan horse)[edit]

This malware does not seem notable. It's not useful for WP to have an article for each and every known malware example. richi 12:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article itself, the risk is described as "low" ... richi 13:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the article: "What the Wikin computer Trojan horse did was not identified from results on Internet searches. There was very little information on it, and even less in English, searchable on the Internet." Although original research, it seems almost an assertion of non-notability. Jakew 14:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently this Trojan hasn't done anything yet. It might, but it hasn't. So I suppose this is a bizarre interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL. --UsaSatsui 14:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:37, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Delete. ~~Apparently the most rubbish trojan ever. Hence, not notable.~~ No wait, the most rubbish trojan ever would be bizarrely notable. OK, just really mediocrely non-notable. DWaterson 23:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat^♫ 05:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Gold Rugby Football Club[edit]

Contest prod. Club fails WP:NOTE, plays in the second division of New England (so not at the top national level), and has no major achievements in its history. Apart from that (I only noticed this now), large parts of the text are a copyvio of the homepage of the club. None of the 59 distinct Google hits[75] seem at first glance to shed another light on this. Fram 13:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, copyvio and not notable. Realkyhick 17:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Please do note, however, that "speedy delete" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia. Kurykh 18:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ellifain Tuuserail[edit]

No assertion of notability, no references Hornet35 12:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:CRUFT, WP:OR, WP:NOTE, and WP:V, probably among others. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Hersfold. NHRHS2010^Talk 20:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but needing lots of work. (non-admin close) Panoptical 18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheonagar[edit]

Non-notable town (or village, I don't know which). The first link pulled up on a Google search is the Wikipedia page. Several other links mention the town, but do not describe it. Contested prod. Panoptical 12:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Towns, etc. are inherently notable. Agreed, it needs some work and expansion, but there's no reason to delete by notability. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Towns or villages are inherently notable regardless of size. --Oakshade 17:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with major work. Again, towns are notable by convention, but the mentions of the town's most notable resident and all that are blatant POV. Realkyhick 17:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Towns are notable, the Census of India is a probable source for at least demographic information. I hate to pull out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but if there is an article for every town the US Census counts (many of which are smaller than this one), then I see no reason there shouldn't be an article for this town. --Phirazo 18:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, towns and villages are inherently notable. Hut 8.5 18:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawl Panoptical 18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 18:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flame Icejin[edit]

Delete as non-notable fan-fiction. Only 66 "unique" results on Google, and they all appear to be self-submitted with no secondary references. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 12:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. The Clawed One 21:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. DWaterson 23:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought that Wikipedia would have a Flame Icejin article. It talks about a fanfiction series that I created. Please, do not delete the article. ~~LDEJRuff~~ (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
- Uh, no. Self-created unimportant fanfiction is not grounds for an article. Do you see any article on Inuyasha's "Purity" series? The Clawed One 16:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't. ~~LDEJRuff~~ (talk) 9:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
  - Then why should there be an article on this series? The Clawed One 13:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Answer to above rhetorical question: We won't, shortly. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, there is an article on a webcomics site maintained by SnafuDave called Snafu Comics. ~~LDEJRuff~~ (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Comment Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for a discussion of how to make persuasive arguments in an AfD debate. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 14:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turbobricks[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY for inclusion. Hu12 09:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources whatsoever. Jakew 09:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, even with sources, no notability --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPS THE TURBOBRICKS!!!! :-) - The Griz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.251.138 (talk • contribs) — 81.178.251.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - Seems notable with 17,300 google results. And afterall, wikipedia is supposed to be the The sum of all human knowledge - Fosnez 10:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's actually 282 hits rather than 17,300 if you discount the duplications, see here. --Oscarthecat 10:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Google shows only the non-duplicates of the first 1000 hits, so it is 282 unique for the first 1000, not for the complete 17,300. IF you would do the same trick with Microsoft or so, you would only get 500 hits as well. No comment on the value of Turbobricks (seems a delete at first glance), but the unique google hits doesn't count in such cases. Fram 13:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply having search results, may mean well paid Search engine optimization. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. This is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Sadly however, google news ^[76] and Google books^[77] show no results.--Hu12 13:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's been spammin AFDs lately with invalid reasons for keeping articles, seriously stop with your sum of all knowledge keeps, it isn't helpful and any AFD closer with common sense will discount it. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 14:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources fails to assert its notability. --Oscarthecat 10:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, etc Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 14:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading the article closer, I'm speeding it, DB-group Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 14:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See no reason to waste time on what appears to be a bad faith nomination. (Non-admin close, though I used to be one.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Infidels[edit]

AfDs for this article:

fails WP:CORP RucasHost 09:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Notable organisation, that's been around since '95, 600K visitors a month, numerous articles published, many of them cited here. Bad faith nom by probable sockpuppet of banned user. ornis (t) 09:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A simple IP check will prove that I am not a sock-puppet. ConfuciusOrnis has been harassing me because he is intolerant of those who do not share his beliefs. --RucasHost 09:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - IP check proves nothing. ornis (t) 09:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, either way, I am not a sock-puppet. --RucasHost 09:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Furthermore, there are no sources to back-up the alleged 600,000 visitors a month. The alexa rank paints quite a different picture. --RucasHost 09:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per last consensus reached --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per result of first AfD. Wl219 10:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Notable organisation. Sophia 10:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep result of first AFD was speedy keep. Nominator fails to highlight what has changed since then to make another AFD worthwhile. --Oscarthecat 10:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted as nonsense. IrishGuy ^talk 09:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeese[edit]

Nominated due to WP:NEO 1redrun ^Talk 09:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 09:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Bauer[edit]

An "art project manager" who has worked for people who may be notable, but I see no claim of independent notability. Fails WP:BIO: no coverage by independent, reputable secondary sources. Skarioffszky 08:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless article can be appropriately sourced. Jakew 09:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, not notable. Realkyhick 17:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 17:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Satanism[edit]

This appears to be an opinions essay and not an encyclopedia article. Fails verifiability and no original research policies. IPSOS (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. --Hornet35 08:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some of these pages are a mess, this is OR as the phrase "cultural satanism" is not one commonly used. I thought this article was good when I saw it a few months ago. Maybe I was comparing it to Satanism which has been even worse in some of its incarnations. Most of the content here is either already in Satan, or it's just a list of things people have called 'satanic'.Merkinsmum 11:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR essay. A probable assertion but still in clear violation of WP:V and WP:SYN. NeoFreak 21:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR. Who the heck is "Police Captain Randy Johnson"? DWaterson 23:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. This one should be speedied.--Sefringle^Talk 05:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The article is not verifiable because it is unsourced. --Pixelface 18:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom, Pixelface, and everybody else; should have been speedied. --Orange Mike 20:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under CSD G1 by Oscarthecat (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 09:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebutenal[edit]

Obvious hoax, it originally included the line "This page created by Ian Schuldt to see how many people he could get to google rebutenal from his facebook account.". I originally tagged it with {{db-nonsense}}, but the tag was removed and the content changed somewhat. I then proded, and the prod was removed. There are zero Ghits. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I'm fine with a speedy deletion; I was concerned on rereading the article that while obviously ridiculous, it might not be patent nonsense. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The speedy deletion tag was removed by the article's creator.--P4k 07:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted - the "single handedly cured all cases of Depression" clinched it. --Oscarthecat 08:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 14:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FantasyQuest[edit]

It's not entirely clear from the article what sort of game this is, or what platforms it's available for, and I can find no information anywhere online to allow me to further expand the article. No sources given for any of the information provided. JavaTenor 07:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on google searching, the games website appears to be [78], although that link is dead for me. In any event, it's a MUD, and most of those aren't near notable. Someguy1221 07:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete offers nothing notable. --Oscarthecat 08:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. --Hornet35 12:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not assert notability in the slightest, Wikipedia is not a game guide, WP:OR, etc, etc. I'd say Speedy it, but I can't find a criteria that fits. --UsaSatsui 14:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article shows no notability of the game, nor shows information on the game (creator, year created, etc.). As well, the article appears as if the text is taken straight from some type of hand book or guide to the game, which may break copyright laws, but I can't confirm this. TheInfinityZero 15:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, totally not notable, unsourced. Realkyhick 17:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Archive.org suggests that [79] was for some online shop, so probably not the right website. Based on the article creation edit summary, "Barely any information on this game.. I have a lone copy of it on my computer, which is where I am getting this information" I'm prepared to believe this is not notable. Delete. DWaterson 23:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt. — TKD::Talk 17:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tray Surfing[edit]

Clearly made up in school one day. Opening the AFD as I can't find a CSD category to stuff this into. Someguy1221 06:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not all Jackassery is notable. Grocery cart downhill? Unicycle roof-jumping? Where does it end? --Dhartung | Talk 07:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFT. You'd have to be rather stupid to actually try that (even a metal tray will if not melt then disintegrate from friction at very low speeds). Other than that: Why wasn't it speedied as WP:NONSENSE? 1redrun ^Talk 08:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nonsense must be incoherent to be speediable. Someguy1221 09:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My mates and I do this all the time, I agree it is stupid. However, a metal tray does not start to melt until around 58 kph. On that fact the bloke was spot on. User:Poiser 04:36z 29 August 2007

Delete - Although I understand why the article couldn't have been speedied, doesn't mean it can't be deleted now for other reasons. The artcile is about an unnotable sport and, yes, it does appear to have been written in a few minutes in school. Even if it wasn't deleted, the article would need a lot of work. The article is in both second person and first person! The references are also not in existance. TheInfinityZero 15:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest delete. Hey dudes, time to move on to third period! Totally made up in school. Realkyhick 17:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trés servible!!! Mandsford 17:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Can it be speedied as recreation of a deleted article? This or a similar article was deleted August 10, 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tray surfing (2nd nomination) then re-created with the second word capitalized. Edison 21:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like, totally, man. DWaterson 22:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt recreation. Shoester 06:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT I did try to speedy this, but it was changed. Quite obviously doesn't belong, though. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. My mates and I do what I call car shenanigans every weekend. It is fairly popular around Brisbane. Poiser— Poiser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep it. We used to do this back in high school as did a lot of the people i currently am stationed with, I think while this article needs some editing to make it less biased it deserves to stay as it seems to be something done by teenagers throughout the country.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgbrunn (talk • contribs) — Jgbrunn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was Keep -- I think a rename to Ashton College would be also a good idea. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton College Vancouver[edit]

No claim to notability. My search for reliable sources to support notability come up with nothing. It is just a private non-degree granting institution in Vancouver.

Editors interested in this debate may also be interested in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial Hotel Management College Afd, which is also about a private non-degree granting institution in Vancouver. Luke! 06:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following article because it is another private non-degree granting institution with roots in Vancouver that has no claim to notabilty. In what notability is claimed to "Canada's largest English Language schools" - I have tried looking for multiple reliable sources for this but to no avail:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. —KTC 15:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just another note: Vancouver Career College: Vancouver Career College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is another similar (non-degree granting) institution we should look at. Personally, I'm neutral but just feel quite strongly that we have to be fair and treat all similar institutions equally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentservices (talk • contribs) 20:08, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Keep I consider all post-secondary institutions with a real existence to be notable, at least ones that give a diploma--as does this. I think this one is essentially equivalent to a US junior college. DGG (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really good justification considering the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial Hotel Management College, also about a private post secondary institution that grants diplomas, Afd was recently closed with a delete result. Luke! 05:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and long-standing precedent here at AfD. Bearian 19:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the precedent for such post-secondary private institutions is delete, if this recently closed Afd is any indication. Luke! 05:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good case for deletion review or just for recreation as a better sourced article--wrongly decided on the basis of the individual opinion of the closer. 09:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rename to Ashton College (which currently redirects to the current pagename), post secondary colleges are usually notable, if only locally, because those qualifications are usually left on peoples resumes, and included in official bios, long after the subject has trimmed out the school achievements and BBQ courses. Lack of notability based on online resources is not reason for deletion, however the article does lack sources, and the first step to address that is to tag the article, and bring it up on a WikiProject that might be able to address the problem; it may be that someone needs to visit a Canadian library to find reliable sources. My google finds some useful resources: [80][81] John Vandenberg 03:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete due to lack of reliable sources to establish notability. — TKD::Talk 14:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donic Code[edit]

No evidence given that this satisfies Wikipedia's notability guideline for music; it appears to me to be some sort of inside joke. JavaTenor 06:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:MUSIC, is a real band, but non-notable. A quick google search turns up only 30 results, of which 27 of them are from one site (2 are from Wikipedia and 1 is from another site). --Patar knight 22:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND. Also obviously a very silly article. DWaterson 22:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this page, I can verify all of the content in the article. If you wish I can send you the mp3s of all the songs mentioned. I feel that it is unfair that you have chosen to delete the article because you simply doubt it's legitimacy. I urge you to allow the article to stand, and as I said I am happy to verify the information if you wish. Shogunn1 01:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen Donic Code live four times, including their controversial performance at the 2006 William and Mary Battle of the Bands, in which they placed second. In the short time they have been around, they have been making noise in the Williamsburg/Newport News hip-hop scene and this article is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.197.48 (talk) 13:45, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Delete, as per Patar knight. Comment to Shogunn1 -- it's not a matter of the band's existance, it's a matter of meeting the guidelines for inclusion. Please take a minute to thoroughly read the guidelines. --Fabrictramp 13:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 14:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eden the Hedgehog[edit]

Unclear that this character actually exists; I suspect a real character in the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise would have more Google presence than this. JavaTenor 06:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax - non-existent character. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if character existed on Sonic, doesn't make it notable. --Oscarthecat 08:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a hoax. The game this character supposedly appeared in (from the Eden page, also doesn't exist...doesn't even have a Wiki article (lazy hoaxsters these days...)--UsaSatsui 15:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax, game over. Realkyhick 17:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and seems to be a hoax. Carlosguitar 23:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure fabrication.--JForget 02:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged to IDT Corp.#Zedge per WP:BOLD. utcursch | talk 06:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zedge[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB and WP:NOT. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with few other edits other than related to Zedge. References seem little more than self submitted press releases. Was speedied previously under WP:CSD#G11. --Hu12 05:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -- Creator attempted to add links that cannot be viewed or followed, still pretty much non-notable and spam as near as I can tell. Accounting4Taste 05:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete (changed my mind) and SALT -- This is not our problem, now or in the future. Accounting4Taste 05:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Moderation -- Creator attempted to edit and revise to fix the link but moderator had placed it in the holding pen within seconds of the insert. Taking time to review the content would reveal that this is obviously not close to spam, although we can appreciate the error in having to review so many of these new additions with haste. Please release so this addition can be corrected properly. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewex (talk • contribs) 05:42, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence of coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 05:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps advertisement material applies more here ALTON .ıl 07:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remark:Now tagged for speedy deletion... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary decisionmaking and censorship -- Creator can supply evidence of coverage which in notable industry magazines but changes cannot be applied. The below page features dozens of exampes of "social networks" in Wikipedia that are not notable whatsoever. Zedge is extremely notable for promoting user generated content with its unique tools for the mobile phone - find me another site that has put user generated content on the map in the same fashion as Zedge? It is an Alexa Top 500 web site for a reason. The below list alone contains a large number of sites that are not notable in any fashion. If you're zealously deleting things as spam, then I've asked nicely to do this in even-handed fashion, which is not happening. If you're removing Zedge then you may as well remove dozens of sites from the following list, which is blatantly the product of self promotion or potentially those with some connection to whom is moderating Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites — Mikewex (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Please read Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. -- Satori Son 12:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an 'other crap exists so delete it too' argument. It won't get you anywhere in political, least of all AfD debates. ALTON .ıl 20:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I know it's been speedied before, but it would be good to let the AfD run so CSD G4 will apply if it's recreated. Dbromage [Talk] 00:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies notability per WP:WEB. This Yahoo! finance report and the other sources seem to demonstrate sufficient notability. Italia^vivi 20:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: But that's just a press release from the company itself. Clearly that's not enough to meet the WP:WEB criteria that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." -- Satori Son 02:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:V. Any report generated by a company cannot assert notability any more than my Facebook page can. WP:YMINAR. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is conceivable that a worthwhile article on this topic might be created, but it might have to be a fresh start. Everything found by Google about Zedge is thick with advertising and promotion, so finding actual business information on Zedge is is very tough. If there are no believable third-party sources that can be cited in the article, then it has to go. The three items currently in the reference list don't seem to be much more than reprinted press releases. EdJohnston 01:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete -- Samir 05:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Glamazons (US)[edit]

This is one in a series of articles speedy deleted as CSD A7, regarding an entrant in the TV show America's Got Talent. DRV overturned these deletions, finding an appearance on the show constituted an assertion of notability. I considered a group listing for all of these, but decided that each entrant might have a different degree of press coverage, and have so listed separately. The argument for deletion is a failure to meet WP:BIO. Xoloz 05:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no apparent notability outside reality show, not a finalist. --Dhartung | Talk 05:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unschool (talk • contribs) 05:38, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Keep. For notability, the issue really is, what is the threshold on America's Got Talent for notability? Ton ten? Top Four? For me, I think that top ten is enough to be considered notable. Others obviously disagree. For sourcing, I plan to, before the end of the day, source all three of these AGT top-ten that DRV just returned. I will add to them performance data, fully sourced from the NBC web site. - TexasAndroid 11:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability threshold is not numeric; it's a matter of non-trivial coverage from reliable published sources which are independent of the subject. Google News archive search for "glamazons" + "got talent" returns zero hits. Google web search returns an abundance of blogs, YouTube, MySpace, trivial mentions in entertainment and fan-sites, and one possibly significant article from the Globe Gazette, a low-circulation Iowa daily. It's something, but I do not believe that one article which was in all likelihood a direct replication of press-release or media-kit information is enough to salvage notability. Eleland 14:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the fact that The Glamazons (US), Sideswipe (performers), and The Duttons were put through CSD/DRV/AFD while Julienne Irwin, Butterscotch (performer), and Cas Haley were not makes it obvious that the placing is indeed in play. Those that made the finals/top four are safe, and those that did not make it that far are not. So the placing is definitely in play, and thus I argue that, IMHO, making the top ten is enough for notability. Thus the talk of this being a threshold issue. - TexasAndroid 11:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed to become a finalist, other than an appearance on AGT has no notability. This should be deleted and turned into a redirect to America's Got Talent. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the point of a redirect. a listing in he article is enough, and google will find it. DGG (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 14:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Gill (politician)[edit]

Not Notable Mmckee 05:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, failed candidate for U.S. Congress, fails WP:BIO. Accomplished physician, but naught else. --Dhartung | Talk 05:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; until such time as he wins, he's just another MD. Unschool 05:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, the person just isn't notable. Burntsauce 21:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn, consensus to keep. Fram 13:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balbina Steffenone[edit]

Not notable. After checking Grove and other internet sources, we believe there was someone called Balbina Steffenone or Steffenoni singing in the Americas in the middle of the 19th century, but there is not enough information on her to write even the shortest of articles. Thanks to Dhartung for digging up enough information on Steffenone (or whatever her name was!) to establish notability. I am withdrawing the Afd (Is this the way to do it?) Kleinzach 05:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not enough information online is a typical trap for historical topics. According to Italian-American History (1947), she was considered "one of the greatest sopranos during the first half of the 19th century", so doubtless there exist more sources for her -- but probably offline. Google Books returns results primarily in Italian and Spanish, but 16 citations is pretty good for that search. --Dhartung | Talk 05:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We have an open mind on this and would be grateful if you can put whatever you find on the article Talk page. However we are familiar with the major singers of the 19th century, all of whom have biographies offline in the New Grove Dictionary of Opera and other main print sources. The claim she was "one of the greatest sopranos during the first half of the 19th century" is hardly credible. -- Kleinzach 06:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Well, it was said, credible or not. JSTOR has an obituary online sub only that calls her "an operatic star greatly admired in her time" (that's visible in the Google results for bina.steffenone). And the Opera Quarterly has an article where she is described as "on this tour (Verdi) the brightest of the star sopranos" (in counterpoint to a critic's "extravagant praise"). In a bio of Walt Whitman he is described as hearing "sixteen of the major singers who made their debut in the next eight years" including Steffanone (note that the "a" spelling returns about the same number of results wherever). There is a mini-bio in a footnote in The Diaries of Giacomo Meyerbeer, noting her "great success" (touring the whole of the Americas) and her "big expressive voice". (Also search under just "Bina".) Maybe not universally regarded as one of the greatest but certainly notable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Fair enough. Evidently the name variants Balbina/Bina Steffenone/i were half the problem. I wasn't able to follow through any of the links you have provided, but if there are sources I'm happy to withdraw the Afd. I'd appreciate it if you could you write up what you've found in the WP article as I am not able to. Thanks. -- Kleinzach 09:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm another person who had thought she might not be notable, but Dhartung has come up with references in notable sources such as the New York Times and various academic opera journals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 09:25, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 14:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Fun Center[edit]

This is near where I live. Truly I say to you that this may be a fun place to go, but it's not notable (and this coverage, while non-trivial, is not in a sufficiently prominent newspaper to make it notable Daniel Case 04:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:N. Unschool 05:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. Shalom ^Hello 02:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 14:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dyke tail[edit]

Not notable neologism with 9 Google hits not related to this usage. Creator claims increasing usage and common usage in his travels. Apparently, creator is really interested in the subject because he got the AfD page completed before I finished with it. See his comment below. As he says, "a new slang term." Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice photo, but what is it's source? That's a separate issue. Anyway, the photo of a girl's head hardly establishes notability for the the neologism. Too new. Not encyclopedic. Oh and lest anyone doubt my internt. Delete (First time I ever saw a "keep" before the afd was listed in the log.) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Please see our policy on new words. Please see our policy on photos with blatant watermarks. Please get this thing off of here. Get me some snow to roll. Daniel Case 04:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per policies cited by Daniel Case. This is possibly more appropriate for Wiktionary. Accounting4Taste 04:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this term has been around a few years now but is unlikely to be covered in e.g. mainstream newspapers due to the word "dyke". If it ever gets into some of the weekly alternatives it might have a shot, but not yet. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism, unreferenced, copyvio pic...not to mention inherently POV. This belongs on Urban Dictionary, not WP.LaMenta3 06:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not even on Urban Dictionary.--81.159.99.231 16:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW like Daniel suggests!! Burntsauce 21:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. DWaterson 22:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. Per WP:SNOW & Possible bad faith nom by WP:SPA ExtraDry 10:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Australian Equine influenza outbreak[edit]

Not notable local event. So a few horses got sick? Big deal! Not like anybody died or anything. Quick Robin to the Bat Cave 04:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Not even worth arguing. mdmanser 04:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I am technically the creator of this article, however I spun it off from Horse flu before adding more references. Others are now contributing to this article about a current event which is still unfolding and seems to be getting worse. Dbromage [Talk] 04:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wikipedia is not wikinews, no evidence that the outbreak will have any impact on the racing industry in the long term. --Peta 04:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is notable in being the first outbreak of Equine influenza in Australia, which has been free of the disease until now. It goes well beyond the racing industry, which has already lost millions in just the first weekend. The longer term effect has already been explained. One horse breeder said on ABC radio this morning that "if we have to delay the start of the breeding season ... there will be less foals on the ground and therefore there'll be less income in years to come".[82] Dbromage [Talk] 04:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This has been the leading news story for the past four days in Australia. One of Australia's top industries, employing hundreds of thousands of people, has come to a complete halt and some non-entity whacks a delete tag on it. Do something useful - go play with the traffic. - Cuddy Wifter 04:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Of course it is notable. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being lost by the horse racing industry, it is the first time Australia has seen the disease, all movement on horses is restricted and foreign countries are now banning all Australian horses from entering their country. This is a big deal, the effects will be around for a while. Nomadtales 05:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, forgive me if the trollish nom by a single-purpose account, Quick Robin to the Bat Cave (talk · contribs), prompts me to rescind good faith. Clearly a notable event with long-term implications for the Aussie horse industry. --Dhartung | Talk 05:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Peta. This belongs as a subset of the horse flu article, not its own article. Is only seemingly notable because of Australia's obsession with gambling; but in truth it is no more notable than any other event that happens every day. And get rid of that map picture while we're at it - it should be one of Sydney, not New South Wales. JRG 06:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This was spun off from the horse flu article because it was getting too detailed. I haven't added the second map yet showing subsequent outbreaks. See what the current event tag actually says. PS, the Federal Treasurer is saying "the outbreak will affect the economy". Dbromage [Talk] 06:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment should have Queensland as well on the map. Gnangarra 07:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Done, sort of. The location map template isn't very flexible. Since the blank maps are GFDL, I think some custom ones can be made. Dbromage [Talk] 08:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom provides no actual reasoning for deletion and seems to be in bad faith. LaMenta3 06:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable event which will have lasting consequences Recurring dreams 06:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep significant disease event in Australia, with the 80 original horse they get $100,000+ per service and can do 5 per day extening their stay in Quarantine 30 days means that the owners of those will loose a little over $200m. The numbers being quoted put the costs/lost earnings for the thoroughbred industry alone around $1 billion[83] even if this doesnt go beyond this weekend nor does that consider the impact on other Equine events.Gnan garra 06:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Recurring dreams 06:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per gnangarra. Twenty Years 06:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, well-sourced --Melburnian 07:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has been a very notable story and is easily verifiable. Nominator's rationale is absurd. Sarah 07:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable event, with big implications on the Australian racing industry. --Borgarde^talk 08:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's all over the news. Battle Ape 10:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to 2000s in film. — TKD::Talk 14:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2000s in cinema[edit]

This article is a collection of disparate original research that does not form anything that could fairly be called an "article". It lacks anything cohesive that would be worth preserving. Unschool 04:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced OR and redundant to 2000s in film. Dbromage [Talk] 04:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Daniel Case 04:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an essay and synthesis of current/past events Corpx 05:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2000s in film, for which it is a plausible search (merging, of course, anything that is of value, which, as Unschool observes, appears to be quite little). Joe 06:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Joe, good suggestion. --Oscarthecat 08:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This decade, more than any other decade yet experienced in history, has been referred to by Tim Russert as "the incomplete decade" Mandsford 17:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Joe. ♠TomasBat 22:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect agreed Joe. Carlosguitar 23:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is unsourced and redundant. No prejudice against creating a redirect after deletion. Jay32183 17:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect We already have 2000s in film. --Pixelface 22:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 14:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matchbox (window manager)[edit]

fails WP:SOFT Hornet35 04:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What part of WP:SOFT talks about notability, or what part of it does this article fail? --Oscarthecat 06:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources giving coverage are found Corpx 05:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It is a component in several notable products (see Talk:Matchbox (window manager) as well). --Alksub 05:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whatlinkshere shows it's an important link in One Laptop per Child, definitely an important topic, and links from several others using soley or parts of that interface. Also, there is no WP:SOFT (products fall under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). ALTON .ıl 07:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. One can just about find enough sources to justify this one (eg [84] [85] [86]). There aren't many sources though, perhaps because it isn't all that notable, and I'd prefer to merge if there's a suitable target. Jakew 09:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep used in Nokia 770, Nokia N800, One Laptop per Child XO-1 and the OpenMoko as per the source page - Fosnez 11:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep source now cited detailing use in OLPC project, to support its notability. --Oscarthecat 11:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 15:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:39, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It's used by at least a couple large projects, so it's notable enough. GhePeU 12:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I speedy closed myself because its impossible for people to see this objectively given my past disputes with Elonka. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Czarnowski[edit]

Non-notable, no non-trivial 3rd party references exist. Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wouldn't it be appropriate to solicit some sources for this first, before deleting it? It tiny size makes it no different than many stubs, and this might be the only place one could find any data on this person. I do not support deletion for triviality in this case (though I might in others). But I think it reasonable to demand some sources. Unschool 04:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to find sources but found none. The article has existed since about a year now. I dont think there are any sources. This is simply a non-notable person. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a notable person who we have no sources about - there's a difference. The offices he held make him notable, the issue is that we don't have the references to write a sourced article. That is definitely a problem but it does not make him non-notable. WjBscribe 04:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know he held the offices mentioned in the article? Do we go by "X put it in, I'm sure he knows what he's talking about", or do we follow WP:V? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think its a hoax? WjBscribe 04:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until we find reliable sources that support the claims, its all personal opinion or knowledge of individual editors. Put another way, its original research until we find sources. And since we cant find any sources, its non-notable. Did you find any sources? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources giving coverage are found. I really do not think notability should be inherited in this case Corpx 05:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article and others like it tend to suffer as a result of a systemic bias that results from these topics being covered in sources that are either not on the internet (i.e. in those things made of dead trees, particularly long-dead dead trees) and/or are in a language that does not have a large intersection with English speakers. Seeing as this article has existed for over a year but was only tagged with an "unreferenced" banner yesterday (which was then subsequently removed by the nominator when he posted this to AfD), enough time has not passed to give notice to find sources or to overcome the systemic bias related to those sources. I will re-tag the article as unreferenced, but I am withholding judgment as to whether or not this article should be kept or deleted for the time being. LaMenta3 05:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty clearly the "Papal Chamberlains" are not all notable (it is unclear how many there have been or may exist at any moment in time), and being head of a priory of an order is not the same thing as being head of the order. The "Polish nobleman" thing is reminiscent of the Szlachta problem in that although these are "nobility" they are as many as 1 in 8 Poles in historical times. Without more to go on this doesn't appear to be an important personage. --Dhartung | Talk 05:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I had arrived earlier, I would have speedy kept this as a bad faith nomination, so instead I am moving to close. This is an article Elonka has edited and considering we just came off a deletion discussion on Elonka's grandfather, it's ill-timed at best, and considering I've just stopped assuming good faith with this user in regards to Elonka, it's harassment of her work. As well, Matt57 has had a problem with going after Elonka's contributions (which has been noticed by multiple users and admins). At this point I really do not think any opinion he has toward anything Elonka has ever done can be taken any way other than with extreme malice. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, given the nominator's apparent history and interactions with Elonka, the faith behind the nomination here must be called into question regardless of the merits of the article (or lack thereof). The user has been warned several times to stay away from Elonka and the articles she has contributed to or edited. Given that he has not, this cannot possibly be seen as a good faith AFD nomination. --Core desat 07:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Elonka's edit to this article, it is extremely minor and it happened more than a year ago. While there may be a history between these editors, I think it is stretching it to assume bad faith. The AFD nomination is perfectly valid, as there appears to be no sources giving coverage to this person Corpx 07:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude here, but it's arguments like this that give Matt57 more ammunition to use to say he isn't going after Elonka with all his energies, when it's rather clear he is. Please review his contributions and his showdowns with Elonka; maybe then you will see that this is a continuing problem which has not been solved in any manner, with dispute resolution or with blocking or otherwise. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, please try to see this as a good faith nomination. Sure me and Elonka have had disputes in the past, but you can either see this as a bad faith nomination or you can see it objectively. But if this is causing some people to not be able to see this objectively, its no use and I wont nominate any problematic articles again. However, please let this nomination go by and see it objectively. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems valid to have this sort of info on Wiki, sources have been provided as requested. - Fosnez 11:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source added is trivial. This is its (machine) English translation:

Yan Czarnowski with (from) freshly nominated maltese bachelor Rossochy, on request apparently konfratra, adm. Jerzy Zwierkowskiego11, then valuable range has transferred library of relationship (association) XVII, XVIII and with history of orders XIX -ETERNAL work related. There among others, they were magic enough, work unknown monastic bibliography Baudoina de and ( Naberata? Volume 1 ) de de ( Histoire des Chevaliers l’Ordre Malte, in paris in (to) 1629 issued < issue (seem) > ) in and Histoire des Chevaliers Hospitaliers. In 7 -volume paris editing with (from) 1778 Vertota in octavo, as well as in (to) two de volumes la de Borcha Lettres sur Sicilie et l’ile Malthe in octavo, in (to) in (to) 178212 issued < issue (seem) > Turynie.

--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 14:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stick Figures On Crack[edit]

Completing unfinished nom by User:Consequentially ; apparently Twinkle accidentally made a blank nomination. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently. Well, thanks for fixing the mess. Consequentially 05:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete (and slap Twinkle upside the head for bugging out). Impossible to get a reliable source on this, as it's a video on YouTube, which according to policy is unreliable and would be first-party anyway. Non-notable, speculatory, OR, not appropriate for Wikipedia. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources. It's not impossible that there could be reliable sources on this; for example, a mainstream publication might write an article about the YouTube video. But has that happened? This article doesn't say. --Metropolitan90 03:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no semblance of notability asserted through reliable, verifiable third party sources. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not impossible to fathom, but lack of sources makes this impossible to stomach. Unschool 04:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. No coverage of subject by reliable sources. -- Satori Son 05:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Wikipedia already has more than enough spam from pathetic YouTubers. --Hornet35 06:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all above. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ridiculously non-notable. DWaterson 22:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 14:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SMARTS software[edit]

WP:SOFTWARE -- Y not? 03:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything on their website or in google news that constitutes a reliable source suitable for establishing notability.--Chaser - T 04:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources giving coverage are found Corpx 05:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. Jakew 10:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How very boring this is. Not in google news! Dear me it mustn't be important. Tjamesjones 23:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Our guidelines are just that--guidelines. If you can make a convincing independent case that the software firm is notable, then I would !vote otherwise.--Chaser - T 23:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 15:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 02:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OmniPlan[edit]

Non-notable software - no WP:RS to indicate notability. Leuko 03:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources giving coverage are found Corpx 05:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - given the degree of dedication to the other articles in the group, I'd highly suggest a merge into the main operator's article. This is a notable and well-known piece of software, its sister, OmniOutliner is distributed with all new Macs. It's been written about in MacWorld and TUAW, the Observer, and other software review sites that give the same coverage to lesser-known but definitely notable products like Adobe InDesign or even Notepad (which is not lesser-known but those are the sites that it uses as citations). ALTON .ıl 08:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Only the MacWorld article covers the software in a non-trivial way. The others are merely announcements of of the product, so they don't really establish notability. Leuko 22:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't announced in either of those sources unless they are major releases to the Mac world. I personally don't use the product, and this isn't something I'm throwing myself off a cliff for, but again I vouch for a merge at the very least. ALTON .ıl 01:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Omni Group. The only third-party reliable source seems to be the Macworld review, and that isn't enough to establish notability. Jakew 10:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 15:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:41, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
- Based on??? AfD's are a discussion, not a vote. Leuko 22:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd argue that they are notable, at least based on this ComputerWorld article [87]. It shouldn't be hard to find other tech review sites talking about them, although most will be Mac based, given that's who Omni develops for. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Music Awards[edit]

It's not notable and has absolutely no references. AR Argon 02:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable major award in a major country. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Awards given by national affiliate of major worldwide recording industry trade association.[88][89][90] (see also da:Danish Music Awards). Wl219 03:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Wl219. Calling it nn could be seen as systematic bias. Dbromage [Talk] 03:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - Where's the secondary reliable sources? The topic is likely notable, but there's no clear assertion of note in the article proper. MrZaius^talk 11:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - As pointed out, there are zero third party references or sources in the article to back up a case for note. Same goes for the Danish version. MrZaius^talk 03:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC) PS: There's a fair number of hits on Google News' archive, but they only seem to make cursory mention of the topic. Likewise, seeing very few other sources that are primarily focused on the Danish Music Awards or that give a clear basis on which to build a case for notability.[reply]
Comment. Try searching for "Dansk Grammy" too. I can't comment on the reliability of sources in Danish as I don't speak the language. Dbromage [Talk] 03:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only see one, a subscription source that appears to only make cursory mention of the "Danish Grammies" while covering a band, like the articles I alluded to above. All hits for "Danish Grammy" seem similar. A case for note should rely on secondary, reliable sources that are primarily focused on the topic. Cursory mention doesn't really cut it, in my book, or WP:ORG - "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.". MrZaius^talk 11:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per 10 lb. Martillo. Unschool 04:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article at Danish Wikipedia isn't stellar, but like the Tony Award and Grammy Award, besides history, the article is basically a list. ALTON .ıl 08:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Who says this isn't notable? I mean, really. Burntsauce 21:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG? There's no sourced assertion of notability. MrZaius^talk 23:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - seems adequately notable to me; should be improved, not deleted. DWaterson 22:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The primary notability criterion is that "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Per MrZaius, I see a lot of passing mentions (trivial), but not much which focuses directly on this topic (to fufill the notability requirements). I am only slightly persuaded by the arguments that it is inheritably notable. Daniel 00:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - national music awards seem to me to be notable per se. WjBscribe 00:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 14:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise, Rose Bay[edit]

Non notable place. Captain panda 02:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note that this is not a village, town, or other officially-recognised settlement; I assume this is talking about some park in Rose Bay, New South Wales, Australia (or Rose Bay, Tasmania?). This is practically speediable as {{db-nocontext}}, but now that it's here ... based on GNews search [91], doesn't seem notable; just a park in the burbs. cab 03:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where is this supposed to be? This article helps no one in any way, it's completely unusable. Unschool 04:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Recurring dreams 06:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is talking about Sydney. It's a small, non-notable park. Recurring dreams 06:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per Recurring Dreams. Twenty Years 06:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability questions notwithstanding, the article looks like a joke. "Said to be owned by..." indicates that it is not a serious attempt at an article, and seals it for me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I often have sympathy for keeping geographical articles, but this is just nonsense. As it doesn't specify which Rose Bay the park is at (we're assuming it's the Sydney one, right?) I cannot see this ever expanding into a useful article. DWaterson 22:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to believe that small parks like this one are notable enough.--JForget 02:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pile on delete - Someone close this already - nothing notable about a park run by "King Bob" and "Queen Emma" (or whatever it says). — Giggy 08:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks any context whatsoever, and still doesn't appear to be notable. Lankiveil 10:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat^♫ 13:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa expos[edit]

Article fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Hirolovesswords 02:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Hirolovesswords 02:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for those curious, it might help to explain what the team is. It seems to me to be an amateur team in the NCBL. I'm not sure if that league makes the sports criteria or not. Then again, I'm concerned about Category:Summer baseball leagues too. Not to mention the teams in the league. I'll bring this up on WP:BASEBALL FrozenPurpleCube 04:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability + lack of content. As of now, only directory level information exists. You'd have better luck at college baseball group, summer leagues are more focused towards college players Corpx 05:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (no merge) to Ottawa Lynx as a likely mistaken search string. The Lynx were the AAA affiliate of the Montreal Expos during the 1990s, so it's possible that someone might look for them under that name. The team that's currently described within the article seems non-notable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bull, but Category:Summer baseball leagues need a good cleaning to the AFD department. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I have 0 results from Google suggesting that the user created this article with the team name. Delete The website links directs to a nn club, that I haven't even heard. This looks like a college league judging by some of the content.--JForget 02:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wiktionary ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vikisözlük[edit]

The Turkish wiktionary is described in the Wiktionary article Andreas ^(T) 02:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Turkish wiktionary is described in the Wiktionary article. We cannot have an article for each of the WP sister project in every language. Andreas ^(T) 02:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DICT Corpx 05:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wiktionary - bizarre, not really Not#Dict, but not really not notable. There are articles about the various projects (Turkish Wikipedia) but I think that an article on that particular language and that particular project can't go much further than that. ALTON .ıl 07:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep it must be exist. Because how people get information and links of vikisözlük . Also it is the 3. biggest wiktionary in the world. -- 3210 ^(T) 16:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wiktionary. An easy merge. Italia^vivi 20:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete – no sources to back up status/accomplishments, so it clearly fails WP:BIO. - KrakatoaKatie 06:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fazle Rabbi[edit]

This article is supposed to be about a highly accomplished writer--it gives a long list of his supposed accomplishments. However I'm concerned at the inadequacy of the sources. It doesn't seem to be verifiable. Perhaps we should pay some attention to finding out whatever about this fellow is verifiable and removing the rest, or alternatively we should delete it. --Tony Sidaway 18:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources. If the author adds proper sources I change to a Keep. 70.21.254.188 18:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 02:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like a self-resume, dubious notability. --Hooperbloob 03:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:V Unschool 04:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Found a source - wiki article article seems to be a copyedit of that with extra information, some of which needs to be removed - Fosnez 11:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even the source Fosnez found isn't reliable, and a politician by the same name seems to have generated much more news. This Mr Rabbi is apparently non-notable. --Huon 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like Mr Rabbi fails WP:BIO to me. Particularly, attending "conferences and international seminars" is hardly a claim of notability. DWaterson 22:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; defaulting to keep. This is most certainly not a 'hoax'; there are plenty of sources to show that this is a valid concept. However, the views of the Community were split down the middle with strong opinions on both sides. What is clear is that there are significant parts of the article that are disputed and the way forward is for those concerned editors to initiate a thorough-going rewrite. TerriersFan 20:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dravidian civilizations[edit]

A synthesis of sources, a hoax and ethnocruft. Baka man 02:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Baka man 02:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin - Please consider this deletion debate of the "Dravidian topics" template. It was deleted with an overwhelming consensus. This article essentially is an expansion of that template into an article. It is a clear WP:POINT violation by User:Wiki Raja. Also, please read the discussions on the article's talk page. Please note that the very first line of the article which supposedly 'defines' the topic is uncited and OR. Not to mention, everything else that follows is a GFDL vio to boot. Sarvagnya 17:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. A quick search shows this is not a hoax and is covered by reputable academic sources (50+ hits in Google Scholar). Any OR or SYNTH can be dealt with editorially. I'm trying very hard to AGF in the nom. Dbromage [Talk] 02:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I am trying very hard to AGF with you. Do you know anything about the subject that you're voting here? This is not about googling and getting some hits. Of course "Dravidian" is not a hoax. This article at best could be titled "South Indian civilisations"(sic). But if Wikiraja had done that, even people people like you who're obviously ignorant of the subject(the very fact that you had to even google for it) would have called his bluff. So he chose next best and called it "Dravidian civilisaitons" and by the looks of it, has already fooled some people. And just so you know, this article is a POINT vio too. Wikiraja has created this article after his "Dravidian civilsiations" template was deleted on the same "hoax" grounds. Sarvagnya 04:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I seem to be getting 5 google hits for "dravidian civilizations".Baka man 04:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try "dravidian civilization"[92] and "dravidian civilisation".[93] Dbromage [Talk] 04:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close A Hoax? Really? Did they travel back in time and add their hoax to my copy of EB, or does the Hoax date from when it was published? I don't know about you, but any family of languages with over a hundred million speakers probably has a civilization to go with it. More seriously, I suppose there may be some concerns about this page, a lot of ethnic-pages on Wikipedia are natural targets for problems. I suggest engaging in work to improve it. It might be valid to merge this with Dravidian people but that's about it, and even then, I'm not certain of it. I'm really hoping this isn't a disruptive nomination, but I do have my doubts. FrozenPurpleCube 02:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of the page, it does seem there is a concern that this was aggregated from several existing pages. In that case, we may have a problem, since the edit history doesn't reflect those additions, which may be a GFDL attribution problem. Not an unsurmountable one though. FrozenPurpleCube 02:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dbromage and FrozenPurpleCube. --Metropolitan90 03:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like a grab-bag article, but the topic is certainly legit. MarkBul 03:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)— MarkBul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy delete - There just is nothing like "Dravidian civilisations"(sic). To fathom the absurdity, try picturing a "Indo-European civilisations"(sic) or Afro-Asiatic civilisations"(sic) etc.,. Sarvagnya 04:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in your statement to indicate this qualifies under Speedy Delete criteria (which are listed at WP:CSD. As for your analogy, I'm not convinced that it's accurate. Could you explain further? And why shouldn't we have an article on either of those civilizations? FrozenPurpleCube 04:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because those arent civilisations! Thats why. Those are language families! Wikiraja has simply culled info from articles relating to speakers of languages belonging to this language family and conjured his own 'civilisation' out of thin air! This is not like the 'Roman civilisation' or anything. There just is nothing like a "Dravidian" civilisation! Sarvagnya 04:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To put it in perspective, let me break it up for you. German is an IE language. So is Hindi or Bengali. Now, we may at best imagine that there is something like a "German civilisation" or even a "Hindi civilisation"/"Bengali civilisation". That itself would be absurd. But then bringing all three under one roof and calling it "Indo European civilisations" is plain nonsense. Sarvagnya 04:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable scientific sources define "Dravidian civilisation".[94] Dbromage [Talk] 04:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're asserting that they aren't civilizations, but the problem is, you're not showing why. I'm sorry, but you've failed to substantiate your argument, neither making the connection clear nor making the argument that the examples you gave don't merit articles. Besides, a quick book search [95] gets me plenty of usages of the term, enough that I'm not going to take your comment on simple faith. And I can also find plenty of examples of German Civilization and [96] Hindu] so I'm also unimpressed by that argument. FrozenPurpleCube 04:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they dont. Did you read those sources? They speculate about the Indus Valley civilization being Dravidian. This page adds wildly disparate material and attaches a tag-line to try and unify them in a revisionist manner.Baka man 04:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's just your bare word, which I'm afraid I can't trust. That's a problem on Wikipedia in general, let alone with regards to highly charged situations like this which tend to lead to cases of POV-pushing in my experiences. As far as I can tell, I don't see any of those sources saying what you claim, let alone sources that refute that position. You're welcome to provide some if you like though. Just point them out. Though that might just lead to rewrite this article to take into account their disputes, not deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 04:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am by no stretch of the imagination an expert on this subject. But the arguments put forth by User: Sarvagnya strike me as almost bizarre. There are people in India and Sri Lanka today who are Dravidians, are there not? It is not automatic that they have a civilization, but it is not ridiculous for others to believe that they do. This comparison to Indo-Europeans is silly; no one walking around today calls himself an Indo-European or is called such by others. But there are people today called Dravidians. And they have historically (if I remember my history from over 30 years ago) been subjected to some significant degree of ostracism from the mainstream of the society of India, have they not? Seems like such a people could develop a culture, if not a civilization, of their own. Again, I am no authority, but explain to me why this cannot be so. Unschool 05:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If my analogy sounds bizarre to you, its only because this article happens to be equally bizarre. And no. There are nobody here who goes around calling themselves "Dravidians" except some Tamilians and their political parties who draw their 'intellectual'(sic) fodder from crank race theories of a certain E. V. Ramasami Naicker. These crank theories run almost parallel to the Nazi 'Aryan' theories and are far removed from how bonafide researchers define the word "Dravidian".

And they have historically (if I remember my history from over 30 years ago) been subjected to some significant degree of ostracism from the mainstream of the society of India, have they not? - I have absolutely no idea what you've been reading. But you probably should try looking under Dalit.

And as for your comment about India and Sri Lanka, I dont know what you're trying to hint at. But, there are people in both these countries who speak languages that belong to the Dravidian language family. That is about it. But that is not what this article is about at all! Sarvagnya 06:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you wouldnt. You didnt read the sources, did you? No mainstream sources on google discuss it.

“

Error: No text given for quotation (or equals sign used in the actual argument to an unnamed parameter)

”

. But if you want something better, try

“

There is neither archeological nor literary evidence of any previous Dravidian civilization

”

[97].Baka man 05:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's *one* source. Wow. Let's see....there are how many other sources that *don't* say that? See, that's the problem with those sort of situation, one person can push their own POV. Thus you'll need *sources* and even then, it may not be possible to refute the others. Sorry, but what I'm seeing here is a classic case of one bias meeting another. FrozenPurpleCube 13:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I have provided valid sources to the article Dravidian civilizations here. These are also from valid books including the title, author, and even the page numbers of where I found this. As for the other article called Dravidian people, if one were to take a close look at the article, it is nothing more than a biased proof page on whether Dravidians exist or not. Further more, it looks more like something I would find in a Nazi cookbook! However, in respects to Wikipedia standards, I have left that page alone and have contributed this article called Dravidian civilizations. In regards to comparing this situation with Europe, let me explain that in Europe itself you have the Spaniards, Portuguese, and Italians which belong to the Latino branch of ethnicities and languages, while in Northern Europe there are the Scandinavians which comprise of Swedish, Norwegians, and Danes. Lastly, why is it that articles such as this one including other related articles (such as Tamil people, and Tamil language, for example), have to be the ones to provide reliable sources for every nic and cranny? Here is another sad example of the Bharatanatyam page where the the dance needed five sources to prove it's true origins. The fiasco can be found on its talk page. Whereas, on sites such as these (Indo Aryans, Aryavarta, and Proto-Indo-Europeans) all they need are just one, two, or three referenced sources, page numbers not included. Even better, how about this article called Indo-Aryan languages. This article does not even have a single cited reference source! Wiki Raja 05:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's cherry picking. See the other scientific sources on Google Scholar which define Dravidian civilisation, e.g. 'Journal of Ethnopharmacology, Journal of South Asian Studies, etc. Dbromage [Talk] 05:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If thats cherry picking, would you be so kind as to spell out how your sources define it? All those sources when they use the term "Dravidian civilisations" only use it to describe a population that (probably) spoke a Dravidian language. Calling Carnatic music a "Dravidian" art is as absurd as saying Karate is "Japonic".

Strong keep. Dravidian civilization is a myth for people who want it to be. Otherwise it is mostly accepted. Genetic studies on human migration already suggest that Aryan-Dravidian patterns [98][99] which along with historic suggestions point to one thing the existence of Dravidians. If you remove the Dravidian civilization and people out as hoax then there is no explanation for the existing genetic pattern in South Asian population. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 05:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Existence of Dravidians' only means that speakers of "Dravidian" language(s) may have existed. Nothing more. Nothing less. And what's with genetics now? I tried doing a ctrl-F for "genetics" in the article and didnt find anything to substantiate your line. Sarvagnya 05:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to go through the references I have provided which show that people who speak the Dravidian languages were indeed the first population of the South Asia and the Aryan language speaking population migrated in later. I dont know why you did a ctrl-F instead of getting into the sources provided. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε^†αLҝ 06:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're talking of c. 2000 BC etc. Right? You must be because, even according to AIT/AMT Indo Aryans were in South Asia since 1500 BC. But nothing on this page discusses anything from pre-'Aryan' times. You probably need to first get together with Wikiraja and ask him how he defines "Dravidian civilisation(s)". I'd be tagging this article for failing to provide enough context if I hadnt already tagged it for being a hoax! Sarvagnya 06:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dravidian people, where those parts of it that survive OR-checking can be spun out to History of Dravidian people if necessary. Hornplease 06:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In regards to Sarvagnya's suggestion, let me clearly state that the article Dravidian civilizations is about Dravidian civilizations. Secondly, this is not a proof page of who was in India first or not. Thirdly, merging the article would not be a good idea since it would be defeating the purpose of the Dravidian civilizations page which is about Dravidians. Whereas, the Dravidian people is nothing more than a propaganda proof page on whether they exist or not. Wiki Raja 06:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear the Dravidian people article is in bad shape currently (if that is what you mean) . No doubt it will improve in due course, but that does not affect my argument per se. Hornplease 06:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please take a look at the sections in both articles:

  Dravidian people
  # 1 Concept of the Dravidian people
   * 1.1 Racial classifications
   * 1.2 Genetic classifications
   * 1.3 Linguistic classifications
         o 1.3.1 Early arrival theory
         o 1.3.2 Late arrival theory
   * 1.4 Prominent Dravidian linguistic groups
         o 1.4.1 Geographic distribution
  # 2 Political ramifications
   * 2.1 India
   * 2.2 Sri Lanka

(The sections to the above article Dravidian people are only about theories, classifications, and political ramifications)

  Indo-Aryans
   * 1 Pre-Vedic Indo-Aryans
   * 2 Vedic Aryans
   * 3 Antiquity
   * 4 Middle Kingdoms
   * 5 Contemporary Indo-Aryans
         o 5.1 Hindustani communities
         o 5.2 Roma and Sinti
   * 6 Indo-Aryan peoples
         o 6.1 Ancient
         o 6.2 Modern
   * 7 Notes
   * 8 References
   * 9 See also

(The sections to the above article Indo-Aryans show the history, kingdoms, antiquity, etc. about these groups, which is very similar to the article Dravidian civilizations)

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with the two articles in the boxes above in comparison with each other? Dravidian civilizations should stay. It is about the civilizations and their cultural heritage, history, and the arts. Dravidian people is strictly about proving whether that the actual people exist or not. Wiki Raja 06:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now User:Sarvagnya is making a joke out of this by removing parts of the article from Dravidian people here and here. So now, according to user:Sarvagnya Dravidians only exist in India and no where else. So, what about the Tamils of Sri Lanka that was just deleted? Do they not exist now? Furthermore, this user has just removed the Category:Civilizations from the Dravidian civilizations page here. Can someone please put a lock on that page until this issue has been resolved? Thanks. Wiki Raja 07:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I remove Sri Lanka? If so, it was a mistake. Feel free to add it back. And do Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh sound like "only India" to you? Not to mention, I've since removed Bangladesh and Nepal coz I saw no evidence of it in that map. Sarvagnya 07:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, since you have stated that nobody says that they are Dravidian, the same can be said about people not saying that they are Indo-Aryan, Mon-Khmer, Malayo-Polynesian,Meso-American, etc. even though these are names for families of related groups. Enough with these nonsensical games for one day. Wiki Raja 07:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De-list. There seems to be some serious editorial concerns here for which the proper forum is the talk page. It is unlikely that delete will be the answer. It's likely that large amounts of material will be moved, and if it all goes then a redirect should be left and the history retained. --SmokeyJoe 08:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per Wiki Raja and a search in Google and Yahoo gives over 130000 results [100] [101].It clearly passes WP:N ,WP:V and has WP:RS.It is subject of study in several universites.Harlowraman 08:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: POV fork and per nom --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 09:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Dravidians as pov fork. dab (𒁳) 09:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am surprised that so many people have voted Keep without even reading the article or actually going through the Google scholar results that they have provided to support their vote. This article is not about "Dravidian Civilization" -- it is a fork of Dravidian people. As is evident by the Google Scholar results, the term "Dravidian civilization" is used to refer to the civilization of the proto-Dravidian people, before their miscegenation with other groups, such as Indo-Aryans. For example, the Indus Valley Civilization is considered as a candidate for a Proto-Dravidian culture by some experts, so these people call it "Dravidian civilization". All the Google scholar results for "Dravidian civilization" (or "civilisation") talk about proto-Dravidian civilization. On the other hand, this article talks about "Dravidian people" (a linguistic and cultural group in India, not a separate civilization). It is simply an aggregate of information from various articles related to the Dravidian linguistic group or South India (such as Dravidian people, Dravidian languages, Dravidian architecture etc.) Most of the article is a blatant violation of the GFDL policy, taking verbatim content from other articles without any attribution -- a simple Google search proves it. For example, "direct voyage from Aden to the South Western coast" is from Thomas the Apostle#Indian_legacy; "heralded a new chapter in South Indian" is from History of South India. utcursch | talk 10:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what you mean is that the article should be pruned it's essence instead of its current status? in effect you are saying fix it not delete it ? just looking for clarification. Thanks Taprobanus 12:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to fix, because the article is not about proto-Dravidian/pre-Aryan people. It's about Dravidian people (which already exists). There is nothing to merge, because most of the article is GFDL violation, taking large chunks of contents from other articles without attribution (I've given some examples above). If a new article has to be created on the history of Dravidian people or proto-Dravidian people, it will have to be written from scratch anyway. utcursch | talk 12:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The attribution problems are easily fixed with statements of where they come from. It's not a unsurmountable problem. I suggest you make a note of all copied text and put it on the talk page. FrozenPurpleCube 14:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Dravidian people and create History of Dravidian people per Use:Hornplease Taprobanus 12:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewriteAfter reading the arguments I have come to the conclusion that this article needs to rewriiten from bottom up. There is enough WP:RS sources that indicate that indeed we can write an encylopedic article about Dravidian civilization in Wikipedia but the current version is untenable. Let's clean up instead of wasting our time on the AFD. Thanks Taprobanus 14:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, strong keep. It's a valid topic in its own right, and the article, while it could use some copyediting and likely more citation, seems informative enough. I find it remarkable that there is no discussion whatsoever about the merits of this article on the article discussion page -- seemingly an important first step which anyone acting in good faith would take when considering whether or not to AfD an article. The failure to do so on the part of the user who initiated this AfD, therefore, could give rise to suspicions of bad faith or nefarious intent. deeceevoice 12:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nefarious intent ?! If anything, this article is one hell of a WP:POINT violation. We went through a protracted deletion debate about Wikiraja's "Dravidian civilisations" template and it got deleted with an overwhelming consensus. Soon after that he got blocked for three months for socking. Now he's back and his 'template' has now become an article! And once again, he's wasting our time which ought to be counted as disruption. Sarvagnya 17:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per User:Utcursch. The article is just all about Dravidian people, which is already an existing article on its own. - KNM ^Talk 13:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This article is adequately cited to academic journals/ books. Further, it seems that the citations are not of question but if it contains WP:SYN. However, the editors fail to show how the article is WP:SYN and it is not enoguh to "take your word on it". As we search google we get 138,000 hits. Seems very notable. For the Scholar search for dravidian civilizations yields 1,820. The argument of ethnocruft is pointless here. This article is as WP:CRUFT as any other cultural history. Also it is not a proper rational for a delete as WP:CRUFT is not a policy or a guideline and even if it was it does not relate to the article at hand. Watchdogb 13:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. The article is not about Dravidian civilizations that those scholarly papers talk about. utcursch | talk 13:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really ? Your comment above make no sense at all. How can you prove that this article is not about Dravidian_civilizations ? Please explain further. You current argument is like saying the String theory is not about the string theory, instead it about the make up of everything around us. Very funny. Watchdogb 15:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Dravidian People is a subset of Dravidian civilization. So if a merge is to happen, then Dravidian people should be merged into Dravidian civilization. However, that poses a new problem because Dravidian people is 17,157 kb long and Dr avian civilization is 58,787 kb. Merging would well exceed 70,000 kb. I believe that gives reason for the merged article to be made into two separate articles. I believe that is exactly why we have two seperate article rather than just one.Watchdogb 15:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to bring up the Google scholar is because people seem to think that Dravidian Civilization is not notable. If this article is not written well, then it needs to be edited and fixed and not deleted. Watchdogb 15:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps this page should be rewritten to be about those civilizations. Constructively editing a page to improve it is something to be encouraged. FrozenPurpleCube 14:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist that we rewrite it, it would look like this --> #REDIRECT[[Indus_Valley_Civilization#Dravidian hypothesis]]. Are you game? Sarvagnya 02:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to propose that option, however, I don't know that there will be a consensus for it. FrozenPurpleCube 04:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

omg you got 138,000??? :-o then see how did I shinked your 6 digits into 3 digits. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rewrite to reflect Dravidian Civilizations. --vi5in^[talk] 14:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BTW, people, please be careful about your edits to this page. Twice I've had my addition of the Category:Civilizations to this page reverted. There is no reason to do that, and especially not any to call it POV. The proper place to dispute the contents of the article is here, but needless removal of otherwise valid categories isn't it. If this page does merit deletion, then what categories it was in becomes irrelevant, however, until then, it's hardly unreasonable to say an article that is supposed to be about a civilization belongs in that category. Really, it's a completely neutral category, not even a sign of bias. When you remove it, it looks like vandalism and POV-pushing to me. Make your case here, not by altering the page in a way that can't be considered an improvement. FrozenPurpleCube 14:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fiction or not these articles deserve a place in wikipedia. They do have scholarly backing and is by far million times more scholarly than the hundreds of pokemon articles. Will anyone dare delete the pokemon articles? The point is the articles are important because it apparently has a great influence in south india and encompasses a certain philosophy and theory. The debate should not be about the truth. Is it your truth or my truth ? All the important theories deserve a fair place/space. Sinhala freedom 14:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete "Dravidian" is a linguistic group and period. There is absolutely no civilization attributed to so called "Dravidian". That's the reason this article jumps back and forth from 21st century to 2nd century!! Utcursh has already pointed this out pretty neat. Gnanapiti 14:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources to back up your claim that it's nothing but a linguistic group? I think any language is going to be spoken by people. So at the least, there's a case to be made for an article about the people who speak Dravidian languages. Since people tend to have a culture/civilization, it also seems reasonable to cover that issue to some extent. What that is, well, is a decision that's not going to be best made by simple assertions, but rather by careful and diligent sourcing. FrozenPurpleCube 16:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply To start with, Dravidian hypothesis in Britannica which states Features of Hinduism that cannot be traced to the Rigveda are sometimes ascribed to the influence of the original inhabitants, who are often vaguely and incorrectly referred to as “Dravidians,” a term that refers to a family of languages and not an ethnic group. Gnanapiti 16:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be stating that they are often referred to in that way. That the author of the Britannica article disagrees doesn't prove that position right though. It means this is a presumably controversial situation. In which case, multiple sources are what's needed. FrozenPurpleCube 17:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Mister - Every linguistic group, has a 'culture'. Agreed. But 'civilization' as used in historiography? Well, even if we are charitable and assume that every a 'civilization' exists for every language, by that logic this article should be a summary article drawing from Badaga civilization+Brahui civilization+tamil civilization+telugu civilization+tulu civ+kannada civ.... Pray, tell me where are these child articles? Greek civilization for example, is NOT the 'civilization' of people who spoke the Greek language but that of people who lived and built their empire in/from Greece. That they spoke Greek is incidental. I cant think of any parallel where a linguistic group has a 'civilization' named after them and if there is, it must be for very good reasons.
All the results in Google scholar which refer to 'Dravidian civilization(s)' only do so when they're hypothesising/discussing about the language that a particular culture/civilization spoke! They're not discussing this mythical civilization that exists only in Wikiraja's imagination.
For example, when they talk about a DC in the context of Harappa, they're just speculating that the people of the Harappan civilization spoke a Dravidian language. Thats all. Sarvagnya 17:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that may be your interpretation of the sources, but it's not conclusive. And as far as I'm concerned, I have no current objection to the other articles you mention. If we don't have one right now, well Wikipedia is incomplete, a lot of things aren't included yet. FrozenPurpleCube 17:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I suppose it is worth noting that there are books on the Spread of Greek Civilization beyond Greece. See [102] for one example. FrozenPurpleCube 01:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In regards to KNM's comment on the article page here when he removed the Category he stated that "there is no Dravidian civilization, and this article is just all about Dravidians". Hello????? That's what this article is about, Dravidians. I don't quite understand your comment. It's like disputing that the Polynesian people article should be removed because it is all about the Polynesian people. This is also not solely about India. If it were about India, then I would be talking about the Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, and the Mon-Khmer groups. If that is what you are implying, please read the name of the title before commenting. Wiki Raja 16:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Yes, thats exactly my point. And I am glad that you are also agreeing that this whole article is all about Dravidians. Thank god! When we already have Dravidians why do we need this new article?? Dravidians is redirecting now to Dravidian people. So this article, Dravidian civilizations will have to be either Deleted or redirected into Dravidians. Hope you got it. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per User:Utcursch -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}16:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment KNM, I don't think you get it. Dravidian people is a racist page which is nothing more than a POV nationalistic proof page on whether Dravidians exist or not. Dravidian civilizations is about not only the ethnicity of the Dravidian groups, but also the history, arts, religions, geography, festivals, literature, languages, and scripts of the Dravidian people. Stop twisting my words. Wiki Raja 16:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First you got to prove "Dravidian" is an ethnicity before taking this any further. When no such ethnicity exists in the first place, how can you make claims on history, arts, festivals(!) blah blah blah? Gnanapiti 16:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA World Factbook recognizes it. [103]. Probably the UN as well. Maybe even the Indian Census. FrozenPurpleCube 17:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of that CIA link 'recognizes' it the way you would want us to? When it says 'Dravidian inhabitants', it means that the early inhabitants spoke a Dravidian language. When it says there are 25% Dravidians, it means that 25% of India's population speaks a Dravidian language. Sarvagnya 18:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want the CIA or anybody to recognize it in anyway. The person I was replying to questioned whether or not Dravidian was an ethnicity. Since "Ethnic groups: Indo-Aryan 72%, Dravidian 25%, Mongoloid and other 3% (2000)" is right there on the page, I'm going to say that it is reasonably proved. FrozenPurpleCube 04:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Please keep "probably" and "may be" out of this discussion. As far as your speculation is concerned, No they don't and that's the reason article is up for deletion. Gnanapiti 19:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to provide sources proving they don't. Me, I don't see it as a great burden, I just don't feel like bothering since the CIA source is pretty convincing to me. If they're not to you, then you'd probably have to find somebody claiming they were in error. FrozenPurpleCube 00:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletions. -- --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this related to Sri Lanka. This is canvassing for deletion (considering users bias) by other means. Tamils (who are supposedly dravidian) according to SLFP government census only make up 3 % of the population hence insignificant, while the sinhala, who are considered aryans make up more than 70 % of the populaton ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinhala freedom (talk • contribs)

aah ha then you accept that this article is nothing but a POV FOLK ha?? Confuced? then go through the intro. Thanks --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sinhala Freedom, if Tamils make up only 3% while Sinhalese make up 70% of Sri Lanka, then who makes up the other 27% of the population? Wiki Raja 19:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should clarify my earlier comment. A segment of sinhala population including the present government think of themselves as part of this pure mythical aryan race. They also believe they were literally bred from lions. I obviously am not under that category of believers. Genetic studies were done and it was found Sinhala community and Tamil minority did not differ genetically. So by genetics, Sinhalese are Dravidian, if Tamils are considered Dravidian. That would indicate by SLFP census that atleast 73 % of the population are Dravidian. Also some tamil populations have assimilated into the Sinhala community. If lahiru seem to want to insist this debate be spread to sri lanka, bangladesh and pakistan then he is implying that dravidians are not insignificant in the specified countries. Is he not ? Sinhala freedom 21:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite might also be true; Tamils are Aryans if Sinhalese are considered Aryans. Gnanapiti 21:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm the fairy god-mother. Wiki Raja 21:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletions. -- --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete::: Per excellent arguments given by nom and the others.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 17:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletions. -- --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep::: This is the most ridiculous nom for deletion I've heard. The trolls that initiated this are doing this for their own political/religious agendas. The (vedic) hindutva block wants to pursue revisionist history, suiting their biased supremacist world views, by deleting valuable informative articles. Dravidian subjects have the utmost validity from a wide range of sources, disciplines and scholars, from linguistic evidence all the way to genetic evidence. If this is up for deletion then vedic, Indo-aryan, Indo-european and Indo-Iranian subjects, should all join the heap. This act (nom for deletion of a valid subjects and article) in itself, should show the ultimate lack of creditbility for this gang of agenda driven editors.--Kathanar 17:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saving the day with your extremely insightful comment and assuming good faith. In case, you are not aware yet, there is already an article on Dravidian people, just like there are articles on Indo-Aryan/Indo-European. Besides, several of the people who have voted delete are themselves Dravidian people. utcursch | talk 04:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little snippy aren't we? I'm sorry did I hit a sensitive area with you? Is there a quota on how many subjects on dravidian there can be? Or are you annoyed about something else? Yes airing the dirty laundry of that certain group (you know who I'm talking of) will cause some to get nervous, I just didn't realize there was any connection with you. Its irrelevant if several of the people are "dravidian" doesn't make their point anymore valid, especially as you can be anyone you want on wiki, even hiding behind a pseudo-jewish identity to promote hindutvist agendas, oh btw User:Utcursch how is User:Hkelkar( or whatever sock he's hiding behind) doing? --Kathanar 13:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your comment, because you complained that the Vedic/Hindutva block wants to delete articles on Dravidian subjects and other articles like Indo-Aryan should also be deleted if this one goes; I just wanted to point out that there is already an article on Dravidian people and none of the people who have voted delete here have any problem with that article. The problem is that the creator of the article has notions of "Indo-Aryan nations (Gujurat, Punjab, etc.);" and "Dravidia Nadu which constitutes the Dravidian nations (Tamils, Telugus, Malayalees, etc.)".

You might be interested in reading Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I'm neither Hindu, nor Jew, so take your "biased supremacists/Hindutva trolls" argument somewhere else. utcursch | talk 15:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need to reply to my comment at all, no one was talking to you, you took that upon yourself. You might be interested in reading WP:Civility. Its irrelevant to talk about what people have a problem with, as you and I don't know the opinions of people, whether they have a "problem" with a subject or not. Until they do something about, its unknown. It amazes me also how some people seem to make up things when the words are right in front of them. When did I say you were a hindu or jew? Where was the personal attack? You're the one that initiated this dialog. I just stating a opinion on your claim that "dravidians" were also trying to delete this article. It shouldn't matter if they are not. What I was stating is that some people, particularly in a certain group, have made attempts to hide behind other identities to claim non-bias in promoting their very biased agendas. Case in point is User:Hkelkar who claimed to be jewish and other things when he was other socks, just to promote the same agendas seen in this deletion move. All in all refrain from trying to confront people directly with your opinions if they don't contribute to the subject at hand. I do not intend to continue this conversation on this page, so lets agree to disagree and move on. Have a good day --Kathanar 16:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid topic.Delete per Gnanapiti, and knm. IP198 18:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:43, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Section break[edit]

Delete per nom and as likely POV fork. Bulldog123 07:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems clear that there is enough known about the civilization in general to warrant an article. I hope the matter of its content will be discussed more reasonably on its talk page than in the discussion here. DGG (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, there is not enough known. In fact there in nothing known. This article is created by copy pasting content from several articles like Karnataka, Carnatic music, Kannada literature and many more. Is that what you call enough known? Gnanapiti 15:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either you cannot read what I have been repeatedly posting, or you are deliberately not reading what I am posting. For the last time, some of the info that are on some other articles have a link stating Main Article:(Title) giving the reader more more info to read up upon. For the last time, stop with your nonsense. Wiki Raja 16:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense are you talking about? The template main article is used to redirect the reader to an article which has more detailed information on the issue being talked about. What you have done here is to copy content from those articles and paste it here in your synthesized article so as to make it look like "the article has something in it." Gnanapiti 21:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only people in subscribing to a racist "dravidian" viewpoint are sections of upper-caste Tamils, and a few minorities (the Anti-Brahmin ones). This revisionist concept popularized by Devaneya Pavanar argues for such ludicrous concepts as a Tamil Atlantis (kumari kandam). Wikipedia is hardly a place for racist mysticism.Baka man 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I dont have anything else to say. I can just wish that closing admin doesnt count votes.--nids (♂) 17:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also, BJAODN, now archived at uncyclopedia. nids (♂) 18:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bakasuprman, pardon me but I denounce this segregationist caste system and do not accept it either. All men and women were created equal. Please don't bring up this caste system junk. No one is superior than the other. Please let me leave you with this wonderful quote which I know a lot of segregationists and lovers of the caste system detest.

"We are fit to think of `Self-Respect' only when the notion of superior and inferior caste is banished from our land." - Periyar Ramaswamy
Wiki Raja 05:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is merely a collection of text copied from other articles about ethnic groups, which has been manipulated to attempt to show the ethnic groups as a separate civilization. By portraying the characteristics of an ethnic group as a separate civilization, this article is WP:SYN in nature, and given it most certainly constitutes a hoax, the likes of which should not be allowed on Wikipedia. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 00:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with nids's point that this has fast become a keep - delete war amongst involved editors,and it would be nice if the closing admin, as expected, doesn't simply count votes. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 00:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is possibly the most far fetched article I have come across on wiki so far. The author of the article has put Henry Heras to shame with the stroke of his hand. The content is a cut and paste from many existing FA's and other articles. Dineshkannambadi 03:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete It's one thing to have articles on Dravidian languages or Dravidian people, even Dravidian architecture, but it's a completely different thing to have on Dravidian civilizations. This is, if not WP:HOAX, very much WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I wonder how this discussion got this dragged on (*sigh*). What I gather from the keep-sayers is dismal. There is a lot of quoting of other articles, as if we are fighting a court-battle. If the other article is crap, then we need to fix it. But, we shouldn't use that opportunity to validate other crap. There is a lot of mud-slinging at us Nazis, who are opposing the articles with a plan to establish Indo-Aryan supremacy. What a load of bull! There is not even a stub on an Indo-Aryan civilization on WP. And, there is a lot of quoting of google search as a validation tool. Wow! This is exactly what the Osama gang is trying to do - flood the net with your kind of crap, and it becomes real. Please, someone close this, and fast. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of how many referenced sources used with page numbers one uses in Dravidian related articles, history revisionists will still find a way to get rid of these articles and claim their accomplishments as their own or somebody elses. It is sad how there is so much hate and intolerance towards other people's cultures in here.[104][105][106][107][108]</ref> See, I have put referenced sources even to my comment. Wiki Raja 15:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to actually be about Dravidian people, so merge any good content to there if necessary and delete this article. The sources may very well be about things done by Dravidian people on the land where they live, but looking about I'm not seeing much treating this as a distinct civilization. As I don't have much knowledge of the subject, I am fairly open to reconsideration if shown that narrations do indeed talk about Dravidian civilizations and attribute to it the various facts included in the article. The Behnam 17:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aditya, as you have stated, "There is not even a stub on an Indo-Aryan civilization on WP." Are you sure? Then you haven't checked out this super cool page - Indo-Aryan Wikipedians and these cute little userboxes to post on your page - {{User Indo Aryan}}, {{User Indo Aryan}}.
- I'm not Aditya, but I can tell quite easily that the Indo-Aryan category and template are ethnolinguistic designations. In no way does this forward the concept of an "Indo-Aryan civilization" being recognized on Wikipedia. The Behnam 03:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you're not Aditya. I just posted this reply at the bottom to make it easier to read. Also, I think Aditya can speak for himself. Wiki Raja 03:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to know that you have such faith in Aditya - this is one point that we agree upon. So do you have a response to what I have written? I'd appreciate it if you'd focus upon that instead of fact that I wrote it. After all, it is about the content, not the contributor. I don't believe my say on the idea is in any way invalidated by the fact that I am not Aditya. Isn't this particular a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS point anyway? I'm just trying to help out. Hope to hear from you. The Behnam 04:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep very notable subject.----^DarkTea© 04:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to think so as well, but I haven't seen the necessary support for the presentation of this Dravidian-related information as comprising civilizations. What is it that you have seen that give the civilization aspect merit? The Behnam 04:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are many claims by people who hold the Dravidian race POV. The existence of these claims can be verified.----^DarkTea © 05:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't understand. What does 'race' have to do with this particular construct? The critical aspect of the article that is contested here is the assertion that the information (which appears to mostly be about Dravidian people) can legitimately support a narration of civilizations (as in not violating WP:OR). Perhaps you mistakenly assumed that this article was somehow deleting a narrative about the concept of a Dravidian race? The possible existence of such a race doesn't imply the existence of an accompanying unified civilization (or at least I've yet to see any causal mechanism behind this, versus simple correlations in perhaps some situations). The support for designating civilizations using the various facts in this article is what is contested, as this designation does not appear to be followed by the RS. The Behnam 05:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Dark tea - There is no 'Dravidian race' "POV". There's only Dravidian race dementia. Sarvagnya 05:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvagnya, please stop with your racial comments. Wiki Raja 05:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarvagnya-- There is no Dravidian race if the Brahmanic Aryan upper class POV gets its way.----^DarkTea © 06:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

woah.. wow! dravidian 'genocide' now. wow. if that is the kind of literature that you've been reading, you seriously should refrain from voting here. and btw.. i am myself er.. 'Dravidian'. Sarvagnya 06:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico is a sad case. Mexico was originally Indian but was conquered by the Spaniards. The Spaniards created a racial caste system of Indians, Mestizos and Spaniards. The Spaniards managed to effectively destroy Indian culture and impose their own. The Spaniards managed to keep the riches they stole from the Indians and comfortably hold all of the wealth. On the contrary, the Indians live in poverty. Today, there are many Mexicans with an Indian appearence who wish to deny the Indian in themselves and Indian civilization, because their culture is an Indian-hating racist culture. The Indian civilization they come from is easily within recorded history, unlike the Dravidian civilization. You, Sarvagnya, may get away more easily denying the Dravidian civilzation, since it outside of easily verifiable history.----^DarkTea © 06:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget about the massacres of Tamils in Karnataka during the 20th century here and here. At least Prime Minister Manmohan Singh finally did some justice for the people of Tamil Nadu here. Wiki Raja 07:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Dark Tea & Wiki Raja: User:Bakasuprman fought for Tamils on Cyberspace massacres.[109][110][111][112]

We should not attack User:Bakasuprman directly or indirectly. The Brahmanic Aryan upper class POV is not applicable for each and every other Brahmin.Madrass Express 08:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: We are not attacking Brahmins or other caste groups (even though I denounce the caste system), but the individual himself. While he may have fought for Tamils on Cyberspace, he has also fought alongside with Sarvagnya, Gnanapiti, and KNM, not to mention starting this Article for Deletion nonsense. Please do not give us these crocodile tear stories, cause we're not buying it. Wiki Raja 20:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fought? Are you kidding? I know perfectly well that Wiki is not a battleground. In case you didnt know, I "fought" against sarvagnya for a long time as well, as many users here can attest to. But it doesnt matter. I am on whoever's side upholds policy in a neutral manner.Baka man 02:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think there is much merit for this sort of article. There are no articles for Indo-Aryan civilization, Indo-Iranian civilization, Mandarin civilization, Cantonese civilization, Xhosa civlization, Hindi civilization, Punjabi civilization, Bengali civilization or even Tamil civilization. The term is not scholarly in its use either. The Dravidian language group often is used to subtend a 'Dravidian people' similar to the Indo-Aryan people idea. But the idea of a civilization which can be expressed as made out of Dravidian people and identified as a representative of the Dravidian people is not scholarly. Darrowen 08:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Its interesting how the author of this article defines civilization. Normally, a civilization is one where large congregations of people of possibly various faiths, languages lived in contiguous locations, practicing farming having moved away from the "Hunter Gatherer" life styles. These "civilized" people built cities, roads, graneries, watch towers for security and so on. Even today, with all the research that has taken place over the last 150 years, its very hard to draw a line and declare when man actually became civilized, based on the minimum criteria for being civilized.

This is one of the most complex issues in history. Here, the author has put together a list various kingdoms (pertaining to which there is controvesy about the origins of most) which ruled at different periods of time in the history of India just because they patronised a dravidian language(s) (in addition to the ever present Sanskrit), a bunch of literatures (unaware that Kannada literature is idealogically neither aryan nor dravidian), enumerated the great musicians of carnatic music and called it dravidian (though most of the famous treatises on Indian music and dance is actually in Sanskrit, with treatises appearing in vernacular dravidian languages only in the 2nd millenium), shown the image of a beautiful temple at Pattadakal (upload by me) built in "dravidian style" but left out the neighbouring temples of Papanatha and Kasivisvesvara built by the same kingdom in "Nagara" (north Indian) style.

What I am trying to get at is that India has evolved into a mixed culture long before the birth of the dravidianists. If this article is allowed to stay, I am afraid the author may be encouraged to tag just about every South Indian article as "dravidian" category, further putting this encyclopedia at risk.Dineshkannambadi 11:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to disagree, India has only been around half a century as one united country. Historically India has only been a vast region, much like saying the Maghreb (North Africa). Under various foreign conquerors (the British were the closest to bringing the whole of India together) that it became united as a whole region in any present day sense. In the region of europe, various european and non-european cultures have "mixed" influences on their culture, but the underlying identity of that culture is still recognizable (roman civilization, greek, germanic, arab, estrucan, turkic, slavic etc.) You have two different linguistic groups (indo-aryan and dravidian) that aren't even part of the same language family, it is a bit naive to say there is not a different dravidian civilization, much as to say there was no roman or greek civilizations (languages and people all part of the same indo-european language group and people) who also had shared the same country, gods, culture etc. If anything the concept of Dravidian civilizations has been long overdue, and due to certain selfish agendas is being opposed. Dravidian is a group that is unique to India and have no related groups historically anywhere else in the world. Its identity has been subhumed to other groups for far too long. This article would be a positive step forward in enlightening the world over a much overlooked and ignored history of the indian subcontinent. --Kathanar 14:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Civilization is not categorised based on language, but on a major socio-econo-geogrphical coming together/living together of people at "a" contiguous time period in history. You cant pluck tit-bits out of Italian culture as it exists today and call it "Roman civilization".Dineshkannambadi 16:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Dineshkannabadi, I'm sorry but that is a weak argument. You mean to tell me before the coming of the British and Moghuls, that the Chalukyas, Cholas, Pallavas, Guptas and other nation kingdoms did not have their own economy, society, trade, commerce? The bottom line is that there are a group of people who are trying to re-invent the wheel, or pretty much re-write history to make the world think that they are a super group that belong to a grand country. You mean to tell me that there was a king Bharata who ruled all of Pakistan, India, Bangladesth, Burma and Sri Lanka? Come on. All those areas were conquered and controlled by the British. It is funny how some people condemn the British for their colonization, and yet at the same time claim all their controlled territories and accomplishment as their own. It is absolutely ridiculous how some folks will condemn the Muslims, and yet praise the Taj Mahal (built by Muslims). Need I say more? India is home to numerous ethnic and linguistic groups which comprise of three major family groups Dravidians, Indo-Aryans, and Mon-Khmer (Munda).Wiki Raja 20:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What am I wrong about? You might of misunderstood me. I never made any definition of civilization. As you said it can't be solely based on language, which I never made that claim. Language though, is a important component of civilization. Latin is a important component of roman civilization no one will deny, but saying italian is the present day designation corelating to someone saying Gujarati. As far as a continous time period, it is safe to say a unique (Dravidian)people, culture and language group that has basically originated from the Indian sub continent and was restricted to it and its surrounding areas for 20,000 years is long enough time for it to have numerous civilizations. A grave injustice will be done if we do not make the attempt to research and expand the knowledge of Dravidian civilizations. Please have a good day--Kathanar 16:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

20000 years? genocides, massacres.. what are you even talking about? What research are you talking about? Where is this research? Forget all that. Explain to me(asking the nth time) what on earth is this "Dravidian civilisation". How do you define it. Explain that to me with the context and reliable sources. At the moment, the very first line of the article which purports to 'define' the term is sitting with a {citation needed}} tag. I request that the closing admin take note of that. The very term and the context are pure OR. Citing every line of the cruft that follows is irrelevant. Sarvagnya 17:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I will have to take Jimbo Wales advice and start ignoring certain folks. Wiki Raja 20:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Darrowen and Dineshkannabadi, there's Maya civilization and they were not multi-religious. At least I am sure before the coming of the Spaniards they were not Penticostal, Anglican, or Orthodox. By the way, there were different Dravidian civilizations such that of the Tamils, Telugus, Malayalees, and others who were multi-religious even before the coming of the British. Amongst the Chola and Pallavas, for example they were Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain for the most part. So, there were Dravidian civilizations who were multi-religious. Don't forget that there was a Persian civilization on Wikipedia until it was reverted to Culture of Iran. Wiki Raja 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong approach. We shouldn't try to examine the legitimacy of advancing the concept of Dravidian civilizations, for even if we are to agree with each other our result couldn't be anything more than original research. Rather, we should simply take a look at RS - are RS calling these "Dravidian civilizations?" If so, do they narrate as topical roughly the same information our current narration includes? As this article is accused of being OR, we must respond by seeing if is original research instead of trying to decide whether or not the research seems reasonable to us. So such criteria as "multi-religious" don't matter, as it isn't our job to decide whether or not it makes sense to call these civilizations - our job is to look for its treatment in RS. The Behnam 03:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. What some people are trrying here is to "make sense" out of many collected sources by analyzing and interpreting them in their own way, building their own version of history which is highly unacceptable. Many editors including me have asked in article talk page for an RS which talks about "Dravidian civilization" but we haven't got an answer yet.Gnanapiti 04:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look. I searched Dravidian civilization on google, looking for pages which beared the term Dravidian civilization in the title and were thus solely based on the discussion of such a concept. I got only six hits. Out of which three are blogs or free websites which anyone can write in. That is hardly enough to be basing an article on. Even Aryan civilization (which I'm sure will never be an article written on Wikipedia to describe North Indian conglomeration) generates more hits. However, more notable civilizations such as Roman civilization generates 14,400 hits on the same criteria while Greek civilization generates over 7000 hits. Darrowen 06:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Merging this to Dravidian People seems as silly as merging List of countries in Europe to White people. The quality of the article shouldn't be an issue, as long as it's a valid topic to deserve an article, which this clearly seems to be — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Delete as on further inspection this does appear to be a content fork — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about Dravidian people -- please go through the article and the talk page; not a single source has been provided for the creator's claim that "Dravidian civilizations comprise of several groups which belong to the Dravidian family of ethnicities and languages in South Asia" and there are different "Indo-Aryan nations (Gujurat, Punjab, etc.)... Dravidia Nadu which constitutes the Dravidian nations (Tamils, Telugus, Malayalees, etc.)".

The "groups which belong to the Dravidian family of ethnicities and languages in South Asia" are called Dravidian people -- that's what the article is all about.

If somebody writes an article about White people at "List of countries in Europe", it won't be silly to merge it to White people. Go through the article -- there is not a single sourced sentence in the article about "Dravidian civilizations", the full article is about Dravidian people. utcursch | talk 10:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is silly to merge it to White people, if somebody writes an article about White people at "List of countries in Europe". Still disputes are there in Europe of the origins of the most of the contemporary Europeans. Just read these [113][114].Sudithar 12:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can have an article on Dravidian civilizations if we could have Vinča culture, Yamna culture, Cucuteni culture on wikipedia.Sudithar 14:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, I'm saying this for the umpteenth time: This article is not about "Dravidian civilizations" -- it's about "Dravidian people" -- a POV fork. "Dravidian civilization" refers to the civilization of proto-Dravidian speakers (e.g. those who believe that the Indus Valley Civilization was a proto-Dravidian civilization call it "Dravidian cviilization"). On the other hand, this article is about "several groups which belong to the Dravidian family of ethnicities and languages in South Asia" i.e. Dravidian people. See Talk:Dravidian civilizations for detailed discussion. utcursch | talk 14:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean that civilization only refers to Proto-Dravidians. As far as Webster's Dictionary is concerned this is what I found on the topic:

civilization - a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained b : the culture characteristic of a particular time or place.

I'm very sure that the Dravidian peoples of South Asia have a culture. Furthermore, that the Chola Empire, for example, had to have had a high level of technological development in order to have a naval fleet to send emissaries to China and eventually control parts of Indonesia, Malaysia, Burma, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives apart from Southern and parts of Eastern India. As far as written records are concerned I am sure that they had writting systems of their own to keep track of historical accounts. Wiki Raja 15:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:No original research. utcursch | talk 16:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cholas went to China and Timbuktu and Somalia and Papua New Guinea and the North Pole in the 11th century AD. What does that have to do with anything? Can you show me even one reference where a historian has referred to the sum total of all dynasties and empires which spoke a Dravidian language as "Dravidian civilisation"? Sarvagnya 16:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's a bona fide use of the term in this context (subscriber only, but you can see the term being used on the scan of the front page). I'm still changing to Delete (see above) as I'm persuaded that this is a content fork — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nothing on that page is news. First, I couldnt find the string "Dravidian civilization" used there in any context and secondly, it doesnt talk about what this article is purported to be. For the various contexts in which the word "Dravidian" is used, read my comment near the top of the page here Sarvagnya 16:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Sarvagnya, I have shown you well over numerous references from your past fiascos to present. Even with sources provided on demand, you either pretend that I have not presented them, or you demand for more. It seems that you are making this whole thing a joke. Furthermore, I will not be playing your games any more. End of discussion. Have a nice day. Wiki Raja 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh please. You haven't produced a single source till date. All you've kept doing is to mislead other editors by saying you've produced numerous references. I asked you long back to produce your numerous references in this discussion, but the request went unanswered as usual. Here again you are back with your hogwash of having produced numerous references. So please stop lying. Gnanapiti 16:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I have stated, I have already provided numerous references to the senseless demands. Also, please refrain from personal attacks and name calling. End of discussion. Wiki Raja 19:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was kaTHOOM... JUSTICE IS SERVED. DS 01:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan mock[edit]

This article is obviously bogus. Someone has entered it as an elaborate practical joke; there is no Marvel Comics character named "Aidan mock". Konczewski 02:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Obvious hoax. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can this be speedied? Unschool 05:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, articles nominated as a hoax can't be. But admins can act quickly. ALTON .ıl 07:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as hoax. Onnaghar^{tl ! co} 14:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. ♠TomasBat 01:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per above.--JForget 02:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Oldboy. — TKD::Talk 07:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Woo-jin[edit]

Article is for a fictional character from a single film, Oldboy. There is sufficient coverage in the main article to make this quite unnecessary. PC78 02:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- PC78 02:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless real world sources giving significant coverage are found Corpx 04:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nominator gives sufficient reason ALTON .ıl 08:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Oldboy, or merge if there's anything worth having. DWaterson 21:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to keep. Tyrenius 02:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mingle[edit]

This was tagged for speedy-deletion as G11 spam, but it does have independent sources. However, given the product's relative newness, and the quality of those sources, I have serious doubts regarding notability here. Weak delete, pending other opinions. Xoloz 15:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...I don't know. The article could be considerably improved with the information from those sources if someone got around to doing it. The sources also seem to show its notability. I'm going to have to say Keep here, unless someone can change my mind.Silver seren 15:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on condition of improvement and addition of verification of its impact. There is more content in the existing references that can be used to improve the article. The references are borderline in establishing notability. The first is a blog, but the second may be acceptable as a sufficiently reputable independent secondary source. An important question is: “Are Sam Aaron and Obie Fernandez completely independent to Mingle?” If it can’t be verified that Mingle has made some impact somewhere/somehow, then it can be assumed that it was a flash in a pan on May 07, 2007, and thus should be deleted. --SmokeyJoe 07:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless concerns about WP:RS and WP:V are resolved. --Aarktica 22:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 01:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can a product that was just announced for future release in May be notable now? If it's an iPod then yes. I just don't this this can make it. Waiting for future notability would be crystal-balling. MarkinBoston 01:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two third-party sources, but both of these are blogs. To demonstrate notability I'd expect something more reliable. Jakew 10:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added six more sources, which should be considered good sources. They can easily be changed into references and used to expand the article. I just...don't have the time to do so right now. (First day of school and all) If no one does expand the article when I get home, then I guess i'll do it myself.Silver seren^C 13:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has an almost retartedly vast amount of sources (for it's size), but the information is factual. Shouldn't that be listed instead at Stubs for deletion? Anyways, we'd delete probably a thousand articles if we tagged things like this.--Kkrouni /こかるに /Ккроуни /ΚκρΩυνι 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:51, 5 September 2007 (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 speedy delete and salt as serially recreated promotional material. Daniel Case 04:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zotag[edit]

Contested speedy. Article is about a possibly notable search engine. If it is kept, it needs cleanup and sources. ~~I'm neutral (for now)~~ Changed to delete. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence of notability. When Zotag grows up, a page can be created. MarkinBoston 02:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt per lack of notability, lack of references (Ghits are mostly blogs) and COI. The article was created by Zotag (talk · contribs) and has already been speedy deleted twice. Previously created by Traviscunningham (talk · contribs). Dbromage [Talk] 02:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Possible WP:COI and per Dbromage. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 02:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is clearly conflict of interest. Moreover, it is impossible to verify the contents of this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs sources and a bit of clean-up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.194.42.156 (talk) 02:30, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Given the complete lack of references and the overall lack of notability, it is quite possible that this is WP:COI. AR Argon 03:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly SALT. An early draft of this contained material that was later admitted by the creator(s) to be untrue (see talk page) -- nothing can be verified -- very much non-notable -- 100% self-promotion/conflict of interest -- and the creators seem determined to have this page regardless of its notability. Accounting4Taste 04:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 13:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D*Face[edit]

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D*Dog Tyrenius 22:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal notability claims, if true. No independant sourcing of claims, and a recent, slow edit war over this artist's real name made me realize just how unreferenced this thing really is. But without sourcing, even the marginal notability claims (album covers and an exhibition) are not reliable. TexasAndroid 20:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources.--Sethacus 21:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 08:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Not Notable, or at least does not assert the notability in the article. Search engine result count is misleading, as * is a wildcard. :-) Stwalkerster talk 14:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:N. Faithlessthewonderboy 00:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete 2 References Added, more on the way —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CespiT (talk • contribs) 14:03, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

— CespiT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete; falls far from WP:BIO. — Coren ^(talk) 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~; the article falls within the WP:BIO specifications for Creative Professionals:

+The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors- ask any professional graffiti artist if they know about this man and his creations, and they do. +The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. - The creations and concept of art he has has never been seen before Also, under the guidelines for Entertainers, +Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following- You look at visible graffiti spots and you can find people already imitating his style. Also, the artist has several "toys" (3-d pieces) designed by him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CespiT (talk • contribs) 14:04, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Second !vote from this person. - TexasAndroid 14:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~; The main problem with the notability of this individual is that, since the individual chose a subversive method and medium for his expression, there is scarce note of him in mainstream sources. However, within the "underground" community that consciously consumes his creations, there is a huge awareness of his persona. People that do not consciously consume his creations, but are still subconsciously exposed to his images in their cities, will definitely notice his style, perhaps even recognize his characters. His work can be found in cities across the world (I have seen his work in New York City, Boston, Miami and London). These works, however, disappear in a few months, covered up. Wikipedia is here so these events can be documented, to give the people's side of the story. D*Face is a people's artist. Most of his work, we can appreciate for free. Since his work is so good, people are actually paying for it now. That in itself is an amazing achievement: turning criminal behavior into a profitable enterprise. This article could give so much inspiration to wayward youths, information to art aficionados, inspiration to artists. D*Face's article, as you can see, needs to be on here, Wikipedia, the encyclopedia written by the people for the people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CespiT (talk • contribs) 14:23, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Third !vote from this person. - TexasAndroid 14:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know this was an election, I thought it was simply a discussion. I apologize for my impertinence. My intention is simply documenting subversive historical events which mainstream media refuses to acknowledge. How can I fix the damage I have done? - CespiT 14:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I called it a !vote (not vote) instead of a vote. You are welcome to make your case against deletion as well as you can. My problem was with the fact that you started three different sections with bolded Do Not Delete, making it look to a casual observer as if three different people were opposing the deletion. The final descision at the close of this will be made by the closer, and he/she will consider the strength of the arguments, as well as the numbers of people on each side. A single strong argument can trump a large number of unargued "blind votes", but if both sides have similarly strong arguments, then numbers can and do play a part. In the end though, it's up to the closer to interpret the proper outcome based on the debate. I just wanted to flag that there were not three people arging against the deletion, but (so far) only one, in case it did come down to numbers in the eyes of the closer. Make sense? - TexasAndroid 15:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect sense. I am new to editing wikipedia, obviously I have a lot to learn. Thanks for clarifying, Tex.--CespiT 16:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I will say you have an interesting argument to make. I see paralels to the porn industry, which is notoriously hard to get reliable sources for as well, because similarly the porn industry is generally not even mentioned by the normal mainstream media. To the point when porn stars have their own notability requirements because of the unique nature of that business.

Hmm. I don't really know, though. Without sourcing, anyone can claim anything, and there is no way to verify it. I started this AFD because people were changing D*Face's "real" name to several totally different versions, and there was really no way to verify any of them, nor to verify any of the other information in the article. I understand the difficult situation, and agree that he may very well be notable. But without any way to verify the article, it's hard to consider it anything more than a heap of unverified rumors.

When you get down to it, WP:BLP comes in as well. Bios of Living Persons are supposed to be held to a higher standard than other articles. And this is a BLP article in question, even if only his handle is known for certain. WP:BLP requires even more stringent sourcing for bios. At this point, I don't really see how to make this article work, especially within the strictures of WP:BLP. - TexasAndroid 18:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 00:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of coverage from independent reliable sources Corpx 04:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corpx, would you qualify the BBC as an Independent Reliable source? --18.237.0.66 16:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent attribution of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dhartung, would you qualify the BBC as an Independent Reliable source? --18.237.0.66 16:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources given may be legit, but as a more-than-usual esoteric topic it needs coverage from outside the inner circle. There are many clothing brand names that won't make the notability guidelines because the only people that write about them are other clothing sites. I've wanted to write an article about one of my personal favorites, Fucking Awesome, but it's ridiculously difficult to find on Google (try it), and harder still to find write-ups about it, other than notes on forums or other shops. ALTON .ıl 07:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the BBC qualify as a legitimate source?--CespiT 17:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with alton, well put --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm seeing multiple, third party sources. So what if they're all in his industry, they're not affiliated with the subject. He's made enough of a name for himself to be doing public galleries and interviews. That's good enough for me. --UsaSatsui 15:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:45, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The BBC reference is not an independent source, it's a section of the BBC website that's user editable, nothing more than a forum. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but are we looking at the same page? It says some content is generated by members of the public. That's not the same as it being a forum or a wiki. Calling it "The BBC is kind of misleading, but it still looks like a valid source to me. Unless you want to show me where the edit button is. --UsaSatsui 19:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, we're looking at the same page. Sign up for membership, it's easy enough to write anything you want and claim to be anyone you want. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the public can contribute, but there is an editorial team[115] and there is Collective editorial material: "All the editorial pages on Collective are written by writers selected by the Collective editorial team."[116] The site commissions (as in, pays for) work from professional writers. On the review in question, it says "content by:editor" (as opposed to "content by:member").[117] Tyrenius 21:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article other than ad-type spam and unreliable sources. Article is more or less used as a userpage. Marcus22 18:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main delete argument is lack of reliable sources. However, sources have been added since the nom. As I have pointed out, the BBC reference is not a blog, but an editorial page, actually written by the art editor of Dazed and Confused. Any argument that argues lack of reliable sources, but fails to address this, is effectively invalidated. The fact that editors who have contributed earlier have not returned to answer counter-arguments greatly weakens their position. This is not a vote. Pixelsurgeon.com and computerarts.co.uk also seem to be well-run and reliable websites. Tyrenius 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Totally agree with Tyrenius. Notable and relevant. Dfrg.msc 04:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is a mess right now, but there are enough sources to merit a nice clean stub. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is now cleaned up. Tyrenius 11:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tyrenius. The article seems workable. - Modernist 12:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Computer Arts interview is a good reliable source. --duncan 20:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tyrenius & others, now it's improved. Johnbod 12:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being thorough guys. I was taking the original criticisms personally and was losing faith in wikipedia. Give me tips on how to better this article and I will, just please be clear. I haven't had access to the internet the past week, that's why I haven't been able to work on it. ----CespiT 15:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well some of you guys sure have the blinkers on when it suits. The sources, like the exhibitions, are very very suspect. The article (or userpage) is about a non notable artist who has had no notable reviews and no notable shows. But who does drop notable names. And yet, somehow, because it's graffiti, thats ok. Dbl standards exist in Wikipedia as well as the 'real' world it seems. Ah well... thats life. Marcus22 20:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of curiosity, what about the sources is suspect? I mean, they're not mainstream (except the BBC related one), but they're independent of the subject and appear reputable. Am I missing something? --UsaSatsui 21:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Computer Arts magazine interview isn't suspect. This is a magazine that's widely available in newsagents across the UK, and in their words is "the world’s best-selling magazine for digital artists and designers"[118]. --duncan 07:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G10. Article existed only to disparage the subject. Reso lute 04:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury Regional Council (Environment Canterbury)[edit]

The page is overwhelmingly negative. This may qualify for speedy deletion under CSD G10 as an attack page. gadfium 00:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wouldn't this be libelous as well? -WarthogDemon 00:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- gadfium 00:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whatever it is, it's not an encyclopedic article. --Malcolmxl5 01:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and start again. Obviously a notable New Zealand government agency but this is unquestionably an attack page. Dbromage [Talk] 03:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete due to lack of independent, reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 07:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qianball[edit]

Unsourced and no evidence that this is at all notable. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 00:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Possibly Speedy, as this could fall under A7 as Unremarkable. This article sserts no notability whatsoever. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 00:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:V.Unschool 05:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be a newish, unusual sport from asia [119] [120] [121], this is the sort of thing wikipedia was made for, and confluence of facts about small or uncommon items, you never know, it might be the next Broomball - Fosnez 11:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of thing wikipedia was not made for, and the three above links are far from Reliable it's an A7 but can't speedy because of the keep above, Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 14:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:45, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Why, AFD is not a vote Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete fails notability. I disagree about reliability of youtube links. Carlosguitar 23:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They never been reliable, anyone could film their own game in youtube. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And anyone can put a TV documentary or report in youtube. Carlosguitar 00:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, WP:SNOW this. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 14:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ikimasu ninjas[edit]

Probable WP:HOAX - created by a user who (up until this point) has only vandalised. Google shows nothing. Oli Filth 00:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G1: Hoax. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 00:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete complete hoax. "Ikimasu" doesn't mean "always moving" also. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 02:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as hoax, hoaxes aren't speediable (but I'll say it for the 8,423rd time: they should be). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletio! Unschool 05:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete A Japanese swordsman who mastered martial arts such as karate and judo several hundred years before they were invented? This is clearly a hoax, although it seems like a very good candidate for the plot of a very bad martial arts movie. Calgary 06:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I beleive in the ikimasu ninjas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.149.176 (talk) 11:12, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep and tag as unsourced. PeaceNT 04:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Dini[edit]

This is a non-notable person's page, mostly containing puffery and self-aggrandising language from the subject himself. It has no encyclopedic worth. Blanaaaaaa 10:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems notable [122] [123] [124] - Article was originally created by Imran and has an active edit history. May need a rewrite, but does not need to be deleted. - Fosnez 10:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is the guy who created the computer game, Kick Off. This was a hugely influential title, so Dino's influence on the genre and industry itself was massive. Irishjp 13:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Hornet35 14:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE, I have better things to do with my time than have my energies polluted by the likes of Blanaaaaaa, who seems to think that I have planted a wikipedia entry to advance my career. I don't care if the article is deleted. It's pretty crap anyway. Dndn1011 19:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP notable NHRHS2010^Talk 20:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Somewhat notable. Article can be improved. --_Hdt83 _Chat 20:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fosnez. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, highly notable in the field of soccer computer games. He is not notable as a musician, so that information can be trimmed down. Punkmorten 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, definite notability.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep especially with the game creation elements, although more sources would be needed to improve WP:V.--JForget 02:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject appears non notable.--Stormbay 03:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In all liklihood this article will be kept and it would be appropriate if someone was working to improve the article. It needs it. --Stormbay 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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