Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 12

< February 11	February 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:39Z

Lawrence Gullo[edit]

Biography of non-notable artist "(also known as "Zan," "Wren" and "His Majesty")" who created a comic, the significance of which is not established.

Delete. Non-notable Acegikmo1 05:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NN. Realkyhick 05:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom Selket ^Talk 07:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator.--Toothbrusher 09:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete, nothing showing notability. NawlinWiki 12:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources, probably written by the subject for self-promotion. --Aervanath 13:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, crucially violates WP:N & WP:RS. Causesobad → (Talk) 14:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, JCO312 14:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If kept would need to be wikified, articles fails WP:NN and WP:BIO.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. MastCell 20:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO — D e on555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 22:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ElinorD 12:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure this was written for self promotion.~~Magistrand~~ 18:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Xiaolin Showdown characters. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:39Z

Pandabubba[edit]

This is a fictional character that is not significant enough to have its own page. All of the important, non-trivial information is already at List of Xiaolin Showdown characters. This article may have been created in violation of WP:POINT after a major character from the series was nominated for being unsourced. Jay32183 00:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gan fon 00:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to section at main list—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect.--Toothbrusher 10:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ryulong. He ain't exactly Omi. --UsaSatsui 10:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Julia 15:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not written in the expected tone of a wikipedia article and contains too much non verfied information.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Xiaolin Showdown characters. MastCell 20:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to section at main list. ElinorD 12:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the rewritten version. - Mailer Diablo 01:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andromeda-Milky Way collision[edit]

Very NPOV, unnotable, poorly written, tone bad, unreferenced etc. Carpet 00:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It sounds more like it's philosophical than scientific, and...well, where are the references that this is an established theory? --Dennisthe2 00:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless Actually sourced and completely re-written. Right now it doesn't sound very encyclopedic, and it's only source doesn't work. As of now, it just can't be kept. If it's true, and was well sourced, then I'd say keep. Gan fon 00:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appears to be a reference now... science4sail ^talk con 00:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The New Scientist reference is enough for me. The article requires major cleanup, though.
- Sorry, bot added signature before I could go back and fix it. Selket ^Talk 01:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup -- Yes, it's true (see [1])--stargazing will be a lot more interesting in 4 billion years. However, the article definitely needs cleanup. Even at my optimistic I doubt that I "will also be able to see part of the collision occuring" ... in 4 billion years. I think the article was a good-faith attempt to add a significant (for astronomers, at least) theory/prediction/fact (whatever it is) to Wikipedia. Cheers, Black Falcon 01:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Cleaned up, fixed references. --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 03:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ganfon. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I just don't see this being expandable. It's covered by Milky_Way#Future_of_the_Milky_Way (and contradicted slightly by Andromeda_galaxy#General_information). --Dhartung | Talk 04:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, covered elsewhere, not expandable. Realkyhick 05:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Milky Way and/or Andromeda galaxy (if there's anything worth merging) and then redirect. There is plenty of high quality sources for this (predicted) event, but it's just not significant enough to have its own entry within a general encyclopedia. --Pak21 08:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. More sources are needed, but New Scientist is definitely a reputable third party source to start with. 23skidoo 14:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Milky Way#Future of the Milky Way: even with additional sources, there's really not that much to say about this topic. It doesn't merit it's own article. (Maybe in 3 billion years...:)--Aervanath 14:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I mean, my God! the Andromeda Galaxy and our Milky Way are going to collide? My question is, have you written your elected officials and asked them what they are going to do to prevent this? Their indifference is nothing short of scandalous! - Smerdis of Tlön 15:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this is not a vote. Do you have anything to add to the discussion? --Pak21 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator it is very badly written and the adding of a ref is good but it unfortunately does not make it excellent, the NPOV issues are pretty bad as-well. Because it's so small and contains so little information it's probably not worth the trouble.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's written fine, and "NPOV" is what we're aiming for. If you meant POV, there is no hint of point-of-view in the current article. --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 18:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Aervanath. Icemuon 17:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(and tidy) or Merge under Galaxy collision. Artw 18:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep new version. Artw 20:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten at this point with new information and substantial references (NASA, Harvard, Univ. Toronto, MSNBC, Discover Mag. etc.) Kevin Murray 19:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've editied to remove NPOV issues, and added more information with several more references and clarification of one exisiting reference to clarify verifiability. --Kevin Murray 19:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new version is good, with good refs, so keep. Natalie 20:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the new refs establishing notability. Still needs work of course. MastCell 20:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, improve and source properly - although the New Scientist article is a good start ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Valid encyclopedic topic; could do with linking on the Andromeda Galaxy page where the subject is already mentioned. — RJH (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Milky Way is on a collision course with the andromeda galaxy and it's not notable!? Mind you I was under the impression that all the galaxies were racing away from each other at ever increasing speeds..... Jcuk 22:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The universe is expanding, but the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy are close neighbours of the local galactic cluster. It'd be safer to say that all the different clusters of galaxies are for the most part racing away from each other. --Charlene 22:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah...thank you, that makes more sense now. Jcuk 22:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable galactic collision. --Charlene 22:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The scientists who are quoted clearly must have written peer-reviewed articles. This WP article will be very feeble if it can incorporate no references to peer-reviewed literature. (MSNBC.com doesn't count). Someone who looks up this issue on Wikipedia will figure that we are naive followers of everything published in the New Scientist. If appropriate references can't be supplied before the close of this AfD, I'm voting to delete. I'll watch the ensuing debate to see if anyone can remedy the situation. EdJohnston 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a non-notable subject. No serious references are given to show that this "theory" is even being considered seriously by even a minority of the scientific community. It is idle speculation that was turned into a simple gee-wiz story. According to WP policy, notability is not the same as "newsworthiness". See WP:Notability. Beyond this major policy issue, I can not see how this stub can be expanded. There is just NO information that has been published. The proponents for keeping such an article should at least give a list of at least a few peer-reviewed articles demonstrating that serious scientists have published in this domain. The contents of this article could easily be incorporated into another article, and there is no need to have a redirect from this page to, say, Milky way Lunokhod 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All that needs to be said about this topic has already been said in Milky Way#Future of the Milky Way 12:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Clearly notable topic with reliable sources. There is time to add peer-reviewed sources later. Capitalistroadster 01:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still proposing a merge to Milky Way#Future of the Milky Way: While I like Kevin's re-write better, it's still a stub, and I highly doubt that there will be that much more information out there on this topic, peer-reviewed or not, anytime in the near future. Barring a whole horde of new sources and information, there is no still no reason to keep it separate from the Milky Way article.--Aervanath 02:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still support Merge as per Aervanath. Icemuon 09:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The statement "In an article in the New Scientist, astronomers ... have predicted" is not referenced - the New Scientist link in Notes is to an article about NGC 520 and only mentions the collision in passing and does not name the astronomers making the prediction. Some existing links are unlrelated to article topic - "Andromeda involved in galactic collision" refers to a galaxy other than the milky way colliding with andromeda. "Busted! Astronomers Nab Culprit in Galactic Hit-and-Run" is about the galaxy M32 colliding with andromeda. Mentions milky way collision in passing, but does not reference source of prediction. Where is the original peer-review article of this theory? The topic is not notable enough for a seperate article, only deserves (brief) mention in Milky Way and/or Andromeda article.--mikeu 04:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone point me to the WP guidelines which call for peer reviewed articles? Why is mikeu not discussing the references to U of Toronto research and NASA. I put some of the critisized articles in the bibliography for additional background to demonstrate the breadth of recognition. --Kevin Murray 04:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the article needs a peer-review reference to keep. It is just that the reference links only mention the original theory in passing. I'd like to see that original publication to judge the merits of the prediction. The Toronto reference looks more more like a generic computer simulation of what might happen if the galaxies collide rather than something based on telescope observations of the galaxies aproaching each other. The opening statement of this article is likely incorrect. It does not appear that the authors of the Toronto and Harvard links were the ones proposing this theory.--mikeu 05:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the primary source for the information we have here appears to be Sky & Telescope: see the ADS record. While John Dubinski is a researcher with many peer reviewed publications, this article was published in a pop-sci magazine rather than a peer-reviewed journal, which would lead me to question whether this is "serious" research or not. Cheers --Pak21 09:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic. ElinorD 12:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could be cleaned up, but still should be its own article Branson03 17:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or merge with Andromeda Galaxy#General information section. I prefer keep, or otherwise the Andromeda Galaxy article becomes a giant. Unless the information is decidedly fringe science, I don't like information to be lost. A link from Andromeda Galaxy to Andromeda-Milky Way collision and one from Interacting galaxy to Andromeda-Milky Way collision would be appropriate. Rursus declamavi; 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 07:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the links given in the article clearly indicate notability. Everyking 07:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/galaxy/2002/09/ ~ trialsanderrors 08:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the key word here is may. Icemuon 10:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Point being? ~ trialsanderrors 17:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, forgot that the article is on a proposed theory. Still, this link doesn't convince me that the article should stay. As Dhartung mentions, this is already covered in Milky_Way#Future_of_the_Milky_Way. Icemuon 17:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's a content branch for two articles. So to avoid duplication keeping it separate looks like a prudent idea. ~ trialsanderrors 20:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; It's already been fixed up nicely, and there's a good bit of room for expansion in going into what the implications of this are really.Arturus 18:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:40Z

List of deceased cardinals[edit]

Given the size and scope of the Catholic Church, there are literally thousands of cardinals who could be listed here. The inability to maintain such a list, as well as the list's uselessness(List of cardinals includes all living cardinals, so by definition any cardinal not listed there is deceased) clearly qualifies this article for deletion. Hemlock Martinis 00:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gan fon 00:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. This list will be almost impossible to maintain, not to mention the magnitude of Catholic Cardinals in the very long history of the church making this also nearly impossible to complete. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 00:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gigantic, probably impossible to update/build. science4sail ^talk con 00:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reasons have been well laid out above. Selket ^Talk 00:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorise into Category:Cardinals and subcats, then delete. As Hemlock has stated, there are thousands of possible entires, and the list will continue to expand for as long as the Catholic Church exists (and beyond, as the last ones fall). -- saberwyn 03:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reminds me of the recent discusson about Dead Playboy Playmates. Basically, if you're dead, we don't like you. :) Just kidding. YechielMan 04:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we have nothing against "you," we just don't want a list of other dead people who were like "you." -Selket ^Talk 09:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Otto4711 04:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Realkyhick 05:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All of the individuals listed seem to already be in Category:Cardinals or Category:Cardinals by nationality. -- Black Falcon 07:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I checked and all except two were already in the two categories noted above (whether correctly or not is a different matter). I added the two that were missing, so I think this list can safely be deleted now. -- Black Falcon 07:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any list of dead people is most likely going to be unmaintainable. --UsaSatsui 10:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomJulia 15:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not meet WP:NOT#INFO.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and the general problem with "List of dead [fill-in-the-blank]" articles. MastCell 20:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmaintainable list Resolute 23:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Use category instead. Argyriou (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for such a list. (And difficult to manage.) ElinorD 12:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would be a huge list if complete, which is probably impossible. Gimmetrow 20:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:41Z

Grand Prive[edit]

Spam article. Created (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Prive&oldid=70971294) for spam purposes. Created by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.212.105.164 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Webnetservices Both users (the same person) have only edited this page and have put in such nefarious spam as editing the link to the casino group to read "Online Casino Group Official Site", and inserting other spam. The IP reverses to South Africa, home of Grand Privé group.

There are about 90 microgaming casinos owned by dozens of companies (casino list here: http://www.microgaming.com/pjncasino.php). All the 90 casinos are almost identical apart from colour schemes and different websites. There is therefore no cause to comment on any one particular group unless special notability can be established - this article says *NOTHING* that isn't true of other microgaming casinos, and is therefore a redundant article. This company is privately held, non-notable, nothing useful to say other than act as SEO-bait for this company.

Nssdfdsfds 22:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 00:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Nothing more notable about this apparently. --Dennisthe2 01:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacking independent secondary sources- every potential source just loops back to the company. --Wafulz 04:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, and, again, as spam. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR 07:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: we don't allow advertisements.--Aervanath 14:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not relevant.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam, consider speedy. MastCell 20:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam and as lacking independent sources. ElinorD 13:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:42Z

Jackpot Factory[edit]

Clearly spam. User has added this casino group with obviously spam/marketing company text, and also added it to the Microgaming page. User has added multiple links to the company's casinos. Without doubt added by an employee or agent of the subject of the article for SEO purposes. Nssdfdsfds 22:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not spam at all. the jackpot factory group is a using microgaming technology, therefor the link from the microgaming page is legit as well as the text published. i can see no difference between this page and other group of casinos that are linked from the microgaming page. Niv.

You're a spammer. Spammers don't get a vote: [2] [3] And an Israeli IP address too. The same Israel where Jackpot Factory is based: [4] Hmmm. Nssdfdsfds 07:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - no one is trying to hide anything, i'm not sure why are you calling me a spammer though: all i said is that there is no difference between this page and other Microgaming's groups pages. if you think it is for seo reasons you can always delete the links to the 4 casinos, either than that, it is exactly like the other pages, therefore, in my opinion, not spam at all.

I'm calling you a spammer because the two changes I listed above were spam. That makes you a spammer. Clear?

There *is* a difference between this page and the other Microgaming groups: Fairground Gaming is a PLC quoted on the stockmarket, and intrinsically more notable. Grand Prive is also up for deletion. Fortune Lounge is notable because it caused a major spam controversy. Carmen Media is marginal, but slightly more notable because it has at least some profile as it is a Gibraltar-licensed company with a degree of openness. Jackpot Factory doesn't have that. Perhaps if you can think of something that makes Jackpot Factory notable, then it can stay, perhaps if you could find some 'Inspirational Stories' [5] about how Jackpot Factory casinos cure cancer, then that might establish notability. Nssdfdsfds 10:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article to try and meet everyone's concerns. (1) Notability: I added a section on the awards that Jackpot Factory and its component casinos have won. Surely, an organization's being recognized as the best in the world in its particular field is notable. It is far more notable than such trivial accomplishments as being quoted on the stockmarket or being licensed in Gibralter. (2) External Links: I deleted all external links except for the link to the Jackpot Factory official website. I thought they were helpful but, for some reason that I do not understand, they seemed to bother people. For the sake of peace, I got rid of them. Peter54 15:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best in the world? Are you for real?

Casino awards have no value whatsoever. They are based on payments to the awarding body. I mean come on, "Top Gambler: Best Online Casino Graphics 2006 – First Web Casino". Best Online Casino Graphics? They are all the same!!!! There are nearly 100 Microgaming casinos, and the graphics are the same in every casino. How can anyone think these awards have value. These awards are just BS for casinos to use in their marketing (as you are doing here). Apart from payments to the awarder (to be casinomeister-accredited you have to pay casinomeister), where these awards are supposedly based on reader votes (not sure that any you have listed are), these are spammed by the casinos '$50 bonus if you vote for us', and so on. Casino awards are worthless. It's absolutely laughable that you even suggest that your casino group is 'recognised as best in the world'. So aside from those silly awards, there's absolutely nothing in the article that's notable, as everything that's listed there is just general 'Microgaming casino' stuff.

Please stop talking about other articles. They might not be notable either. You need to satisfy the notability criteria for *this article*, with reference not to other articles, but to the notability guidelines, which you'll find here: WP:ORG. Nssdfdsfds 16:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) What is the evidence for your assertion that awards are granted on a corrupt basis? Jackpot Factory casinos have been recognized as the Best Online Casino by Top Gambler, Gambling.com, and Got2Bet. That is why I say Jackpot Factory has been recognized as the best in the world in its field, which is definitely notable. If there is evidence that the awards are corrupt, I would be interested to know what it is. (2) The best way to understand a rule is to see how it is applied in actual practice. It is ridiculous to say that the Notability rule allows articles on Carmen Media, Fairground Gaming, Fortune Lounge Group, and Grand Prive, but does not allow an article on Jackpot Factory. If a rule is to make any sense, it must be applied in a consistent manner. Peter54 07:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Privé has been nominated for deletion. If you think the other sites don't meet WP:CORP, you can nominated them for deletion as well. Evidence that the awards are corrupt? Hmm, how's this for you:

"Will you be voted top the Gambling.com Member’s Polls? List your site on the Voting page and look out for the Results at the end of each month." "Once your listing has been approved, you can then manage your cpc bids from as little as 20c – your bid price will then determine the position your site appears on the individual Voting Category pages, with just the TOP 20 being displayed. Members will visit these pages to cast their votes – so the higher you are listed, the more likely you are to receive their vote!" "Each member is able to cast up to 3 votes per month per category [Subject to the standard voting rules] Votes are weighted in terms of 1st, 2nd, 3rd. You may wish to encourage your visitors to vote for you by using the following ‘Vote for Us’ graphics on your site." "Even though these awards are dated monthly, ie March 2005 – you can continue to host them indefinitely, therefore if you finish 3rd in February and just outside the top 5 the following month you will still be able to display the February Award if you wish." Nssdfdsfds 10:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per the external links/recognition, but it has to read less like an advertisement. Just H 10:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the links satisfy the "independent, verifiable, and credible online sources" criteria. Nssdfdsfds 11:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; subject certainly seems to have some notability within its field, but its general notability is not sufficient for inclusion here. As a side note, however, Nssdfdsfds, you could do a LOT to improve your tone here. Chances are that this deletion nomination will succeed regardless of whether you come out with guns blazing. So why not tone down the attacks and be polite? --Sneftel 16:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable enough to be included here. The total number of Microgaming casinos are irrelevant; this article is about a company which operates a group of Microgaming powered casinos and should be included. (The article does need to be cleaned up though.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rray (talk • contribs) 17:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Does operating a group of Microgaming casinos make a company notable? I wouldn't have said so. Microgaming itself is notable, but there doesn't seem to be anything interesting to add about the individual companies - they all have the same games, near-identical graphics, same software, and mostly are offshore companies with no solid enyclopedic info available. Nssdfdsfds 20:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does if you're interested in knowing which offshore companies own Microgaming-powered casinos, sure. Rray 22:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there's nothing encyclopedic to say about these offshore companies. There's no useful info to add. You'd have articles for Fortune Lounge, Vegas Partner Lounge, Trident Entertainment, Casino Rewards, Grand Privé, Jackpot Factory, Ashanti Entertainment, Casino Action, MiniVegas, Roxy, and all 10 articles could be created using a search and replace. E.g., "Trident Entertainment is a group of Microgaming casinos. All of its casinos are certified by eCOGRA. It won CasinoPlayer's Best of Gaming award in 2006. It owns the following sites'. The same content, with a different spurious award found off some obliging website (trust me, every casino on the web has won a 'World's best casino' award *somewhere) would work for the other articles. There's nothing there that extends what Microgaming already says. A private group that owns a few of the 100+ identikit Microgaming gaming sites is not of itself notable. Nssdfdsfds 01:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I indented your reply so that it would be clear it was a reply to my last post. And regarding the rest of your post, I disagree. I think it's notable and should be included here. Rray 02:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As much as I dont care for Nssdfdsfds method of argument I cannot see a group of semi-notable casino companies warrent their own page. The "awards" listed only seem to be online voting results, not "awards" per se, and hardly come from well known websites or sources. I do a fair amount of online gambling and have heard of none of the mentioned sites. It all seems to be a bit of an advert to me and contains a number of unneccessary links. TSMonk 13:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I'm also working on the grounds that I'm not sure a gambling or online gambling journal would be considered a reliable source. The article feels a little spammy, so that's what I'm hedging on. --Dennisthe2 01:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find much info, as above. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-promotion, borderline spam, non-notable. Realkyhick 05:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no advertisements.--Aervanath 14:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:42Z

Raymarine Marine Electronics[edit]

Page devoted to single company, containing no information beyond wikilinks of their product types and a link to the company in question - Davandron | Talk 19:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - notability has not been demonstrated; independent third-party sources are needed to show that the company is notable. (WP:CORP). Walton monarchist89 15:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 00:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is weak, but the subject is strong. This company is a significant player in the consumer electronics field for yachts and boats. It is the result of the spinoff of Raytheon's consumer division and merger with other notable manufacturers of navigation gear. As a dominant and influential player it is notable, but we need to expand the article. --Kevin Murray 02:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. More information would make me feel a lot better about it. Realkyhick 05:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until/unless properly sourced. -- Bpmullins | Talk 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Bpmullins makes an interesting point. However, guidelines don't call for the deletion of notable topics due to poor sources or inadequacy of the article, except for bios of living people. Here are verifiable links to help establish notability [Google Finance Profile] [Reuters]. More work to do. --Kevin Murray 17:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1.6 million G-hits show that this is probably notable; however, the curse is that there is so much chatter out there which makes it tedious to find independent sources worthy of WP standards. Need to spend more time, but should not delete the article. --Kevin Murray 17:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this should be renamed "Raymarine" wiht a redirect from the present title.

Keep one of the largest global manufacturors and suppliers of marine electronics. A couple more references added. Nuttah68 20:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Enough independent refs to establish notability, now we need to use some of that information to make the article better. MastCell 21:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A substantial company, though the article isn't very interesting. There are enough resources out on the web to allow this article to be maintained and improved if someone takes an interest in it. EdJohnston 03:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:44Z

Mastacraft[edit]

Non-notable. It certainly cannot be verified. Proposed deletion deadline was passed yesterday Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 00:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 00:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- as I said when I placed the prod template, the citations do not do anything to verify the claims of notability, and the albums appear to be unpublished. –Sommers ^(Talk) 01:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dlete. No independent reliable sources to verify claims; doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. --Wafulz 04:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a press release (and a bad one at that), fails WP:MUSIC. Realkyhick 05:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This article was an uncontested, completed, time served prod [6] until User:Lajbi replaced it with an AfD. Nuttah68 20:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources, no reviews, reads like an advertisement. The linked web site mastacraft.com does not open. Other citations simply point to the main page of rapmusic.com and don't reference his music. EdJohnston 03:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 12:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon morris(comedian)[edit]

Fixing incomplete deleion nomination by an IP user. No stance at this time -- saberwyn 01:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7: no assertion of notability. –Sommers ^(Talk) 01:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete non-notable. anyone who can't be bothered to capitalize doesn't deserve self-promotion. Wavy G 04:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline speedy. Doesn't meet WP:BIO, WP:RS, or WP:V. Claims about internet forum "notoriety" and success in the gay underground are weak at best. Since when is being gay the same as being part of a scene? --Wafulz 04:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah wish ah knew how to quit him...oh wait, I do! DELETE! Otto4711 04:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7, plus it's horribly written. Realkyhick 05:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Does not assert notability. Maxamegalon2000 06:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tae Bo. - Daniel.Bryant 08:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taibo[edit]

Just a disambiguation page of misspellings of 2 things. Does this warrant a page on Wikipedia? Montchav 15:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This should be a redirect to Tae Bo, as the 2nd misspelling does not appear to be phonetically probable. SkierRMH 01:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link for Li Bai is not exactly a misspelling; it's the correct romanization of a mispronunciation committed even by native Chinese speakers. The character 白, typically read as bai2, could also be read as bo2 on occasion; in fact, Li Bai's name (same 白 character) was typically read as Li Bo in the past, which makes people think Tai Bai should be read as Tai Bo. But anyway, I thought hatnotes were preferable to dab pages in the event of only having two items to disambiguate? cab 15:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 00:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with a redirect to Tae Bo. I think if people are likely to encounter the Tai Bo spelling of the philosopher elsewhere and come to wikipedia looking for him then Tae Bo should have an other uses link. I think that is unlikely given this google test. Selket ^Talk 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tae Bo per User:Selket. The poet himself is actually quite famous, but I think it would be problematic if we created a redirect for every misspelling of a name. Moreover, Tae Bo is phonetically the same as Taibo, so I think most people searching for "taibo" will be looking for the martial art rather than the poet. -- Black Falcon 02:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Tae Bo. Pretty obvious. Wavy G 04:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tae Bo, but addd a hatnote for Li Bai/Tai bai/Tai bo/Li bo at the top of the Tae Bo article. --Aervanath 16:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tae Bo and add {{distinguish}} or other similar template at the top of Tae Bo to cover the other usage. MastCell 21:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:45Z

Kevin Wilson (writer)[edit]

Non-notable person. Had a non-speaking role in Shaun of the Dead. Article is unferenced and illustrate no level of verifiable notability. IrishGuy ^talk 00:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:RS or WP:V. Bare bones imdb profile doesn't look promising. Given how common his name is and how lacking his article is, a Google search hasn't brought any information to light. --Wafulz 04:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NN, WP:V, WP:RS. Three strikes, you're out. Realkyhick 05:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and WP:V by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this fails our most basic policies. (jarbarf) 17:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable. Natalie 20:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:45Z

Nicholas Wilson[edit]

Non-notable person. Had a non-speaking role in Shaun of the Dead. Article is unferenced and illustrate no level of verifiable notability. IrishGuy ^talk 00:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though he's probably quite notable to his friends and family. Just not a Wiki-Notable. --Action Jackson IV 03:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same as Kevin Wilson AfD. Realkyhick 05:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and WP:V by end of this AfD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alf photoman (talk • contribs) 15:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No real noteriety and having a non-speaking role truely isn't notable. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:46Z

Louis Sauer[edit]

I'm not sure this should be deleted, but it definitely should be cut down in length. The author is the Mr. Sauer's wife (see the talk page), and a Google search confirms that Sauer has been active in architecture. What do you think? Does he meet WP:BIO? YechielMan 17:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT a place to put a résumé, which is what this looks like; even the monograph link provided in the article has better and more detailed information on the person. Also, with apologies to Mrs. Sauer, even her own comment on the talk page makes it clear that the point of this article is to raise Mr. Sauer's internet profile and notoriety which, again, Wikipedia is not for. Roadmr (t|c) 18:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is definitely a work in progress and needs to be rewritten, but Sauer appears to have been a pretty big deal architect. For instance, in this pdf if you search on his name you can find a mention of an article on his work in an Italian architecture magazine. He is also prominently mentioned as a mentor or authority in many places on the web. I think he will end up being notable enough, after a bit more work on the article. --Brianyoumans 23:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wiki's are not places to put up resumes or to generate press about a person. That's what myspace is for. meshach 05:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep Design Fellow in the US National Endowment of the Arts? that's notable. Architect for Penn's landing, Reston, Virginia, etc. etc. -Professor and Head of the Department of Architecture at Carnegie-Mellon University . Professor at the Universities of Pennsylvania and Colorado (Boulder, 1985-89) and a visiting professor at M.I.T, Yale 5 professorships. Architects are judged by their buildings, as reflected by what is written about them. Two books have been written about him. That is enough by any WP standard of N. --I doubt its advertising, as he's semi-retired. -- True, whoever wrote the article doesn't know how to write a WP bio. DGG 06:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The major architectual accomplishments are numerous. It needs a re-write to Wikiform, but not a deletion. --Oakshade 01:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The individual in question most certainly passes WP:BIO. The article needs a rewrite, not deletion. I've tagged it with {{likeresume}}. -- Black Falcon 02:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability per WP:BIO. I've added some refs, moved a large chunk of his writings to the talk page pending integration, and made some significant copyedits. Still needs significant work, but I think its workable at this point. -- MarcoTolo 04:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, give it a major overhaul, and politely inform the subject's wife about WP:COI issues. Realkyhick 05:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , problems with WP:COI should be solved though Alf photoman 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG keep note worthy achievement. We are to delete him just because his wife rather than a stranger or hired editor, or friend, or collegue wrote the article? Not everyone who stumbles upon Wiki and has the right intention of adding valuable content knows everyone rule on Wiki. Politely inform subject's wife, leave article intact.Julia 15:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the subject meets WP:BIO and resolve any conflict of interest issues through the normal editing process. (jarbarf) 17:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, tag as {{autobiography}} or somesuch, and improve with independent sources/information. Likely needs a significant shortening as well. MastCell 21:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. John Vandenberg 21:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:47Z

Gizmo Logic Studios Inc.[edit]

Deleted as A7 twice by two different admins, but contested. Discussion about whether the company met WP:CORP started on my talk page, where I was provided with these links. However, the links consist merely of directory entries, links to online stores where the companies products are being sold, and press releases. None of the links provided were non-trivial. Article was created by User:Scot Lemieux, who according to the article is one of the company's founders. WP:COI case for a non-notable computer animation studio.

Worth reading is the article's talk page, where User:Lexein gives a very detailed response to the article creator's {{hangon}} reason.-- Steel 17:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of verifiable notability at this time, per talk page. No reliable third-party sources...need to have them in order to back up claims of notability (which aren't even made at all in the article!). DMacks 18:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 04:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The vehement opposition to the article's existence, on its talk page, confirms my intuition. YechielMan 04:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow! That's the longest-winded deletion discussion I've ever seen on a talk page. But [WP:RS]], WP:V, WP:COI -- three strikes, buh-bye now. Realkyhick 05:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 20:54Z

David Joyce[edit]

Disputed speedy and fails WP:BIO, there are no sources to show how he was notable. In the article it is claimed that his fortune created the Joyce Foundation, however, in Joyce Foundation there is no mention of David Joyce RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hesitate because it has references, but I agree that it's not notable. YechielMan 04:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is one of the "lumber barons" mentioned in Clinton, Iowa and Lyons, Iowa Lumber History which seem to have been regarded once as the "Lumber Capital of the World." The latter entry also has inside another bio of him, so I'd say he has has made his impact but the two bios should be merged and cleaned-up. As far as I sse the foundation was founded by his heiress. If this is kept it need to be sourced. Tikiwont 11:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well all mentioned articles have been mostly written by the same author and while there are sources there are no specific citations. However, I found inside this [7] a small summary of the reference "Timber Connections" and stick with keep. Tikiwont 12:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, references dug out by Tikiwont should assert notability, but if not included into the article it does not help Alf photoman 15:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book Timber Connections was already included by in the article. I merely added above electronic summary for those of us who don't have it in their bookshelf. Tikiwont 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I dug out my copy of Timber Connections and also found this biography on the Texas Transportation Archive. It's harder to find sources for older subjects, but I think BIO has been met in this case. I will commit to improving the article a bit more if it is kept.--Kubigula (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and verifiable. John Vandenberg 05:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:48Z

Conspiracy realist[edit]

As another editor pointed out on the talk page to this article, the article itself is a POV violation, granting credit to those named (on uncertain grounds) as "conspiracy realists," and leaving all those unnamed to be regarded as supporting so-called "baseless theories." The article is sourced by a single link to a message board. Without reliable, third-party sources to document the existence of "conspiracy realists," this article should be deleted. janejellyroll 01:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. POV fork of conspiracy theory, no reference in a reliable source, neolism, etc. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork, no reliable sources, neologism. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. No reliable sources, just an arbitrary distinction for POV purposes. If there are documented uses of "conspiracy realist" in credible sources, it can possibly be mentioned in Conspiracy theory. -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reliance on dubious sources, not verifiable. PlusWikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day and the official cabal decree, WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself.. Propagandists! Realspeak! Orwellian! MortonDevonshire Yo · 03:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK, WP:RS, WP:NEO, and possibly even WP:NOT#DICT. The term does have some use (see [8] and [9]), but they are mostly on message boards, which do not meet WP:RS. Oh, and apparently, it's also a myspace account name. Finally, a personal comment: to distinguish between a "theorist" and a "realist" in the way this article has done implies a complete lack of understanding as to what a theory really is (the "common usage" of the term is horribly wrong; crazy notions are just that--crazy notions--they are not theories). OK, I'm done. -- Black Falcon 03:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism--Mmx1 03:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double-plus ungood delete - POV fork, others above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced neologism, POV, but a very good laugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please. --Tbeatty 04:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yours, Famspear 05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork and other dubious achievements. Realkyhick 05:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn neologism. --Hyperbole 06:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I personally prefer the term "Conspiracy Idiot" - at least the theorists get their results through sheer easy ignorance! --Action Jackson IV 07:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--MONGO 07:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 07:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated and per Black Falcon. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 12:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.
Delete per above GabrielF 14:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a soapbox Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN and is not verifiable --rogerd 14:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator has been blocked for 3RR repeatedly re-adding pointers to this and the related category to an article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Aude (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "List of ridiculous terms coined by conspiracy theorists to present their views in a more favorable light". On second thought, delete per the Knights Templar (oops, I've said too much). MastCell 21:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just over 1000 Google hits, but most appear to be people's self descriptions, as a distinction from "conspiracy theorists." As a neologism, it does not appear to be used in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not for terms made up while wearing a tinfoil hat one day. Inkpaduta 21:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete, delete. There are several violations here, already discussed, but I will add another: the term "conspiracy realist" is an oxymoron. If you look up "oxymoron" in the dictionary, Mr. Webster probably used "conspiracy realist" as an example. Dino 00:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, neologism and no reliable sources. --Dual Freq 02:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inkpaduta said what I wanted to say best. ( I now return to my secret lair where I will receive a colossal fee from our secret masters for stifling this discussion. ) ( To the literal minded: the previous sentence was a joke. ) WMMartin 17:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:48Z

Neobee[edit]

Serbian ISP. No assertion of notability made, and it does not appear notable. And just because the company is an ISP (of course, we all love the Internet) does not make it notable. Wehwalt 18:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 01:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete can be A7'd. Dionyseus 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Selket ^Talk 09:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 03:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:49Z

Realmlist[edit]

Orphaned article, not so important Htmlism (talk · contr) 18:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

51400 Google hits outside Wikipedia. Not hoax. Merge with a page about games. Anthony Appleyard 18:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just to expand on my thoughts... The concept isn't very deep. A realmlist is a list of realms, and realms are servers. Personally, the only game I know that has this is World of Warcraft. I'm sure there are others, but I don't feel it merits either an article or any mention in any other articles. Other than maybe that Warcraft servers are called realms.--66.192.34.8 22:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 01:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kind of a pointless definition: "A realm list is a list of realms." Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Wafulz 04:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef. Resolute 06:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:50Z

Zydeisland[edit]

A search on Google for "Zydeisland" returns 176 hits. "Zyde Island", the phrase, returns 59 results. Most, if not all of these, are self-promotion on web forums. The article claims the site had 16,000 users at its peak, and I would imagine that 16,000 users would account for more Google traffic. The article is mostly the work of one user (User:Ikahootz), and features such elegant prose as "The game won many awards and a quick google search of "ZydeIsland" will show you this and the amount of fans it did have." and "There has always been rumur it may return some day...". Has anyone else even heard of this? Action Jackson IV 01:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find anything on LexisNexis or Newsbank either. But it is a very sad tale of what can go wrong without backups. -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of sources indicates vanity/hoax. Kafziel ^Talk 20:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and possible hoax. MastCell 21:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:51Z

Survivor 16[edit]

User:TeckWiz gave the following justification for the deletion of Survivor 15 in June 2006, before any information was available for the season:

Survivor 15 is not even guarranteed to happen. It hasn't been announced and applications aren't up yet. Unlike Survivor 14, which is definatly happening since there are applications for it on Survivor application page on CBS.com, Survivor 15 may not happen, which is why I'm proposing this page for deletion. The entire page is one sentence: CBS Has Ordered Survivor 15, It Should Premiere In Fall 2007. I would not even put an expand tag because it hasn't been ordered, so it's wrong info, and "it should" sounds like the person that put it in really wasn't sure. See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball If there is a Surivor 15, I will re-create the page with the basic info that you find out from the application form on CBS.com. To see what the basic info is look at Survivor 14, which I created. All info is from the application form.

TeckWiz^TalkContribs_Guestbook 23:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially the same argument applies here. The entire page this time is two sentences: "This season will begin in February of 2008. If there is a season or two after this, then Jeff could retire or host until the show finally is cancelled." Neither statement is sourced or anything beyond speculation. Survivor 16 wouldn't start filming until November 2007, and wouldn't air until a year from now. Survivor 14 just started airing last week. It's just too early for this article. --Maxamegalon2000 01:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current justification is sufficient. This article is unsourced speculation. WP:CRYSTAL. janejellyroll 01:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I nominated the article with a temporary justifaction until I could copy and expand on the AfD for Survivor 15. I feel like if I don't give a longer explanation than "Pure crystalballery", Survivor fans will claim that a 16th season is a certainty. --Maxamegalon2000 01:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Delete per my reason posted by Maxamegalon. --TeckWiz^ParlateContribs_@ 01:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystal blue un-persuasion. Realkyhick 05:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gogo Dodo 06:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. -- Black Falcon 07:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and the lack of information about the show. ShadowHalo 06:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Daniel.Bryant 08:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shred metal[edit]

Delete This article has been disputed at {{prod}}. Reprodding was attempted, but that is improper. AfD is appropriate instead. See article talk page for further on dispute of validity of article.} TonyTheTiger 18:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appears to be plenty of evidence that many people think shred metal exists.[10] If there is a major controversy over whether it is a valid genre, that could be put in the article, but I have to say that I found little evidence of such a dispute. --Groggy Dice T | C 19:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly redirect to shred guitar. Despite what the article claims, this is not a musical genre according to any reliable sources, and it is unverifiable and non-notable as a term. Prolog 21:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Prolog. Punkmorten 12:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Shred metal is a distinct concept from speed metal. However, the article should be extended nonetheless. The Wiki Priest 05:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Is that your description or can you provide sources? I have not been able to find any and it does not seem like this article can be verified. Prolog 16:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, not even 600 results on google... I do not think this genre exist, and even if it does, it is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 16:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How do you come up with "not even 600 results?" I get 25,000, and when I added Malmsteen to cut down on the false positives, I still got two or three times that. --Groggy Dice T | C 19:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 01:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep "Shred Metal" + "Music" has over 20,000 Google hits, and I've seen the term used in print publications. A shred guitarist may or may not play shred metal, and I could even imagine a shred metal band with, say, reggae rhythm and ethnic instrumentation. However, I have difficulty drawing the line between speed metal, thrash metal, punk metal, and shred. I have heard the terms used interchangably. It's my hunch that bands described as "shred metal" can also fit into one of the above categories - but that alone wouldn't negate the importance of "shred" as a category (think: there's comedy movies, dark comedy movies, and satire, and possibly libel if you want to go that deep). The article definitely needs expansion, however - as it stands it's a useless article. --Action Jackson IV 03:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going on a weak keep here. It's a distinct style, but just enough where it warrants its own article. Expand it. --Dennisthe2 03:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a number of bands/guitarists describe their musical style as "shred metal". most notably The Great Kat and Joe Stump [11]-from K37 06:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bands refer to themselves as this and a huge number of google results for this subject are all indicators that this should be kept. Mathmo ^Talk 10:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blend corp.[edit]

New label, no indication of artists beyond the one listed, website is empty, no sign of any releases. Lack of independent reliable sources doesn't help. Has been edited a couple of times (along with some related articles) by User:Bevincampbell, while the label's founder is one "bevin campbell" Chris cheese whine 01:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly vanity, NN, etc. --Action Jackson IV 01:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only signed artist appears to be strictly on a regional distribution basis. Only album claimed to have been released was actually released on another label a year prior. Also a violation of WP:COI. Caknuck 01:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 20:55Z

List of clubs and societies in Liège[edit]

Just a list of clubs in a small city- is wikipedia supposed to be the yellow pages Peter Rehse 01:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. Also, for future references, it's a good idea not to treat the nomination as a "delete" !vote (if you nominate an article, we're pretty sure you want it deleted). --Wafulz 04:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful and allowed by WP policy:

Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information is welcome for inclusion into wikipedia in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.[12]

The way I see it, the page will evolve over time from a list of external links into a much shorter list of internal links as a result of each section being covered by an article. Pgr94 08:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The "chapter information" thing applies to something like "list of scouting troops" or "list of flag-twirling brigades" or something similar. It doesn't apply to "list of things in a city". Also, that criteria applies to non-profit organizations, which are clearly not the majority here. --Wafulz 15:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pgr94. Mathmo ^Talk 10:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My understanding of the source posted by Pgr94 is for lists of chapters, e.g. the Liege chapter of Hells Angels could agreeably sit in a List of Chapters of Hells Angels in Belgium, but not in a list of clubs and societies in Liege. If my understanding is flawed, please let me know, as I'm keen to continue to develop my understanding of WP process. --Dweller 15:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I fully understand what you mean. If you're saying it's ok to group by subject but not to group by location, then by my reading the policy doesn't actually appear to say that. PS interesting choice of example :-) Pgr94 15:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol. I don't know many organisations that call themselves "chapters" other than HA, lol. I think it's an Americanism. Anyway, I think it's arguable either way. --Dweller 15:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as violating WP:NOT as an indiscriminate list. The policy quoted User:Pgr94 is intended as, for example, The Boy Scouts of America article can have a list (in the main article or seperately depending on how long the list is) of local branches that are not notable in themselves. Nuttah68 20:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Although a lot of work has gone into this, it doesn't appear to be salvageable. Perhaps it could be put on a Web site. The authors could easily go to a free blog service like Google's and set it up as one or more blog posts, then revise as needed, although the real work would be in getting people to that Web page. Pgr94, the use of the word "Individual" in the quote you cite clearly indicates (although it doesn't explicitly state) that the rule concerns individual chapters of organizations within a list of chapters of that organization. If the word "Individual" were not there, much less the first word in the sentence, you'd have a better case. "Individual" clearly is used to emphasize the difference between local chapters and national/international organizations.Noroton 05:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC) (edited)[reply]
Delete As some have already noted it violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Even if it was improved and enlarged the fundamental problem would still exist. Pax:Vobiscum 18:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list covers too many non-notable entities. John Vandenberg 05:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:52Z

Dreigen Uchiha[edit]

Some person's Naruto fan character. Not a character that appears in the series, so fails WP:FICT notability guideline. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Google hits. User goes by same name. --Alksub 02:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons mentioned above. --Action Jackson IV 07:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place to brag about your crappy made up Naruto characters that you created for the purpose of inserting yourself into the story. Also, check out the kana for his name, it reads "Uchiha Sasuke" not "Uchiha Dreigen". --Candy-Panda 10:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hi im "Dreigen Uchiha", delete it it doesn't follow wikipedia regulations and you should just delete it. By the way sorry.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yuser31415 01:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K9YA Telegraph[edit]

The article does not meet the criteria for notability. --- LuckyLouie 02:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article reads like spam, but it seems there may be a chance that this is a notable publication within the subculture it serves. --Action Jackson IV 03:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Within the amateur radio subculture, the two major amateur radio e-zines, www.qrz.com, and www.eham.net do not have Wikipedia articles. The K9YA Telegraph is relatively non-notable by comparison. --- LuckyLouie 03:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment www.qrz.com and www.eham.net are not e-Zines. The K9YA Telegraph is a subscription-only based publication, delivered as a PDF file attachment to e-mail. The K9YA Telegraph is not a website as in the aforementioned URLs.

The K9YA Telegraph is read by radio amateurs in over 100 countries. The K9YA Telegraph is staffed entirely of volunteers, offers free subscriptions and has no advertising. The K9YA Telegraph contains original--never before published articles, photographs and cartoons relating to amateur radio.

Each month, a ham radio cartoon originally published in the K9YA Telegraph, is reprinted in RadCom, the UK's Radio Society Magazine <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radcom>. The K9YA Telegraph is referenced in every issue.

K9YA Telegraph articles have been referenced in the Contester's Rate Sheet, a publication of the American Radio Relay League <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARRL>.

K9YA Telegraph content has been reprinted and referenced in the Keynote, the journal of the International Morse Preservation Society <http://www.fists.org>.

Cartoons and illustrations originally appearing in the K9YA Telegraph have been published in, "HI HI--A Collection of Ham Radio Cartoons" by Dick Sylvan, W9CBT. (ISBN 1-4116-6195-8).

The 5th edition of, "The Art & Skill of Radio-Telegraphy" will contain original content from the K9YA Telegraph. --- User:Finley Breese 11 February, 2007

Keep per Finley's notations, with a strong admonition to put the references above into the article if you haven't already done so. --Dennisthe2 06:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable among radio amateurs, but can't blame a non-HAM not knowing that Alf photoman 15:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Cites appear to establish it exists, and that it has multiple references in other reliable sources which reprint its content. Does not appear highly notable outside morse code radio enthusiasts and radio hams, but seems to barely satisfy WP:N. Inkpaduta 21:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:53Z

SCUBA Tag[edit]

Obscure, nn diving game. Alksub 02:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources to establish notability. Heimstern Läufer 05:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOTE and possibly WP:HOAX --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 05:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: smells like it may have been made up in (diving) school one day. i kan reed 19:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the above reasons. MastCell 21:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Wikipedia is not for things made up at Scout camp one day, including a variant in the article called "scuba grab ass." Inkpaduta 22:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as "made up in dive school". WMMartin 17:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:53Z

Alma Saraci[edit]

Actress appearing in an unreleased film, no indication from third party sources that she meets inclusion guidelines for humans. brenneman 02:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weak assertion of notability, no evidence of verifiability. ShadowHalo 09:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly, too little notability to stave off the axe: only 127 Ghits, and most seem to be for someone at the Albanian National Agency of Energy. A ways down the cast list on her upcoming film, too. --Groggy Dice T | C 09:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable unknown actress. NawlinWiki 12:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fairfax County elementary schools. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 20:59Z

Clifton Elementary School (Clifton, Virginia)[edit]

It's an elementary school, in Fairfax County, VA. I don't see much of a claim of notability here, nor in any of the other articles on elementary schools in Fairfax County that I will be adding here. Brianyoumans 03:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC) I have added to this AFD the following Fairfax County elementary school articles:[reply]

Brianyoumans 03:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a cute class project, but more appropriate elsewhere. I'd pretty much extend this vote to any and every elementary school and junior high. --Action Jackson IV 03:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all of them into a school district page. BJ^Talk 03:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable elementary school. --Holdek ^(talk) 05:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems like an excellent idea here. Notability in numbers, or something like that. Realkyhick 05:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all I don't think they need their own article but would be better on a combined page. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Fairfax County Public Schools article already lists all the schools and their grade levels. Brianyoumans 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - In that case, delete all. Elementary schools and junior high schools are generally not notable. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per lack of notability. DMacks 19:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some some have notability and i am working on notability for Union Mill ES. A few have no use but some are notable. Floris is I belive the oldest public school in Fairfax county and Clifton is one of the oldest in Northern VA, although not public in the begining. Union Mill is named after this mill on Bull Run creek that supplied stuff for the battles of Manassas in the Civil War, and has a grindstone from the mill (see photo in article) on display in front of it. I have no notability for Herndon, Sunrise, or Mosby, however. KeepOnTruckin 21:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, remember Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_subjective and (citing guide to deletion here) "the fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth" KeepOnTruckin 21:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. I believe the major problem here is likely the absence of references in this articles or a plethora of relevant links that could help establish a more fine-tuned and reliable article. I believe that if enough information can be presented for an independent article, then in the terms of public schools, the school should receive its own article. The main reason behind notability guidelines is to allow for sensible articles that are not commercially representing or self-representing. If an article is able to provide a good deal of substance that is backed by reliable references then I support it. However, for the meantime, since this article does not adequately meet all of these guidelines, it should me merged. Another option is tagging the article with clean up tags and need references tags to see if that information is actually available. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 22:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A similar AFD on other Fairfax county public schools is located here, note that AFD was also started by User:Brianyoumans. KeepOnTruckin 00:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that is one part of the middle schools; the rest of them are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Carson Middle School --Brianyoumans 00:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As to a merger: these schools, what grades they offer, and what "cluster" they are in are already listed in the Fairfax County Public Schools article. --Brianyoumans 00:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per KeepOnTruckin. Fairfax County Public Schools is a notable school district in the US. For example, Sunrise Valley Elementary School has been cited in several news reports, such as [13] for its educational program. It also has a gifted program cited in this news report [14]. I believe the above blanket "delete" votes are flawed as they have overlooked at least one notable case in Sunrise Valley Elementary School.--Vsion 06:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The first citation you give is a short mention in the article; the article is not about Sunrise Valley, it is about efforts to teach children about finance. The second article is in a Fairfax County community paper and is a short news note. Brianyoumans 06:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you aware of these references before nomination? If not, I hope you could offer the courtesy not to WP:TROLL, these are new information for other editors to consider. Also, you have misread the Denver-post/washington-post article, the first half of the article was devoted to Sunrise Valley, more than a "short mention". The article clearly satisfies the criteria of having multiple reliable sources. Also there are now strong claims of notability. I wish to note also that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Carson Middle School, the notability of another school was overlooked. Again, I'm troubled by this mass nomination and blanket "delete" voting. --Vsion 07:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was merely giving my impression of the sources that you came up with. I certainly intend to "discuss" and not "troll". Surely we can disagree without resorting to personal attacks? --Brianyoumans 07:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I apologize if you feel this is a personal attack, that's not my intention. But I have to note that your arguments were being selective, e.g. you noted that the 2nd reference is of a "community paper", but failed to mention that the first reference is from the nationally-distributed "washington post" posted in Denver. Of course, this bias is probably unintentional on your part, but to avoid further nick-picking, I suggest we just move on, and not to challenge each other's argument unless there is gross error or something significantly new to add. --Vsion 07:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed. I had noticed the first source was from the Denver Post, I guess I figured everyone else would who bothered to hover their cursor over the link. The second link was somewhat more ambiguous unless you clicked it and saw where it went. --Brianyoumans 08:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete all Some have nothing at all to say, and the others would fit into a section of the general article:

This particular one, Clifton is "smallest school in the country." & nothing more; But Greenbriar isn't even that, and fills its space with a list of the other schools, Colvin Run' doesn't even have such a list, Herndon has a French class, Mosley woods has a central hallway, Sunrise has a field day, Union Mill a millstone (not having any actual connection with the school). McNair is distinctive, for it has a well written article--although the main point is a local family, not the school. If any of this is notable, the material can go in the general article until there is enough to make a strong case for that particular one. Alternatively, we go one at a time and it takes forever & will probably be inconsistent as well. DGG 06:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing in this article in its present form which suggests that the school is in any way notable. The content is entirely trivial and non-encyclopaedic. Dahliarose 09:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability neither asserted nor shown. WMMartin 17:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I say that I mean for All, of course. WMMartin 17:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As to a merger, the Fairfax County Public Schools is turning into a list. Merging every elementary school into that article (FCPS has 137 of them, although there arent than many on wikipedia, people might add more)would make that article extremley long. There is nothing wrong with having articles on elementary and middle schools, and if there is a problem with any of the articles, IMPROVE them instead of blanket deleting them all. --KeepOnTruckin 18:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, then merge them into a Fairfax County elementary schools and so on. BJ^Talk 23:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think these can be merged back in as a table that lists some of the school data - grade range, perhaps what school it feeds, town it is located in, and the school website. We can lose stuff like the principal's name, the school mascot, what the names of the grade 3 "teams" are, etc.--Brianyoumans 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All A big load of non-notable schoolcruft. Soltak | Talk 20:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Unless there is something noteworthy about this school in particular, it should be merged as previously recommended. I do not support deleting it, however. --Ozgod 23:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All schools are notable to me, and I am happy to read an article on any school on wikipedia, regardless of district. Brianyoumans, you have consitently stated that the reason you want these articles deleted is because they have no assertion of notability/they arent notable enough to be on wikipedia. Let me say this again, citing the guide to deletion (my apologies if I am making the same argument twice) "the fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." "Lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because (among other reasons) this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy; and since Wikipedia is not paper and has no size limits [except those of the server...not important here], there's no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't include "everything" that fits in with the other criteria, such as WP:Verifiability and no original research". If these schools are such a non-notable topic, then people wont search for them. They arent harming Wikipedia, but they are helping anyone who read them. In fact, if "we delete articles solely due to their obscurity, currently obscure, or seemingly obscure, subjects may gain more popular interest at a later date. In such a case, deleted articles will constitute a loss of valuable (and perhaps, in the transitory world of the internet, irreproducible) information." "Non-notable" is a non-NPOV designation, therefore not abiding by policy. The person who authored the article probably believes that the topic is notable enough to be included. "Writing 'Delete, non-notable' is not about whether the articles should be in Wikipedia, but rather that it is a quick phrase that does not tell everyone else why the article is non-notable". Brianyoumans, you need to prove that all these school articles aren't notable. KeepOnTruckin 04:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel no need to demonstrate their non-notability. I think you are confusing "notability" and "verifiability". I'm not sure where you are quoting from, but my fundamental objection to these articles is that, since they are not (in my view) notable, they then fall under "Wikipedia is not a directory" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" from WP:NOT. If you come up with something notable on one or two of these schools, the articles can always be recreated. But how likely is it that ALL these schools are notable? This isn't Lake Wobegon, where "all the children are above average". :-) --Brianyoumans 05:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepOnTruckin has misunderstood the instructions on the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion which clearly states that the need to check for sources is part of the nomination process. We can therefore assume that the person who nominated the article was unable to find any suitable sources to justify the notability of this particular school. The onus is not on the people involved in the deletion debate to find such sources. We can only judge the article on what is written. If there are sources which prove the school's notability then it is up to that article's editors to do a re-write and include suitable references. As the article stands there is nothing in the article to indicate that the school is in any way notable and it should therefore be deleted. Dahliarose 20:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable — MrDolomite • Talk 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Fairfax County Public Schools or Delete. Vegaswikian 01:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shwaka[edit]

DicDef that has already been Xwikied to Wiktionary. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~If it's already been transwikied, it's speediable (A5). See {{db-transwiki}}.~~ I guess A5 only applies to pages that were already AfD'd? ~~Anyway, wikt:shwaka comes up empty for me.~~cab 03:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never mind me, found it wikt:Transwiki:Shwaka ... cab 04:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - grubber 16:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chairboy, no assertion of notability (CSD A7). BryanG^(talk) 06:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Mitchell[edit]

This article is autobiographical self-promotion as per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Also fails WP:BIO Planetneutral 03:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - db-bio, such tagged. BJ^Talk 03:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - non-notable by a mile Johnbod 04:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:08Z

Urban housework[edit]

This page lists not one source, has just over 2000 ghits with the 2 of the top 5 being wiki pages. BJ^Talk 03:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX and WP:NOTE. --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 05:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They're kidding, right? WP:HOAX. Realkyhick 05:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. This is easily inspired by Monty Python, and a clever idea, but doesn't belong outside of the BJAODN posts. --Dennisthe2 06:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny but delete Paul 22:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are found. Very intersting topic though ^^ Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 10:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Alphachimp. Can someone add this to Wikipedia:Protected titles/Deliberate redlinks as it's been deleted 7 times already. MER-C 09:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random Article[edit]

Article explains what Random Article link does on Wikipedia. Does this warrant a page? lightspeedchick 03:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No, no it doesn't Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 04:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Doesn't belong here; covered by Wikipedia:Random. Pomte 04:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above, redundant. Meanwhile, Help:Random_page seems to have a couple of problems, but it's propagated from Meta, which seems OK now. Just a heads-up for anyone with jurisdiction. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Pomte. Maxamegalon2000 06:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. It does exactly what it says on the tin - we know that. --Dennisthe2 06:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, positive assertion of nonnotability. NawlinWiki 12:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alionnoob[edit]

Suspected violation of WP:NN. Little information establishing notability lightspeedchick 04:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "trying to become well known on Youtube", as the article says, looks to be all they've accomplished. Less than 150 Google hits [15]. Heimstern Läufer 04:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable desperately seeking publicity. Sorry, not here. Realkyhick 05:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it'd help if they were even mildly amusing. --Action Jackson IV 07:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no assertion of notability whatsoever. WarpstarRider 11:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:08Z

Curt Thomas[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. As a website designer, he was involved in a couple of minor incidents, but nothing that was ever covered in the press, as far as I could tell from a web search. The fact that it's an orphaned article doesn't help its case. YechielMan 04:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unverified and with insufficient notability. Heimstern Läufer 04:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources for any of the information. Don't see the notability.--Getaway 14:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. John Vandenberg 05:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:09Z

Blessan Samuel Classic[edit]

NN local basketball tournament; self-promotion _SUBWAYguy 04:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advert, non-notable, likely COI. Realkyhick 05:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are provided to establish notability. Very few Google hits suggest this is unlikely. -SpuriousQ (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. John Vandenberg 05:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:09Z

Vertigo Games[edit]

De-proded. No notability established to meet WP:WEB. Only 163 unique Ghits for "Vertigo Games" and 95 for "Mr. Chubigans". -- Scientizzle 04:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article, while containing some non-sense is mostly fact about a real game developing company headed, as the article states by a person with the screen name of "Mr. Chubigans" and therefore should be edited, not deleted. The link to this article has been there for a long time, he did not write this article the non-sense was probably added in by a crazed fan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cpicon92 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM. Outside of this article containing factual nonsense, Mr. Chubigans started on the Internet when his company gave him a computer to make a website (later this company went bankrupt). Then Mr. Chubigans bought the Half Life series together with Opposing Force., a visit to this guy's website shows it has a link to the wikipedia article on his main page [16]. Mitaphane _?|! 05:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. The article asserts that the company's founder "may get a job making games for a living." Maxamegalon2000 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Searches for this title might bring up old references to a series of boardgaming conventions named "Vertigo Games" held in the Chicago and Philadelphia areas. These were small housecons for the Diplomacy (game) hobby that weren't related to this company nor to its computer games. Those conventions received coverage only in game 'zines that didn't meet WP:RS, so we won't need a disambiguation page. Barno 20:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sandbox of God is pretty damn good. It may not be notable, but I implore you crazy wiki guys to download it! --Perfection 10:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Saw characters, except Amanda Young. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:12Z

Lynn Denlon[edit]

Also nominating the following related pages:

Delete all - Wikipedia is not the place for detailed plot summaries masquerading as articles about the characters. Otto4711 04:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all My favorite type of AfD! There are far too many of this type of article. A character in a movie is not an actual subject unless they are covered in some non trivial manner outside the film. Personally I don't even like merging into a list of characters page as all we end up with is a list of encyclopedic character specific plot summaries. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stronger delete all Daniel J. Leivick is dead-on. I'm hard pressed to think of many memorable characters from the last twenty years of cinema and television - but art crit aside, who cares? Why would anyone care? Start a fan site or something! (this same sentiment extends to the billions of Simpsons spin-off articles, in case anyone was wondering) --Action Jackson IV 05:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am with you on those Simpsons articles. I would nominate a slew of them, but it would be too tough a fight. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even stronger delete all per nom. Realkyhick 06:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These articles are nothing more than plot summaries. There is nothing to justify their existance apart from the movie articles. janejellyroll 05:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's my deletion reason. MER-C 09:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I suggest merging the useful information into the List of Saw characters page, with the exception of Amanda's page, as there is info in there that has to do with 3 films and comic book, as well as behind-the-scenes developement and the history of the character that was unexplored in any of the films. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 06:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all except Amanda. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 09:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Janejellyroll. Completely unsourced. MER-C 09:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All, because of the motives of the delete voters! Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Consider instead the harm to benifit ratio of deleting, is easily in favour of keeping. Mathmo ^Talk 10:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOT, which says in relevant part: "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Otto4711 13:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all, except Amanda Young - these articles say nothing that the summary article can't put together. Less noteworthy than the mass of Gundam-related mobile suit articles that was deleted last month. Iceberg3k 15:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except Amanda Young - As Amanda appears in multiple films, her complete character information cannot be found in any of the three film's individual articles. Mcr29 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Amanda Young - Stoph 17:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Merge, Redirect the nomination says it well. Unless the article on the series becomes bloated the character info should be there with a redirect, and only when the article exceeds a reasonble length should major charachters get articles. --Kevin Murray 17:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, especially Amanda Young First off, I'd like to thank Otto for notifying me about the AFD nominations, as most people would have done. (I'm being sarcastic, for those who don't know, as he completely neglected to do so). If any of them stay, Amanda should as she has appeared in all three films as well as a comicbook. As for the others, except for Lynn and Jeff, all of them have appeared in at least two movies. If we're going to delete these articles, we might as well delete 90% of the other fictional character articles.--CyberGhostface 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, except Amanda - Unless each article has significant out of universe information, they should all be in one large "List of Saw characters". Amanda is like Jigsaw, a major componant of each film, although that it is unknown until the third film. Research needs to be done to find out of universe information for her and Jigsaw, but the character should have her own page. The rest are minor and not too much out of universe info will probably be found about them, though that isn't suggesting that it shouldn't be tried. But I agree with Otto that we shouldn't masquerade expanded plot summaries as character descriptions. Wiki isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, but that doesn't mean we can't make these characters encyclopedic. One list, contain casting information, person reflection by the actors on the characters, and a bried description about who the character was in context with the film. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 18:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Amanda Young - Amanda is a major character in all three Saw movies, and there is other information on her page, including character development/history. Xxxmidnightxxx 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would also like to note that these articles aren't 'detailed plot summaries masquerading as articles about the characters.' Each of these articles focuses specifically on a certain character's arc goes into more detail on their characters than the others involved.--CyberGhostface 21:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out in each of the various articles where the "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance" is please? Otto4711 21:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point it out in 90% of the fictional character articles? And its not a 'work' like a film or novel. Wikipedia also states that "If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." Going into detail about the entire character's life would make the film articles too wieldy.--CyberGhostface 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

90% of the fictional character articles are not under discussion here. These articles are. "Some other shitty article exists" is not a justification for more shitty articles. If you find articles that you feel are of the same poor quality as these charcter arc plot summaries, nominate them for deletion. Otto4711 21:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on responding to my other point.--CyberGhostface 22:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT is a guideline. Articles created under FICT still have to pass WP:NOT, which is a policy and supercedes FICT. These articles do not pass NOT because they are nothing but character-specific plot summaries. How's that for responding to your other point? Otto4711 19:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that good. As for real world context, I can very easily find interviews with the actors and writers concerning their inspirations. The case of Amanda Young (which I doubt you even read before nominating it for AFD) details her actress's inspiration for the character as well as works of literature that helped her further her role.--CyberGhostface 20:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find the reliable sources, then please do find them and add them before the AFD closes and then we can all see if they now pass. While you're at it, try trimming some of the minute-by-minute stuff out of the plot summaries. Otto4711 20:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all but Amanda Young, per WP:FICT. Most of the articles lack references, and could be included in the article on Saw. The Young article has a few references, but I wonder how to determine if they are reliable [WP:RS]] and independent? Radiofree.com? Crave.com? Are they fansites or do they have a more substantial basis? Inkpaduta 22:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're both professional websites that have interviewed Shawnee Smith on her character. Frankly, I wouldn't mind everyone but Amanda being merged if it has to be done. If anything, thats what Otto should have done in the first place instead of attempting to eradicate everything from the wiki.--CyberGhostface 22:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all, except Amanda Young - Amanda is one of the main characters in the Saw films, right up there with Jigsaw himself. The others should be merged though. - Gadgetfusion 17:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, except Amanda Young I don't see why this content should be merged. JuJube 02:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all All characters are a lot more intricate then could be explained in a simple plot summary on the main articles. TheWikitruthisOutThere 05:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Enlighten me, how are they more complex than "this character did/thought/said this thing that made Jigsaw think he/she was worthy of death"? They're horror movie victims. Iceberg3k 18:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've obviously never seen the films, or else you wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement. There ARE characters in the Saw series who would fit your viewpoint, the ones who appear in one scene and are dispatched gruesomely because they go against Jigsaw's life philosophy. If you have confused these characters with the ones in these articles, then you are grossly mistaken. All of these are complex characters with their own motivations, histories and secrets, many of whom have appeared in more than one film. Calling characters like Jeff and Matthews mere horror film victims in the same line as the horny teenagers from the Jason films does them a great disservice.--CyberGhostface 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope, wrong again, I have seen the movies. They're just horror movie victims with more screen time and slightly better backstory. Their profiles might be high enough to justify a larger mention on a fansite, but WP isn't a fansite. These characters fail WP:NOTE one and all, with the possible exception of Amanda. Iceberg3k 05:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - All of them were the protagonists of their respective films. You'd be better off classifying characters like Xavier as 'horror movie victims with more screen time' as it doesn't fit these ones at all. In the case of Adam and Lawrence, the entire first film revolved around them.--CyberGhostface 18:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least Amanda and any others that have WP:RS, and redirect the rest, keeping the history. John Vandenberg 06:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All, but keep Amanda and Jigsaw 87.118.102.154 10:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ Arjun 03:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Kim Peng Clarence[edit]

Army officer. Fails to establish notability. mandel 14:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aarontay 20:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He seemed like a nice guy. Did his job. Got promoted. ... --MRoberts <> 00:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pioneer who helped build up an army, --Vsion 03:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The onus, I think, is on the article writer to show his notability. Mandel 15:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of the relevant non-English Wikipedias have an article on the guy? If so, they might have some good sources, and if not, that might reinforce the contention of non-notability. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only found in English Wikipedia. Mandel 18:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is about a man who was instrumental in building up an elite military unit. Given the sensitive topic nature, and contemporary security situation we have now, it is unlikely that there will be many publications on these elite units, let alone the key people behind them. It is difficult to find good sources, but notability isnt based on how many good sources there are in cases like this.--Huaiwei 01:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and the article explains why. I would most appreciate if the nominator and those who vote delete at least explain why he is not notable based on the article content. I was the original author by the way.--Huaiwei 01:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Article does not show how he was instrumental in 'building up an elite military unit'. Four of those voted have already indicated that, from their reading of the article. The onus is now on the article writer, not the nominator/voters. We obviously can't explain why, not knowing the guy. Based on the article, I only see a fairly high-ranked officer regularly promoted. Mandel 13:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we on the same page? It's right there :"1967, he was tasked to begin recruiting eligible candidates for the new Singapore Armed Forces Regular Battalion, the precursor of the 1st Commando Battalion"... CO from 1971 to 1978. Your misrepresentation of the article and my comment is rather strange. --Vsion 14:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to Huaiwei, not you, Vsion. Recruitment of soldiers is neither surprising nor by itself notable. In fact, every battalion has to do some recruitment, or they would have zero man. I do not represent or misrepresent the article; the article is open for perusal. I have not edited it in any way. Mandel 15:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the missing of important fact in your comment is appalling. "every battalion has to do some recruitment", well true, but you forget to mention that the battalion (and in fact the whole army) didn't exist at the time. --Vsion 15:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are making points with no meaning. I said every battalion; new or not makes no difference. Please stop the ad hominem attacks and stick to the article. This govt site states 1969 was the year the Singapore Commando battalion precursor unit was formed.[17] By then this officer was already posted elsewhere. The article said he was tasked to recruit battalion members, it does not show us how he 'built up' the Commandoes - or that he was doing something extra or special beyond his job. If you have constructive comments to make, do; otherwise, please stop attacking someone just for posting an AfD. Mandel 16:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was commenting on your comments, nothing personal, take it easy. He was the CO from 71 to 78, Commandant 81 to 88, he was thus involving in recruiting, training, and establishing the doctrine of the formation. Clearly, he is a founding pioneer. I think there is some misunderstanding over the word "recruit", it does not mean handing out application forms and conducting desk interviews. --Vsion 16:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to comprehend your arguments on his non-notability, a man who was largely responsible for helping to setup an elite military formation for an entire country. A man who was one of the first two Commando-trained soldiers in the country. A man who came up with the first training programme for the Commando formation. If being the first man to be trained to be an elite soldier isnt "doing something extra or special beyond his job" (at least during his time), then just how do you justify articles like Bill Gates, when all he did as a Computer programme company founder is to, well, sell computer software?--Huaiwei 15:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why you should get offended by "ad hominem attacks" when you are clearly turning this into a personal affair by telling someone off for voicing out when he has every liberty to.--Huaiwei 15:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Telling someone off'? I was asked by a fellow Wikipedian Huaiwei for my opinion and I merely gave it. As nominator I explain myself. I was telling off someone for ad hominem attacks, which disrupts VfD. A valid point is never retorted. The discussion topic revolves around the article subject, not the nominator. Are you alleging ad hominem attacks are all right?
I have no agenda against Tan Kim Peng Clarence. I do not know him. Nor do any of the three who voted delete, I believe. Mandel 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, your comments were projecting Tan as merely a high ranking officer, or HR recruiter. It's ok to make mistake, that's fine, but I'm entitled to point out the problem with your comments and clarify the facts. Please don't cry victim of ad hominem because of that. --Vsion 19:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are army officers generally notable? This is open for discusion. There is no directive on this. Don't crucify me for saying no. Mandel 20:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Continually saying 'you', 'your comments' is ad honinem. I think it does not matter who says it as long as it makes sense. I am merely defending myself. If one would please, stick with Mr Clarence Tan. Mandel 21:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good that this is on record, that you, erhm ... (pardon me) someone consider the "continuous" use of 'you', 'your comments' as "ad honinem". It is indeed illuminating. Btw, why are we (I hope "we" is ok) using Latin, this is an english wikipedia.--Vsion 21:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick with Mr Clarence Tan. Mandel 21:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we know what you are doing. The question is if no one else can come into the picture and make comments on your responses to my queries? We arent accusing you of having "something" against the article in question. I do have, however, an issue over whether you have something against the editor(s) in question.--Huaiwei 12:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have nothing against you Huaiwei. We have never been in a dispute before. Pls assume good faith. I don't know any other editor of the article. Let's shake and allow discussion to proceed genially. Mandel 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metacomment: I previously closed this debate as "delete" on grounds of lacking reliable sources, esp based on Huaiwei's comment it is unlikely that there will be many publications on these elite units, let alone the key people behind them. It is difficult to find good sources, but notability isnt based on how many good sources there are in cases like this. But I'm willing to entertain more input on the issue of sources so I'm re-opening debate. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-12 05:14Z

I think redirect/merge to Singapore Armed Forces Commando Formation is the way to go here: the subject has borderline notability, and only due to association with one particular organization -- classic merge scenario. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-12 05:14Z
- As nominator, I agree. I think my main purpose for throwing this out is to get some directives on army personnel. At present Wikipedia is pretty blurry over their inclusion/deletion. I'm not so concerned about this one particular officer. As a LTC, he is right smacked in the middle of the Singapore officer hierarchy - though I'm less concerned about rank than with genuine contributions. Mandel 16:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Maybe I've missed something, but I am curious as to how these editors know about the man if there are no publications - word of mouth and reputation? Can the book reference in the article be used to cite any of these claims? Pomte 05:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does the book cited have an ISBN number, or publisher information, or a copyright holder? The subtitle gets zero non-wiki GHits. [18] The title has 154, and none of them seem to be about the book. [19] cab 06:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my neighbor's friend's uncle totally recruited some people for this army this once. This makes him important and notable! Source: Generic Titleword: The Life and Times of This One Dude (sorry no ISBN) --Action Jackson IV 07:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sure. I believe there are plenty of recruiters out there. The question is if your neighbor's friend's uncle Charles Beckwith or David Stirling?--Huaiwei 07:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for allowing more air time on the above matter.
I believe my statement has caused some misunderstanding there. I was actually refering to the lack of a high number of courses, but not on the non-existance of any source. The book in question was published by the Singapore Armed Forces in 1995, and available from the National Library, Singapore/SAFTI library. I am not sure if this link will work, but here is the book's entry on its catalogue [20]. The book was a special commemorative volume produced to mark the formation's 35th anniversary, and was previously not readily available for public viewing until the tie-up between the military and national libraries. Such is the difficulty of obtaining information on otherwise "classified" information, and the difficulty in looking for sources as I earlier alluded to. Hence, it is not always feasible to use google searches to establish notability on certain topics.--Huaiwei 07:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per some of the points mentioned above. The article at least claims notability. And he is a Lieutenant Colonel, which is not super high up the ranks it is still nothing to sneeze at! That is staff level. Hmmm... arguably all staff level officers are notable? Heh, perhaps not. But still, it does make it more likely. Mathmo ^Talk 10:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Assuming good faith there is a reference given, but there should be two sources to meet the "multiple" criterion. I think that it should be kept and tagged for more sources which validate notability, which comes from creating the commando group. --Kevin Murray 21:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There appears to be only one book describing his work, and that is not suficcient to meet the requirement of multiple independent and relaible sources. He is mentioned in the article on the commando forse, and perhaps that mention could be expanded to a paragraph. Lt. Col. in a small military organization is not inherently notable. Doing your job well, even in the military, does not bypass other requirements for demonstrating that a person has notability per WP:N. Inkpaduta 22:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As per [21], there was actually a second source found on the web at [22]. As I mentioned earlier, there is little literature on elite military forces in Singapore for obvious security reasons, and hence I do not feel quantity of sources should be used as a primary criterion for deletion.--Huaiwei 16:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article has merit in that it describes someone important to the Singapore Army, but he did not have much worldly recognition, beyond those who had to study his history for their mandatory service in the Singapore armed services. The US military trains a lot of personnel from other nations, to a variety of degrees; his training would have been sponsored as part of a larger military training program to act as a general counter-point to ongoing cold-war fears at the time. In fact, I am not clear what active duties he participated in. Other military pioneers were usually involved in some active duty.--Shakujo 05:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is he probably isn't notable either in Singapore. Aarontay 07:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore does not have a culture of glorifying personalities, and that includes military personnel in general.--Huaiwei 16:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you basically agree he is not notable even in Singapore? Okay. Aarontay 17:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, the average Singapore Joe/Jane doesn't know that many people outside his or her select band of notables. A person well known to one Singaporean may not be well known to another. You are talking about some who have problems remembering their MPs, the Minister for Environment, the CoA etc, let alone a LTC for a Battalion who seldom hog the news. Ironically, if he murdered or was killed, he'll be remembered. We know Huang Na and Mr TT Durai. Just a general observation. I'm saying notability in Singapore is a very vague notion. No one agrees exactly who is important, other than our PM. Mandel 18:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable is a very vague notation anywhere. But there are certainity degrees of it. This fellow is definitely on the very low side even among active military soldiers. I wonder how notable he is if he doesn't even appear in an search of the ST archives for the last 50 years. If I didn't know better, I would have thought your coment about the Average Singapore Joe is meant to be insulting to the rest of us. Anyway I think the fact that the sources aren't independent coupled with the lack of real world notability (even taking into account how ignorant people who aren't wikipedia editors are :) ), makes me wonder why anyone would support keeping this article. Excuses about military secrets can only go so far. Otherwise people will start creating articles about Joe X that nobody can verify and use the same execuse. .Aarontay 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or back up the article with independent sources. I don't believe the one cited is enough. If I saw better sourcing, I'd switch to "Keep". Noroton 05:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Seems to be the best compromise available. Delete, I just looked at the Singapore military leaders category, it's pretty amazing to see that this Clarance fellow is listed, when There are probably more relevant leaders than him. Seems a bit strange to list one LTC however accomplished, when most of the past Chief of armies etc are not! To add, I'm Singaporean (though I don't edit the singapore sections at all), to be honest I have not heard of this person. Not that this means the average Singaporean has never heard of him of course. Just one data point. Aarontay 06:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for Lim Kim Choon and Ng Yat Chung (both of which are stubs) all other entries listed in that category are much more known for their non-military careers. As a Singaporean, I thought you would have noticed this easily.--Huaiwei 16:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly my point! Aarontay 17:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Seems to meet WP:V, but there don't appear to be any mentions in sources independent of the Singapore Armed Forces (One was a Ministry of Defence webpage, and the other was a book published by the Singapore Armed Forces), so notability isn't too clear.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CaliforniaAliBaba (talk • contribs) 06:50, 14 February 2007
Keep. He is one of eight in Category:Singaporean military leaders ; he may be the least notable amongst them, but he is more notable than all of the other military leaders that do not have articles. John Vandenberg 06:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 This Divided State. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:17Z

Bryan Young (filmmaker)[edit]

Non-notable filmaker, possibly vanity page. Holdek ^(talk) 05:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the SunDance documentary is the one thing making this "weak". Even so - this would be better on imdb.com. --Action Jackson IV 07:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't really seem notable within the entertainment industry. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHe's notable in the Salt Lake film scene and all of the news articles check out.--67.182.213.82 00:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wrote the article, so obviously I thought he was noteworthy enough to write an article about. The anonymous guy above is right in that he's notable in the Salt Lake Film Scene, which I'd like to try to document on wikipedia. I worked hard to keep up on all the articles and his forthcoming film, which he's producing that can be seen here. So... There's my defense. And as far as the Sundance stuff, I actually saw the documentary and it's also on the IMDb and all of that info is fairly easy to find on google. Would citing more newspaper articles and other sources make this qualify as more notable? Also, the fact that both he and all of his films are on IMDb denote notabilty to me, their vetting process is quite extensive...--Utahfilmmakers 03:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it would be a good idea to include links to newspaper articles on him (because of WP:N doubts). Also you should write Keep instead of Don't delete. Mathmo ^Talk 10:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, most of the sources on there are newspapers and news sites, but I'll see if I can find more. And I'm new to the wikipedia thing, so "keep" and "don't delete" seems tantamount to the same thing to me. I was just following suit with the dude above me.... Also, there have been a lot of recent articles that mention the film he's producing, but not him specifically, are those links worth adding?--Utahfilmmakers 03:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I came to add a few more sources, but it seems as though the dude with no profile and Cool Hand Luke the admin did some of that kind of stuff for me.--Utahfilmmakers 02:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to This Divided State; with only one film that has had only minor success it feels like it is too soon. There are insufficient independent sources. John Vandenberg 06:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rename to Motorola 6800 family. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:20Z

68h[edit]

As I noted on the talk page:

The deletion debate seemed pretty bogus to me… there is no "68h" series except for in this article. The debate was carried out carelessly with most of the keep comments coming from folks who obviously didn't follow the links, or have no prior knowledge of these chips. ... Check these google results: 68h microprocessor 6800 6502 -wiki -wikipedia gives 79 hits but the first few obviously mirror us. 6800/6502 gives 342 and 6502/6800 gives 801 (which says something about the relative popularity of the original :vP ).

The term 68h is not used outside of Wikipedia. When people talk about the similarity between the chips they invariably use "6502/6800" or occasionally "6800/6502." The other Wikipedia page referenced in the debate used 68h to refer to the Motorola series only, not the 6502. Indeed the derivation would seem to be an adaptation of 68k; where k is the SI suffix for thousands, h is for hundreds. In this case this should be a redirect page to 6800.

There is almost no activity at this page. The most significant edit since the last AfD was a tag disputing factual accuracy.

Besides the list of processors, this article only asserts that the processors form a family. Although there is no article on microprocessor family, the term generally implies source code compatibility and not merely a shared design team. This article's assertion is analogous to saying the AMD K5 and successors are part of the AMD 29000 family.

My vote: Redirect to Motorola 6800. Potatoswatter 02:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This AfD was incorrectly made and orphaned, accounting for the date discrepancy. Potatoswatter has just added this to the listing. Abstain from me. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 05:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was posted on the talk page: - I agree. This is not an article... delete it. Matan 03:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Potatoswatter 05:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the editors in the prior AFD discussion wanted the article renamed to Motorola 6800 family, and the 65xx content cut out and pasted into MOS Technology 65xx. Rather than simply doing that, which requires no more than the ordinary editing tools that ordinary editors have, and that entirely addresses the above argument that the two familes should not be intermixed, you have brought the article back to AFD for a second time. Fixing the article in a way that addresses your concerns is entirely within your reach using the editing tools that you yourselves already have. It does not require AFD. It does not require administrator intervention. Speedy close. Uncle G 10:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Was that the consensus but nobody took up the task? = grubber 16:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two separate editors, out of the four that expressed opinions that it should be kept, suggested it, and nobody took up the task. Uncle G 02:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The result of the debate was "keep". That was one suggestion by user:AJR which did not spur particular discussion. In any case, there is already a category for the Motorola 6800 processors and this article doesn't contain significant content to start something better. Potatoswatter 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It contains an introduction and several annotations against the individual processors. Picking up AJR's idea and running with it was something that you could have done yourself. It's actually taken you more edits to write on the talk page and then start and continue this AFD discussion, than it would have for you to have hit the rename button to rename the article to the suggested name and then hit the edit button twice to cut the 65xx content out of this article and paste it into MOS Technology 65xx. Uncle G 02:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, for one articles take me longer than conversation. And for two, I'm not personally in favor of doing that. I think 6800 does a fine job of introducing the family and removing the page is better than trying to hack it. When someone wants to write a 6800 family page, it will be easier to do from scratch. Potatoswatter 03:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The irony is, I'd prolly have just been WP:BOLD if there weren't an authoritative vote resulting in "KEEP." Potatoswatter 03:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Anyway, yeah, I didn't realize it was a pain for any administrators when I did that. I just thought I'd get the attention of anyone caring about/watching this article so as not to step on toes. Given the effort everyone's put into this here discussion, I guess I owe it to go over to 6800, copy a few paragraphs into a new 6800 family article, maybe expand a little, and redirect 68h there. Thus freeing 6800 to grow to describe more about that chip (dates, sales, engineers) and improving organization. Potatoswatter 03:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Edward Johnson[edit]

Delete - two-time failed candidate for the House of Representatives. Does not appear to be otherwise notable (although with his common name it's difficult to be sure) and as I understand it we generally don't maintain articles on losing candidates unless they are otherwise notable. Article has been tagged for cleanup for over a year. Otto4711 05:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable either as academic or as minor-party Congressional candidate. NawlinWiki 12:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO as non-notable. MastCell 21:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not quite this simple. First, he is not notable as a academic, having not received a doctorate and taught only as an istructor. Failed major party candidates for election to national legislatures have always been considered notable--there are only about 500 a year, and at least the top 1000 politicians in the US are notable, And, while we are at it, since WP is not a news service, I thing the governing principle on "maintaining " articles is once N, always N. But as this article does not make clear but its references do--he is not a candidate from a major party, but lost in the primary runoffs. These candidates have not been considered notable unless there is some either reason.DGG 07:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Miles[edit]

Delete - minor party losing candidate who is otherwise not notable. Otto4711 05:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, was unable to find any independent articles about him. Dionyseus 05:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly use page title as redirect to Michael Miles? Grutness...wha? 06:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 1ne 01:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:21Z

Carryl Varley[edit]

nn Trimjim 05:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable person. Does not meet notability criteria.

delete The whole Jinny debate, is like "a can of worms" as there doesn't seem to be clear facts if it's true or not. Minus that, the article just doesn't seem notable enough. DannyDoodles 07:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
commentThis reference [23] gives the real name of jinny as "Real Name: Alessandro Gilardi, Claudio Varola, Federico Di Bonaventura & Walter Cremonini ". Confusingly British Book of Hit Singles states Jinny as having the real name "Janine Brown". Also noted that this entry mentions only 2 hit singles released in 1995. According to reference below there were at least six singles released over a period of 5-6years. It also suggests that the 1995 tracks were also released several years prior. Was this also by Carryl Varley and does she claim to be the singer of all of these tracks? Whilst the reference below does show an unlabelled photograph that could match the pictures from the article references, a search on Google images shows a "Jinny" cover for a single called "Feel the Rhythm" with a male singer on the cover [24]. (It does also show the same photograph of a blonde female for "Wanna Be with you"). If Carryl Varley is the singer "Jinny" then I agree it does meet notability but the references don't seem to support it, except by her claim. Hotmann 01:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - The fact that in the link provided below, the picture is of Carryl Varley, and that she can be seen as the singer in the UK video suggest's, that she is Jinny. The Dinkle 01:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless can reference Carryl Varley as "Jinny" other than by subjects own claim. External references[25] do not support. Also improve NPOV. Hotmann 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Jinny, had one of the biggest hits of 1995. (The Dinkle 01:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)).[reply]
Has two charted hits; keep per WP:MUSIC. --Selket ^Talk 09:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable as singer and TV presenter. NawlinWiki 12:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable and verifiability is not a problem. John Vandenberg 06:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:22Z

Septagon Studios Inc[edit]

Already prodded and deleted for non-notability. Disputed prod with no reason given. Appears non-notable and reads as promotional. ShadowHalo 05:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Methinks a PR agency wrote this. Promotional, very non-notable. Realkyhick 06:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just edited it. I wrote the article I'm also the president of the company. I followed guidelines like the other comic book companies.NYXX 1:11Am, 12 February 2007
- Comment Generally, people involved with a company should refrain from editing the article on that company, due to the conflict of interest issues. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't really declare notability one way or the other, but the article, if it is kept, must be rewritten. Phrases like "Nicola Defina, creator and visionary, whose lifelong dream of breaking into the comic book industry is finally being realized" and "Nicola has established a sturdy base to help attract readers and make Septagon Studios the best it can be" belong on some shitty P.R. newsletter that nobody ever reads, not on an encyclopedia. --Action Jackson IV 07:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent reliable sources to establish notability, fails WP:CORP and possibly WP:SPAM, and has already been prodded with no sources produced. MastCell 21:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article were to be rewritten would it be able to stay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NYXX (talk • contribs) 12:42, February 13, 2007 (UTC.
It depends on how it was rewritten. Essentially, it needs to be shown that there are multiple third-party sources that have written about Septagon Studios. ShadowHalo 13:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that it sounds like a PR text and isn't really in place here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.30.227.92 (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No evidence of having published real books of note. John Vandenberg 06:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 02:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Carson Middle School[edit]

Multiple article AFD - middle schools in Fairfax County, Virginia. Not much history or notability, as far as I see. List of additional school articles below. Brianyoumans 05:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also included here: Cooper Middle School, Franklin Middle School (Chantilly, Virginia), Robert Frost Middle School (Fairfax County, Virginia), Glasgow Middle School, Herndon Middle School, Holmes Middle School (Fairfax County, Virginia), Langston Hughes Middle School (Fairfax County, Virginia), Washington Irving Middle School, ~~Luther Jackson Middle School~~, Francis Scott Key Middle School, Joyce Kilmer Middle School, Lanier Middle School (Fairfax, Virginia) --Brianyoumans 06:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing the nomination of Luther Jackson Middle School --Brianyoumans 07:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Wikipedia is not the yellow pages Feeeshboy 06:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I generally take a deletionist approach to middle schools. YechielMan 06:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all - Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. There should really be a sister site for this sort of stuff. WikiSchooledya? I wonder what happened to Team C? --Action Jackson IV 07:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all due to lack of cited notability. DMacks 20:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The article seems well-written, and I would prefer Wikipedia takes into special consideration educational institutions. I'd think articles on middle schools are far preferrable to long articles on anime characters or Transformers. By blowing away articles on middle schools, you are inherently saying fictional cartoon [[characters are preferrable content to real-life educational institutions. What sort of shameful nonsense is that? Mark the article for citation of sources if you wish, but don't delete it. --Petercorless 21:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, no-one here has said articles on anime characters and Transformers are suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. I'm sure there are many users who don't think most articles on fictional cartoon characters or real-life educational institutions should be included. Please don't set up straw man arguments. Secondly, "this is more notable than/preferrable to that, and we have an article on that" (which is basically what you're saying) is not a valid argument in AFD discussions. Extraordinary Machine 21:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Middle schools with no special claims to notability do not clear the notability bar. --Hyperbole 22:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Sound like average schools. Nothing to satisfy WP:SCHOOLS3. I agree with Petercorless that I would rather have a middle school article than an article for pokemon character number 300. But for some reason the editors of Wikipedia find cartoon and game characters more exciting than humdrum schools and such. Inkpaduta 22:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To begin with, I want to remind everyone that there is not policy of notability on schools. The requirement of stating some assertion of notability is mainly created on the fact that millions of articles that are commercially based or focused individual self-promotion would be littered all over wikipedia. I believe that if any article that is not advertising in this said manner is viable. In addition, as an additional requirement, I believe that articles should have some substance and according to policy, they should have some referenced material or at least list some legitimate sources. This article appears to have some information, and I am sure that in the future, individuals could work on and improve the article based on these sources. As always, we should not be excluded articles on wikipedia on just notability alone; self-promotion and commercial characteristics of articles with illegitimate sources should be the targets of deletion. This article appears to have some possibility for growth, and I believe that if until some templates for clean up and additional sources are added, and then if no progress is made on the article within a few months, then the article can be properly assessed. --Thank You. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia is not a collection of all information. AfD just says "delete this as it is now", not "don't ever have a page in the future in a form that does meet standards". DMacks 02:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am sorry, but your application of the that policy is misrepresented. No consensus has yet been reached on the matter in accordance with schools. There are only a few distinct categories of information for which policy has stated should not be here. This does not follow under one of those categories. I believe that the proper maintenance and addition of school articles will foster a higher level of involvement in wikipedia and help to introduce newer less willing users of wikipedia to become contributors as well, and in effect, become involved in a larger scope with wikipedia, adding material in a broader scope. I think that the attempt to create a entire set of articles covering the given Virginia School District was quite a commendable job, and the combined participation by several editors will only help to foster growth in all areas of wikipedia, eventually improving this excellent community tool and service. We should not be discouraging the growth of this overwhelmingly useful community portal which is turned to as a source of information by so many people. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 2:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete all Does not follow WP:SCHOOLS3. --Zrulli 22:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremly strong keep and improve User:Brianyoumans has listed ALL the Fairfax County Public Schools elementary and middle school pages for AFD, ALL of these listings on the basis of non-notability. Please see the AFD pages for the elementary school AFD's here and the other middle school page here. See: Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_subjective and (citing guide to deletion here) "the fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth"

Before continuing to tout these article's non-notabilty, please do a google search to attempt to find some notabiltiy, as well as read the references for articles that have them. If there are no references, especially references for notabilty, instead of just listing all the articles for deletion, please try to improve the articles by adding references. All pages start as stubs, and then they get improved. That is what needs to happen here. KeepOnTruckin 05:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be somewhat surprised if any of these articles should be kept. Middle schools are generally considered non-notable, and I didn't see much in the way of claims of notability in any of the articles. Many of these are new schools, founded in the last decade, which makes it even less likely that there is anything notable about them.Brianyoumans 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Brianyoumans has listed many articles, not just these school articles, for deletion (see his userpage here. Most edits on his account have been to get pages deleted, and not so many edits to improve pages. (Cite contribs here) Brianyoumans, I work for Fairfax County Public Schools, and I can assure you that many of their schools have notability (which I dont think they need to be included here). But hey, don't take my word for it, instead check out some of the references or do a search to find some and improve Wikipedia. Now, Inkpaduta, you make a good point here: "But for some reason the editors of Wikipedia find cartoon and game characters more exciting than humdrum schools and such". Now, to cite the guideline on deletion:"General notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy." So, we as wikipedians aren't who decides whether a school or cartoon characters are more notable; the world is. The business about wikipedia not being the yellow pages or a directory, heres the part on that:WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. That is trying to keep individual businesses from advertising or promoting oon wikipedia. Now, i could be wrong, but last time I checked, a school system is not a business.

And also a question to User:Brianyoumans: did you "first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template" before listing all these articles for AFD? And please see this page: User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable. KeepOnTruckin 06:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank You very much KeepOnTruckin. I really could not have said it better myself. The purpose of creating this assertion on notability is to prevent business and people from self-promoting themselves. Obviously this is not the case, and, in fact, this could be a much more useful article that promotes contributions around wikipedia from otherwise unlikely users. Wikipedia is a very powerful tool, and we should be working to improve and expand it, not just try to delete every article that we think should not be here. Every article can be a useful tool as long as it meets the general procedural standards such as style, non-commercialism and proper research. --Thank You. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 6:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is true that I tend to spend a great deal of time getting articles deleted. "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery --Brianyoumans 06:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quote, but it doesn't really have much in terms of this discussion or the official wikipedia policy. Notability is not the only definer of an article; there are many characteristics such as the style and quality of research which can make any article that is not commercial or promotional a proper and acceptable article. Wikipedia will never be perfect, and deleting every article for just one reason is not helping at all, and is perhaps hurting. You are distancing the community that uses wikipedia, and very likely are preventing the contributions of otherwise hesitant users. I am sorry if your egotistical attitude is getting in the way of making wikipedia better and more accessible for both users and contributors. In the end, we can only benefit from any additional information that is presented to us on a factual and non-biased basis. Deletion is in no way a constructive manner by which to enhance our learning and understanding. We should observe and learn about everything, for an even greater individual said: "The unexamined life is not worth living." --Socrates --Thank You. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 7:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep all. Luther Jackson Middle School is notable and historical significant as reported in [26], for its desegregation history. It was the first high school in fairfax county attended by black students. I'm troubled by this mass nomination and voting, as I commented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clifton Elementary School (Clifton, Virginia), the notability of at least one other school was overlooked. --Vsion 06:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is arguable whether this notability is merely local, and whether it is the building or the school that is notable; the school building has been repurposed several times. However, I will withdraw Luther Jackson Middle School from the AFD, for simplicity's sake. Brianyoumans 07:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To "protect" a school article such as this, or any article, it is best to begin by doing searches via Google or other search engine, for notable comments. It is especially helpful if a local community paper has listings of articles involving the school. Both good and bad notations of the school should be included to ensure you are not creating a biased pro- or anti-school POV. Consider how Beach Channel High School in New York City was treated and see if you can likewise put in a good half-dozen or more references for each of these schools. The articles were well-organized and written, and I think we would be prudent to allow contributors time to get references together rather than simply slapping them down with disparaging claims of NN and requests of AfD. --Petercorless 07:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator has withdrawn one article. This presents a problem, as the Afd-closer could not reliably determine the intention of the votes made before the withdrawal, such as the "per nom" vote. According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, the articles should not have been bundled in the first place. --Vsion 07:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As per comment by Vsion, the Articles for Deletion proposals have been created very haphazardly and without a legitimate investigation by Brianyoumans. I believe some action must be taken so users such as myself and Vsion are not forced to devote our time to these discussions in lieu of improving and refining articles. --Thank You. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 7:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete All. Not obviously notable. I think we're beginning to see a pattern here: the strategy of the schools clique seems to be to start with high schools, then get all middle schools in, and then elementary schools. Meanwhile we're getting articles on every g*d-darn mall in North America, people are adding half the streets in their home town, and churches, post offices and funeral parlors are not far behind. The entire thing is turning into a running battle between the elitists ( in which category I include myself ) and those who are temperamentally opposed to elitism. There's no middle ground, any more than there is between scientists and the students of the fluffy subjects, and, just as scientific thinkers/rationalists are in a minority, so the elitists will be here. It might be better just to accept that Wikipedia is screwed and create an elitist fork. Any comments ? WMMartin 17:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically include Luther Jackson Middle School for deletion. I can see why people are going to claim notability, but I don't think it's a particularly notable piece of "notability". If we accept it, we'll also have to accept an article on the oldest school in the district, and then someone will push for the "largest", and then the "smallest", and before we know it we'll be back to schools whose teams have won some local sports competition three years in a row. The line I want to draw excludes Luther Jackson Middle School. If only "elitists" were running the show, I might feel safer including it, but right now I don't dare give any hostages to fortune. WMMartin 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it is true that some of the articles do not have notability, that schools that the articles are discussing do have notability, this can be found by a google search. WMMartin, if you have just glanced through the article, and, seeing no assertion of notability, decided it needs to be deleted, please help contribute to wikipedia instead of demoishing it. Also, if you are biased towards all the articles just because they are schools, may I kindly suggest that you focus your attention more upon deleting nonsense and commercial articles with absolutly no use here instead of school articles that can be improved and are reasonable inclusions on Wikipedia. To your point on accepting all sorts of school articles: Let them be accepted. Schools are not bad things, and they are allowed on wikipedia, and wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and therefore can have articles on everything with no limits (except those of the server, and right now this talk page is most likely taking up more space than the article itself...touche). Your account, like Brainyoumans' is one that mostly participates in deleting pages (cite your userpage) which is ok with me when you are deleting useless junk that does not belong on wikipedia. Now, I might be wrong, but a school is not useless junk, and most of us would not be editing here had we not gone to school. And lastly, let's keep the swearing down, we have user talk pages for that.--KeepOnTruckin 18:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All A big load of non-notable schoolcruft. Soltak | Talk 20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
relist individually or in small groups Doing it this way is unfair to those that are notable among the large group. Possibly batches of 3 or 4, each carefully examined to make sure the group is homogeneous. I hope nobody seriously thinks that all middle schools are always un-notable--perhaps most of them are, or just that most do not really understand what is needed--I suspect that some of the school-based projects to add the local schools may not be well thought-out, & those organizing them may themselves need some more experience in WP. DGG 06:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (same as at other AfD requests) - I believe there was a breach of proper protocol... First, you should mark the articles as unsourced. Then allow the authors/editors of the articles, say, a week in order to add citations and references as a proof of notability. ONLY ONCE some time has past in which the notability of the school can be proven or disproven should they be nominated for AfD. I think this entire swath of deletions was premature. It also causes editors to pay attention to defending their work rather than build on it. Stop this AfD movement and let people make better articles. --Petercorless 06:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the future I will in fact put these articles up in smaller batches, to make it easier for people to participate. I would point out that only one article out of 13 AFDed here has shown any notability. I think that editors need to consider seriously whether or not an article is needed before creating it. It is certainly true that some middle schools are notable, but the number is small compared to how many there are. We certainly don't need articles on all of them. --Brianyoumans 07:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its quite difficult to be discussing the deletion of a large group of articles on 3 different pages. Anyway, All schools are notable to me, and I am happy to read an article on any school on wikipedia, regardless of district. Brianyoumans, you have consitently stated that the reason you want these articles deleted is because they have no assertion of notability/they arent notable enough to be on wikipedia. Let me say this again, citing the guide to deletion (my apologies if I am making the same argument twice) "the fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." "Lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because (among other reasons) this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy; and since Wikipedia is not paper and has no size limits [except those of the server...not important here], there's no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't include "everything" that fits in with the other criteria, such as WP:Verifiability and no original research". If these schools are such a non-notable topic, then people wont search for them. They arent harming Wikipedia, but they are helping anyone who read them. In fact, if "we delete articles solely due to their obscurity, currently obscure, or seemingly obscure, subjects may gain more popular interest at a later date. In such a case, deleted articles will constitute a loss of valuable (and perhaps, in the transitory world of the internet, irreproducible) information." "Non-notable" is a non-NPOV designation, therefore not abiding by policy. The person who authored the article probably believes that the topic is notable enough to be included. "Writing 'Delete, non-notable' is not about whether the articles should be in Wikipedia, but rather that it is a quick phrase that does not tell everyone else why the article is non-notable". Brianyoumans, you need to prove that all these school articles aren't notable. KeepOnTruckin 04:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable — MrDolomite • Talk 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into school district article or Delete. Also if this pair of group deletions is approved, then {{Fairfax County Public Schools}} need to go to TfD. Vegaswikian 01:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some. If notability is a problem, them the article should be deleted. However, some schools, like Luther Jackson, so have some notability. These articles should be kept. Jordan 04:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Aziz[edit]

I didn't read the whole article, but I skimmed it. I'm guessing this fellow meets WP:BIO, but the content is so horrendous as to be ridiculous. I believe that sometimes an article can be so bad that deletion is a reasonable outcome. I know there are those who disagree. YechielMan 06:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Article is word for word copy of this url: Official website, which has a very clear copyright notice, so it is a copyright violation. TheRingess (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per TheRingess. So tagged. cab 06:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding stationery[edit]

This how-to guide (or ad?) is a textbook example of what Wikipedia is not. YechielMan 06:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Essentially a how-to guide with some instructions on etiquette. Heimstern Läufer 06:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might be better suited to Wikihow - or maybe even Wikibooks. Delete or Transwiki - but if the latter, clean it up. --Dennisthe2 06:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Dennisthe2 here - Delete or Transwiki (with cleanup) --Action Jackson IV 07:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If some other wiki wants an article about this subject, they would do better to start from scratch. FreplySpang 10:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. FreplySpang is right that other wikis would be better off writing from scratch. This represents the ideals of the stationary industry not the reality of current or historical use. -- Siobhan Hansa 12:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article is re-introduced not as a how-to but focused on the origins and evolutions of Wedding Invitations --Ozgod 03:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete entire walled garden - sorry, doesn't make sense for Internet search engine technology to be "locally notable". The biographical article for Rob Bertholf individually relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Bertholf (3rd nomination). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:27Z

Zeppo Network[edit]

Autobiographical, non-notable, previously deleted for same reasons

Also

Feeeshboy 06:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Rob Bertholf (founder of these companies). NawlinWiki 15:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Zeppo Network, Inc is a S-Corp founded in 2004 which is the IP holder of the ZeppOS management software which turned down a multi-million dollar buyout offer in July of 2005. Instead it formed a subsidiary, Empowered Internet Solutions to distribute the software in a grass roots effort. This company has since become the largest web solution provider for the state of Hawaii. Over the past several months Empowered Internet Solutions has launched sales offices in California and Florida. It has been featured in many trade magazines. The content is relevant and needs to stay. Thank you.Rob Bertholf 08:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are clearly WP:COI issues that need to be addressed, but that does not necessarily make it non-notable. I would encourage Robertholf to demonstrate WP:CORP and give him a few days to reference the article. --Selket ^Talk 08:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To show that this article may stay Robertholf, please add to the article references that display that it has been the subject of non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other as per WP:Notability. (I could find none, but only after a short search) Sancho McCann 08:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Supporting Media References:
- Zeppo Buyout / Empowered Internet Creation - Pacific Business News [27]
- KHON Channel 2 Morning News Interview [28]
- Rob Bertholf - University of Phoenix speaker [29]
- Rob Bertholf - Keynote Speaker [30]
- Rob Bertholf - In Magazine Interview [31]
- Rob Bertholf - Pacific Edge Featured Entrepreneur [32] robertholf 21:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A walled garden of marketing for a company that markets a "content management solution". I'm not convinced by appearances in obscure business publications, which are more than likely not much more than paid ads. Out. --Brianyoumans 23:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate the cautious sentiment about a new post and the constructive direction I was previously steered. I am however now growing weary of the unjustifiably elitist mentality shown by Brianyoumans. In rebuttal, I would hardly call Biz Journal (Pacific Business News) an obscure publication. Admittedly, we have done much in the way of paid advertisement in large state magazines but I have not listed that here. Articles were written on me by both the Pacific Edge and InMagazine due to the fact that they found my vision and success notable. Nothing which was posted was driven by a sales agenda. The content posted is factual and unbiased. The fact that The Zeppo Network provides research and development on search engine technology and offers a content management system is not something which should be looked down upon. Fact is we have turned down a substantial buyout offer, we own the largest market share in the state of Hawaii and have two rapidly growing regional sales offices now in California and Florida. The only point which I feel is valid is the fact that I posted the content with a username which was not made up. Had I posted the content from various fake accounts we would not be having this discussion. To remedy this situation, I have asked my employees, my pr firm, my friends and my enemies to become active on these posts to alleviate the WP:COI. Over the next 24 hours there will be numerous posts by previously named sources which I hope proves to satisfy you all. I honestly feel the post adds valuable content and am open to suggestions on methods for solidifying my companies place here. Regards. robertholf 00:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Searching on "ZeppOS" and "content management" on Google gives you only 913 hits... many of which aren't even relevant. Search for "OpenCMS", and you get over 3 million; even "Hot Banana" "content management" (another commercial system) gives over 86K hits. You are a small regional firm, and while I wish you much luck, I don't see why you or your products need Wikipedia articles, especially ones written by your marketing department. --Brianyoumans 02:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I would just like to remind all to assume good faith in all of these proceedings. Just because a page is autobiographical does not mean that it is automatically advertisement, vanity, etc. Whether this page stands or fails does not rely on our opinions of the poster. Feeeshboy 03:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. I should not have implied that Robertholf had deliberately written a "marketing piece"; I apologize. I'm sure he has a great deal of genuine enthusiasm for his company and his products. Brianyoumans 06:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Appology accepted Brianyoumans, I think that intentions are everything, had we met in person you would sense my sincerity and even been the one to start the post on the Zeppo Network :) Evangelism is what it is, my energy typically is quite contageous and the product speaks for itself.
- The Sell I have avoided any marketing spin in the wiki posts, but here is some additional info to set the stage for who we are.
  - The Zeppo Network started its R&D on search technology in 2003, the ZeppOS platform was developed to fill a need for logically storing data found in a website.
  - The ZeppOS software is different than the typical CMS systems we see popping up which are extremely polarized; either overly complex or easy to use but limited in functionality. We received our last patent pending in July 2005 using Heller and Ehrman for a standard web platform. ZeppOS is unique in the fact that it arguably has more functionality than any competitor yet has a very easy to use navigation and usability. The system was created with the designers in mind, most designers do not use a CMS because it limits their creativity, our system showcases designers abilities.
  - We presented the software to several companies, one of which being Yahoo International. They were interested in purchasing the software but did not have the same vision for methods of deploying it. The large ISP's who were interested in the product wanted to mass distribute it with generic stock templates, we felt this would provide the wrong image of the software ultimately limiting its potential. We then started contacting local web design companies to distribute the software but found that their reach was limited. I am sure we would all agree that most web design companies do not have a bigger vision and typically service 2-5 clients a month maximum. We then formed a web solutions company specifically structured to rapidly deploy higher end custom web solutions at a very low rate. Empowered Internet proved itself in the Hawaii, in 2006 while confined to a limited market we deployed over 20 sites each month. Some very large projects to include military bases, community colleges/educational institutions, four chamber of commerce’s (to include the main Hawaii Chamber), and many small and medium sized businesses. We partnered locally with Clear Channel broadcasting and deployed sites for Budweiser and Time Warner Cable. With just one month in two new markets we have already laid the groundwork for replicating the success we found in Hawaii.
  - The bigger picture is to continue gaining market share and then launch Zeppo Search which will allow us to feed relevant web content to search engines. There is a much bigger vision which we do not advertise for obvious reasons. I have presented all I intend to sway your opinions on this post. If you have any hoops to jump through I will have one of my team to do so. Warm Regards robertholf 15:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete At present, regional interest only--their client list at http://empoweredinternet.com/customers.asp has the heading "The largest web solution provider in the State of Hawaii and rapidly expanding to the mainland," examining it, the only ones whose names indicate a located say "Hawaii (whatever)..." (They claim Florida and California).

However, if regional interest is sufficient, then it seems they do have a major position in Hawaii.DGG 21:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although no press releases have come out as of yet, we have structured a deal with Salem Communications in Tampa Florida who will be distributing our software as well as strategic partnerships with T3Communications and First Data Services who will be offering our services to their clients in Florida. Since the initial creation of this post we have also hired a new sales rep in the washington DC area.robertholf 15:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what its worth, when I typed United States Web Design into Google, EmpoweredInternet.com came up first.Wiki-ickie 16:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC) — Wiki-ickie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, per nom, WP:CORP, and Brianyoumans. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dissagree, it seems it has been justified that there is enough regional interest due to the industry dominance in the state of Hawaii as proved by press clips and TV interviews. They have four physical offices across the nation and it appears several clients in each location.Wiki-ickie 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and trim into one article and re-write / remove undue weight from much of the content as much of it is repeated and has the feel of an advertisement. Many statements have been left un-referenced, and the main contributors are all closely tied to the organizations. This will need work from some third-party editors. Sancho McCann 20:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zeppo Network as locally notable; Redirect all of the rest and Zeppo Awards (another part of this walled garden) to Zeppo Network as they fail WP:RS and dont demonstrate notability. I am particularly worried about these articles being WP:SPAM and would like to see one or two of those articles be deleted rather than redirected, in order to prevent undue PageRank influence. John Vandenberg 06:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishakta Manush[edit]

An article containing two uninformative lines on a single song by a mildly popular regional band, lacking any sort of popularity or notability. Salvagable information better placed in article Fossils. Loom91 06:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom, except you mean Fossils (band), not Fossils :-) -SpuriousQ (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to assert notability, no references Alf photoman 15:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can also testify that the claim of frequent radioplay is false. It is rarely heard in radio. Loom91 08:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Fujimoto[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC and probably fails WP:COI Selket ^Talk 07:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability. Only sources given are Myspace and something in a foreign language (German?). Google hits for "Ken Fujimoto" are mostly unrelated. Dave6 ^talk 07:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, to use a German Blog as references is a little nervy Alf photoman 16:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC / WP:BIO, the German blog does not mention him once anywhere (Und ja, Mein Deutsch ist nicht daß gut, aber ich durch es las). Even then, this wouldn't be a reliable source. SkierRMH 21:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am afraid I must agree to delete this page. Really no notable information beyond personal statistics. While Wikipedia does support the biographies of people, it is normally for people who have (arguably) accomplished something noteworthy in their life beyond simply existing. --Ozgod 01:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice-looking page but there's nothing here that meets WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Jeendan 09:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nexhbudin Nuredini[edit]

PROD tag removed by anon. Article is a probable hoax. There are no Google hits for "Nexhbudin Nuredini" outside Wikipedia. —An gr 07:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete combination hoax/nn bio. He joined FK Vlazrimi, a professional football/soccer team, at age 10? Also, notice the article is about Nexhbudin Nuredini (referred to as Dini several times), and the author is User:Dini deisler. On top of all that, this is completely unsourced. Dave6 ^talk 10:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable youth footballer. The potential hoaxiness may come from a poor translation into English, but I think the subject of the article may have joined some kind of youth/underage team associated with Vlazrimi at the age of 10 (which is eminently possible), rather than in fact joining the full-time professional team. Obviously there's a bit of a way to go between that and the notability he's tried to parlay it into. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 02:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Middle School (Virginia)[edit]

Multiple AFD More Fairfax County, Virginia middle schools. Notable? I don't think so. Brianyoumans 07:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also included: Mark Twain Middle School (Virginia), Carl Sandburg Middle School, Rocky Run Middle School, Longfellow Middle School. Note: the rest of the F. C. middle school articles are in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Carson Middle School. Brianyoumans 07:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It probably fails WP:NN, but I'm partial to middle school articles as they attract middle school students to participate constructively. --Selket ^Talk 08:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And high school articles attract students to participate constructively as well? I thought they were notorious vandalism magnets. A number of these articles have already attracted vandalism. Imagine if every middle school in the world had an article - who would revert all the vandals? Or verify any of the info? --Brianyoumans 08:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are about 25000 middle schools in the United States. Giving each one a page would result in 1.5% increase in the total number of Wikipedia articles, so your fears of overwhelming Wikipedia with middle school pages is, I think, a little misplaced. Maybe it would be best to wait until WP:SCHOOLS3 is done before coming to a conclusion. --Selket ^Talk 08:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I too favor featuring educational institutions. If vandalism becomes an issue, we can lock the page. Meanwhile, I think it is far better to feature a middle school than an endless series of anime characters and Transformers. --Petercorless 21:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extremly strong keep User:Brianyoumans, you have listed all the FCPS middle schools and elementary schools for deletion today, all because of non-notability (link to elementary schools listed for AFD). Is there something about the school system that makes them non-notable? I am just curious because I am employed by the same school system. Here is my argument:

Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_subjective and (citing guide to deletion here) "the fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth" KeepOnTruckin 22:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See WP:SCHOOLS3.The schools appear to be referenced to their own website and the state education department. What is needed are multiple references that are to reliable and verifiable sources independent of the subject of the article, and which are not trivial or pro forma such as "school starts next week" or "classes cancelled because of snow." The school itself should be a primary subject of the story, in other words not "Teacher at X school dies in car wreck". In my own town, I could find a dozen articles talking about the founding of a school, controversies about the curriculum or the administration, articles about innovations, and articles about expansions to or safety hazards in the building. Based on AFDs, we have been more willing to keep articles on high schools than on elementary or middle school. Per WP:LOCAL is is appropriate to mention them in the article on the town or school system. Inkpaduta 22:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To begin with, I want to remind everyone that there is not policy of notability on schools. The requirement of stating some assertion of notability is mainly created on the fact that millions of articles that are commercially based or focused individual self-promotion would be littered all over wikipedia. I believe that if any article that is not advertising in this said manner is viable. In addition, as an additional requirement, I believe that articles should have some substance and according to policy, they should have some referenced material or at least list some legitimate sources. This article appears to have some information, and I am sure that in the future, individuals could work on and improve the article based on these sources. As always, we should not be excluded articles on wikipedia on just notability alone; self-promotion and commercial characteristics of articles with illegitimate sources should be the targets of deletion. This article appears to have some possibility for growth, and I believe that if until some templates for clean up and additional sources are added, and then if no progress is made on the article within a few months, then the article can be properly assessed. Also, lastly, I want to reemphasize the point addressed before, these articles are most likely a very good stepping stone for future contributions from otherwise, unlikely and hesitant contributors. --Thank You. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 22:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as per Selket and KeepOnTruckin. --Vsion 08:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No obvious notability. I await a useful fork of Wikipedia ( that is, one without this kind of article ) with interest and expectation. WMMartin 17:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I mean delete All, of course. WMMartin 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a "useful fork of wikipedia"? If the articles on schools are not useful to you, fine, then don't read them. Other people (like myself) enjoy reading about schools, and it is much easier to locate information her then googleing for it. Also, the press use WP to find information, and FCPS being quite a notable school district, it recives a lot of press attention (cite washington post article on Clifton ES afd page) and press who come to WP to research=More attention to wikipedia by the world. KeepOnTruckin 18:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All A big load of non-notable schoolcruft. Soltak | Talk 20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete all' of this particular batch. The information would be better combined, as most of the content consists o the specification of the school zones and the associated high schools. Beyond that, all of those talking about courses offer the usual courses, and all of those talking about the time they ring the bells to mark period changes do it in a customary way, and none of them have anything else to say.

If there should be anything else, it will fit in the merged article until there is time for true WP articles.

I have not the least objection to articles about schools at any level, if there is something notable to say in the article. I like local history when it's interesting, and many localities and local institutions could potentially be intersting. But it merely confuses the notability of the truly notable ones to have articles on each and every one. Let the notable ones set a standard, and the other may try to see if they can find something comparable. (None of these are yet at that standard). DGG 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there was a breach of proper protocol in that case. First, you should mark the articles as unsourced. Then allow the authors/editors of the articles, say, a week in order to add citations and references as a proof of notability. ONLY ONCE some time has past in which the notability of the school can be proven or disproven should they be nominated for AfD. I think this entire swath of deletions was premature. It also causes editors to pay attention to defending their work rather than build on it. Stop this AfD movement and let people make better articles. --Petercorless 01:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that none of these articles made any real claim to notability, I could have just tagged them all for speedy deletion, and depending on what admin looked at them, they might have all disappeared in a hour. Instead, I chose to bring them to an AFD and give everyone a chance to talk things over.--Brianyoumans 07:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although most stated notability (an article that does not have a notability assertion is NOT a cuase for deletion), had you tagged them all for speedy deletion, I would have immediatley brought the matter to an admins attention. KeepOnTruckin 02:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All None of these seem to meet WP:NOTE or WP:SCHOOLS, per lack of independent reliable sources. Shimeru 17:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a google search will likely bring up some references. In fact, heres a search already done with refs from only the Washington Post: here KeepOnTruckin 02:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think there is a bias on the part of those asking for unilateral deletion of entire school districts. Give the editors a chance to add notability. There are many articles on Wikipedia in far, far worse shape which are not candidates for deletion. These looked well-done to me, but simply lacked citation. --Petercorless 02:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether an article is well-done, or even whether one can find reliable sources for the information. The question is, "Is the subject notable? Is it interesting in some way?" If the answer is, "This is a fine school (or library, or church, or street, or club), but one cannot really say anything about it that would interest someone not from the district", then I believe the answer is that we shouldn't have an article on it. There is nothing wrong with these articles as articles, they are simply about non-notable subjects. --Brianyoumans 03:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLS3 deals with how to determine notability, often via citation from independent media sources apart from the school or school district. Your personal interest in the subject is not germaine. --Petercorless 03:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It quite obviously is germaine; if I had thought these schools to be notable, we wouldn't be discussing deleting the articles. And more to the point, a number of random editors appear to agree with me. WP:SCHOOLS3 is only a proposal, by the way; it may well go the way of SCHOOLS 1 and 2. --Brianyoumans 03:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the nuber of random editors who agree with you, whether or not an article gets deleted is not determined by the amount of votes. All schools are notable to me, and I am happy to read an article on any school on wikipedia, regardless of district. Brianyoumans, you have consitently stated that the reason you want these articles deleted is because they have no assertion of notability/they arent notable enough to be on wikipedia. Let me say this again, citing the guide to deletion (my apologies if I am making the same argument twice) "the fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." "Lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because (among other reasons) this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy; and since Wikipedia is not paper and has no size limits [except those of the server...not important here], there's no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't include "everything" that fits in with the other criteria, such as WP:Verifiability and no original research". If these schools are such a non-notable topic, then people wont search for them. They arent harming Wikipedia, but they are helping anyone who read them. In fact, if "we delete articles solely due to their obscurity, currently obscure, or seemingly obscure, subjects may gain more popular interest at a later date. In such a case, deleted articles will constitute a loss of valuable (and perhaps, in the transitory world of the internet, irreproducible) information." "Non-notable" is a non-NPOV designation, therefore not abiding by policy. The person who authored the article probably believes that the topic is notable enough to be included. "Writing 'Delete, non-notable' is not about whether the articles should be in Wikipedia, but rather that it is a quick phrase that does not tell everyone else why the article is non-notable". Brianyoumans, you need to prove that all these school articles aren't notable. --KeepOnTruckin 04:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming a "burden of proof" argument, which may be "unwinnable" if Brianyoumans refuses to accept any sources/citations offered. The articles are fine. Stop grinding axes. --Petercorless 05:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Name: Liberty Middle School - I just did an initial search, and the architecture of the school won it the award of a "Project of Distinction" by CEFPI. Added that to the article. --Petercorless 06:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look more closely at the CEFPI site, the 2005 winners are listed here. Liberty's design was entered into the competition, but didn't win. Brianyoumans 06:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, on the page peter brought us, it definatly says "award type". FCPS is closed tomorrow due to snow but I will check into it on Friday. Coincidentally I actually have to go to Liberty MS to adjust some lights there. KeepOnTruckin 06:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I took a close enough look at the CEFPI site to be able to say; there is a page of award winners, and a page of "entrants" - and Liberty is listed under "entrants" and NOT under "winners". The "award type" I think is just the category that it was nominated in. Also, if you go to the Samaha Associates site, their design for Auburn Middle School is mentioned as having won a CEFPI award - and Liberty isn't. (Go to their middle school page, click on the arrows in the picture to advance through the projects.) Rachel Carson Middle School won an award from the Virginia School Board Association, which should be added to its article. Minor, but a point in its favor. --Brianyoumans 06:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, I was slightly offended when - upon googling my school name - I found that there was not a Wikipedia page. I created a page for Rocky Run Middle School using verified information from the school website. Since then, it has been added onto by others, which only proves that the site is useful and used. My younger sister will be attending RRMS next year and she and her friends find the information useful. I believe this article has as good a reason as any to stay. By the way, Rocky Run's Jamie Sawatzky won Virginia History Teahcer of the Year in 2006 and the school has won numerous other awards. It is a great school and this information should be out there for people to see. --Thank You. Elesi ^{Talk | Contribs} 22:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable — MrDolomite • Talk 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mucho Grande Siesta Productions[edit]

Totally non-notable couple making home videos. But they have the wikisavvy to use a sock puppet to remove the db tag so I will bring it here. -- RHaworth 07:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Extravaganzapalooza". Make that a Strong Delete. --Action Jackson IV 08:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, instead of removing prods they should have included sources, or are there none? Alf photoman 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Non-notable. No sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nut-meg (talk • contribs) 06:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:40Z

Mass killings, Nerissa strong, Carmet ellison, HIDDEN[edit]

Nominating these articles as what appears to be some sort of complex hoax. None of the claims made on any of the pages check out (a heretofore unknown daughter of Larry Ellison, who's a voice actor? A movie starring James Cameron that doesn't exist in IMDB?). Mass killings could probably make a reasonable redirect to a list of some sort, but the current article is complete bollocks. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding HIDDEN: newly created page by the same user; more of the same. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All A brief double checking seems to confirm the nominator's suspicions. If this is not a hoax, I would be very surprised indeed. Deranged bulbasaur 07:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged Mass killings and Carmet ellison as hoaxes, didn't tag Nerissa strong on the basis of some trivial google hits (a press release from a local source and some myspace stuff). I think Nerissa strong fails on A7 since it doesn't assert notability aside from some apparantly non-notable musical works. I'm tagging that one for speedy. Deranged bulbasaur 07:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As written, Nerissa strong has a material claim of notability (two albums). They don't appear to exist, but that's (unfortunately!) not a speedy criterion. Hence, I've removed the speedy tag. The AFD will do. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I don't think that strict interpretation of the CSD is serviceable. By my estimation from patrolling new articles, we get about 50 every day where the entire content is "I'm Pricilla Bittlesworth and I'm the sexiest and most talented person in TEH WORLD." They invariably get delted on A7 grounds (or A1 if they're truly trivial), regardless of the fact that that's most certainly a claim of notability (the person would be notable if it were true). If the view were taken that any claim of notability, no matter how easily disproven or how unvarifiable, exempts an article from A7 then this Afd process would be substantially and unduly emburdened. Deranged bulbasaur 11:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Created and mostly edited by Carmet, they therefore fail WP:COI. I have no need to investigate whether they are hoaxes or not as I do not reach that issue. --Selket ^Talk 08:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Mass killings could be a redirect to Mass murder. So my vote is redirect, but only for that one. Mathmo ^Talk 11:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a potentially POV redirect. "Killing" and "murder" have very different connotative meanings. Say, for example, that someone's looking for a mass killing of livestock in response to a BSE scare, and gets redirected to Mass murder... Deranged bulbasaur 02:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True true, that is a very good point. Then again most readers probably wouldn't understand the subtly of the POV? Guess it can still be found through searching of mass killings, even though Mass murder is a fairly long way down the results list. Mathmo ^Talk 12:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The singular form is a redirect, makes sense for us to make the plural form a redirect too. Oh, the other ones up for deletion should be deleted though. Mathmo ^Talk 12:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Inkpaduta 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All No sources--Sefringle 05:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Braun[edit]

Fails due to WP:OR or WP:COI - self promotion Peter Rehse 07:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, also fails due to WP:V as there are absolutely no sources or references Alf photoman 16:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM TheRingess (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It's all wikiGreek to me dadadata 00:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Well, I don't know if anyone's transwikied it, but they've had sufficient time. They can always ask an admin for the source. yandman 15:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Small Craft and Sailing Bibliography (1885)[edit]

Listcruft. Wikipedia is not a miscellaneous collection of information. An up to date bibliography might just be allowed but one from 1885? -- RHaworth 07:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - nom is probably correct about the article, but it would be a shame to lose this entirely. Is it appropriate for Wikisource? -- Bpmullins | Talk 16:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is transcribed from a primary source and should be available to be linked to other Wiki pages dealing with the history of small craft and yachting. That's certainly more efficient than appending it to all of them. dadadata 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete per above. Eluchil404 09:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete right away. What's the point? Transwiki if someone does it and does it fast. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 02:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Guilt: The Proof is in Your Hands[edit]

WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a soapbox or an indiscriminate collection of information. #39,476 "best seller" on Amazon[33]...so until we write articles on the 39,475 that are better sellers, the only reason this article seems to exist is to promote conspiracy theory misinformation. Say NO to spam. MONGO 07:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or vastly rewrite - I'm biased against misinformation, biased against idiocy, and biased against articles on alleged "non-fiction" books by idiots full of misinformation. I will say, though, that #39,476 might well be the top 50% - there's a lot of stuff on Amazon. If the article stays, the belligerent summary of Dr. Schmuck's thesis needs to be completely overhauled. --Action Jackson IV 08:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Clarification: Are you stating the articles are full of misinformation, the books are full of misinformation, the idiots are full of misinformation, or all of the above? Inkpaduta 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COI, WP:NN, and per-nom --Selket ^Talk 08:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable third-party sources found to establish notability. --Farix (Talk) 12:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am basing this solely on the content of the article, nothing to do with existence of any conspiracy theories or not. The article cites pretty much only the creators of this video as its references. Since this is like my citing my own blog to show that I am notable I cannot see that this is valid. Find and add correct sources to the article and I will change my recommendation. Fiddle Faddle 13:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Tbeatty 14:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.
Delete per above GabrielF 14:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without reliable secondary sources who have written about the video, this can only be original research promoting (or denigrating) the work, or a soapbox to advance more 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fiddle Faddle --rogerd 14:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanispamadvercruftment Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not sure where the non-notable aspect is coming from. I see non-trivial third-party coverage here. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 16:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jim Hoffman, which is where this information most properly attaches. --Hyperbole 18:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons cited at last AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 Guilt which resulted in unanimous delete. Why was this article recreated, despite overwhelming consensus that the video is not notable? This video is still not notable. --Aude (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Seems to have only one marginally reliable reference, which is to a college newspaper. Inkpaduta 22:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt, per nom, and all of the reasons I cited last time I voted delete for this article. MortonDevonshire Yo · 23:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt as recrated content. Resolute 23:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreated content; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 Guilt. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aude. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It was fun while it lasted! Ha ha . . . bov 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above vote is from the creator of the article. JuJube 02:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comment from article creator above suggests hoax. JuJube 02:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 Guilt, nothing seems to have changed. Wikipedia isn't for selling videos or increasing hit counts. --Dual Freq 02:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears promotional. Lacks WP:RS (The student newspaper at UC-Denver doesn't really meet WP:RS, IMHO). -- MarcoTolo 03:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets wikiedia requirements. Simply explaining what a video is does not violate WP:SOAP. Notable enough. Travb (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; possible merge to Air America Radio - please discuss on talk page. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:43Z

Air America-Gloria Wise loan controversy[edit]

The first nomination is here. Mathmo ^Talk 11:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - No longer notable, also it is well covered in the Air America Radio, and Gloria Wise articles. Nearly all the sources on this page are extremely biased (right wing newspapers and blogs), and a quick Google reveals that very few unbised and factual sources can be found for this story. Now that this issue is past, a summary on the AAR page is warranted, but not a seperate article. I realize that this links to a lot of pages, but that is due to a "related articles" link in the Air America template. In October of 05, some reasons to keep were that it was "a subject that it seems a few people want to discuss" Now we know it is basically a deflated conspiracy theory and it is simply not much of an issue anymore. nut-meg 07:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be satisfied with a MERGE, as long as reliable and unbiased sources can be found and the information is clearly written and cited.nut-meg 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep We know that Bigfoot is a hoax, but it's a Zeitgiest thing - an issue which somebody may wish to know the history of, even if it's all resolved. If it were drastically rewritten, it might fit in either Air America Radio or Gloria Wise - but as it stands, it's relatively chunky and would probably read like a tangent. --Action Jackson IV 08:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, purely because the nominator seems to have a major misunderstanding of WP:NOTABLE. As shown by the first words in the nomination of: "No longer notable". Notability doesn't change according to WP:NOTABLE. Mathmo ^Talk 11:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read the rest of the nomination. Do we have to have a seperate article for every hyped up "controversy"? The initial reason to keep it was "people want to discuss". Is wikipedia a blog? I thought it was an encyclopedia. Plus there are few reliable and unbiased sources cited. Factual information is hard to come by on this.nut-meg 16:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Notability" doesn't disappear, and it was never a conspiracy theory to begin with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a conspiracy, a conspiracy theorynut-meg 16:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...as I said...? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read it wrong, I thought you said it was never a conspiracy. My bad. But it was a conspiracy theory on these right wing blogs. They had it all the way down to Al Franken personally taking money from poor little kids. Quite ridiculousnut-meg 04:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As others have already mentioned, notability doesn't "disappear" when the subject falls off the news or blog radars. Also, a separate article can do better justice in covering the subject then a very brief summary in another article. This article, however, can use some cleanup and organization. --Farix (Talk) 12:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find some reliable and unbiased sources, fine. There aren't any cited here. nut-meg 16:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is simply reliable, and the sources — NY Times, NY Post and NY Sun — referenced are reliable. --Farix (Talk) 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that a source can be both strongly biased and reliable.The Sun, maybe. The Post? Never. Its a propaganda rag. the Weekly World News of political journalism. nut-meg 04:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, the topic is notable. The scandal happened and there are numerous reliable sources noted in the article to verify that it did happen. Also, the references to the scandal in the main Air America Radio article have been all but completely removed. There is just a sentence or two to this situation still mentioned in the original AAR parent article and there is NO link remaining to this child article about the scandal.--Getaway 14:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York Sun, New York Post, Radio Equalizer, and Michelle Malkin are all extremely biased and unreliable sources. The rest are dead links. nut-meg 16:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York Sun and New York Post ARE reliable sources. Also, the New York Times and the Washington Post are there. And not ALL of the rest are dead.--Getaway 16:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun is an extremely right wing biased paper. The Post is too, and worse, it is basically little more than a laughable tabloid. nut-meg 16:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getaway, I am very concerned that we would be creating an article, as you argue, because editors in another article do not permit that material. What dispute resolution processes have been tried? --Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dhartung, Im not sure what he's talking about, because until recently I don't believe I have edited the Air America article at all. But I had initially pared down the section on Gloria Wise in the Air America artlcle, as it had terrible NPOV problems and a lot of false or misleading information. If the decision is to merge, then any notable and reliable details should be added back into the Air America article. nut-meg 06:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this POV fork back into Air America Radio and resolve WP:NPOV#Undue weight issues through normal channels. --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Air America Radio article after boiling it down to a few well referenced points. This is too much writing about a legal squabble over an $800,000 loan. A big law firm will have a number of cases at any instant which are far bigger than this and just as non-encyclopedic. Most of the references are to partisan newspapers only a cut above the National Enquirer. The one reliable source, the New York Times, just says Franken talked about the matter. As for a notable subject not being able to become non-notable, a better analysis is that it was never really notable in the first place, with the application of 20-20 hindsight. Inkpaduta 23:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or at most, merge per Dhartung and Inkpaduta above). It seems to me that if an article needs to include "incident" or "controversy" in its title, odds are that article usually cannot stand on its own and is better off included in the parent article. A succinct summary in the parent article does not have to mean that the sub-topic cannot be done "justice". This is not wikinews or similar. Only very rarely is it necessary to break-off a single event into a separate article. Agent 86 01:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides Notability being permanent, there is way too much subject-specific information here to be merged to the already-long Air America article. --Oakshade 08:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is a large part of that is from unreliable sources, and inaccurate. nut-meg 04:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. I did a read-through and it is heavily sourced. --Oakshade 04:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that many of th sources are questionable at best. nut-meg 03:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this article. It remains relevant, as the NY Attorney General's investigation is ongoing.

Also, it now in the news again. Al Franken has announced he is a candidate for U.S. Senate in Minnestoa and there are reporters that are already asking about the Gloria Wise/Air America loan transaction and Franken's connection to it.--Getaway 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is asking? A Google news search finds nothing much at all. Why? They know Franken had no connection to it. Credible journalists do not use political extremist blogs as sources.I don't think wikipedia should either nut-meg 08:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and verifiable. If a merge is useful, that can happen in due course with the maintenance tags, discussion and boldness. John Vandenberg 06:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as {{db-author}}, as noted below. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flucidity[edit]

Scientific theory with no ~~mainstream acceptance~~ verifiable sources. Pak21 08:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are lots of theories with no mainstream scientific acceptance that have their own articles. This fails WP:NFT notability tests. Every reference I found was a cut-and-paste of the same text. -Selket ^Talk 08:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point well made. I have amended the rationale for deletion. Cheers --Pak21 08:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with the decision to remove the article from Wikipedia, though I was the one who added it. Though it is obviously B.S., its merit lies in the likelihood of common-sense insight coming to the surface due to the copious amounts of ambiguity inherent in the system. However there are many other, better-established systems which operate on the same principle and can be used for many of the same purposes (feng shui, for example). It is redundant, for this reason I support its deletion. RW 09:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia A. Jennings[edit]

No more notable than the average University professor, thus fails WP:BIO. Deprodded by anon without comment as a mass deprod of 5.5 day old prods. Pak21 08:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I couldn't find her to be the subject non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other.Sancho McCann 08:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless she's proven to be the female alter-ego of Peter Jennings (or at the very least, strongly suspected of being so), I'd say she's NN. --Action Jackson IV 08:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable.--Getaway 14:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and/or WP:PROF by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:AUTO and fails WP:RS. A WP:HEY effort required. John Vandenberg 22:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence from WP:RS of meeting WP:BIO, WP:PROFTEST applies. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#A8. FreplySpang 10:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patiala Heritage Festival[edit]

Non-notable festival. Deprodded by anon as a mass deprod of 5.5 day old prods without comment Pak21 08:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy and totally unformatted text dumps like this are frequently just a copy-paste from another website and just copyvios, and a Google check on a portion of the text will often reveal it. Indeed take a look here, where you will find the same text. This is a speedy delete WP:CSD A8 candidate and so tagged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... and so deleted. FreplySpang 10:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sun hang do (2nd nomination)[edit]

Advertisement for a single school - there has been no improvement in the article since the last debate - the same concerns remain. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun hang do for the first debate.Peter Rehse 08:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, there has been no progress and no gain in notoriety since 2005, the first AfD. Does not satisfy notability in my mind. - grubber 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks WP:RS. A WP:HEY effort reqd to demonstrate this is notable. John Vandenberg 06:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; possible merge. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:45Z

2007 Plot to Behead a British Muslim Soldier[edit]

Purely a news item, this is not encyclopedia worthy, merely newsworthy. Article belongs on Wikinews. For an extended reasoning which I do wish to repeat here, see the proposed guideline WP:NOTNEWS and it's talk page WT:NOTNEWS. This incident fails several of the points which would raise it from being merely an interesting news story to being part of the lasting historical record. (p.s. already listified on List of terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom.) Zun aid ©® 08:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- Zun aid ©® 08:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated above. --Action Jackson IV 09:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the well-reasoned nom. Take it to wikinews, please, but this is not encyclopedic. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand. The article as it stands is barely above stub level: six names, a paragraph, three references and one See also. But the subject in itself is encyclopedic: what is the background of the suspects, how was the plot foiled, how does this relate to the wider British Muslim community, what are the consequences of this in terms of measures and legislation, etcetera. A lot can be written about this subject, and it's up to us to do so. Aecis^Brievenbus 10:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. See our Wikipedia:No original research policy. It's up to historians, journalists, and others to do the research and write all of the things that you list. As encyclopaedists, our task is to summarize and condense what they have written and published. If you want to make a case for keeping this article, arguing that it's up to us to perform original research isn't the way to do it. Cite sources to show that a lot has been written about it, by others, not that a lot can be written about it by us. Uncle G 13:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly, it's up to historians and journalists to research what I have listed. Historians will do so in a few years time, but journalists are already digging into the issue. That's what the references are for. This particular case has received widespread media coverage from all over the world, and the relevant information in those sources needs to be gathered to form an encyclopedic article. I agree that the article isn't as it should be atm, but that is no grounds for deletion. Digging into the issue ourselves would be original research, gathering what journalists have written about the issue is not. I merely said that a lot can be added to the article, I never said that the original research for it should be done by us. Because that's indeed not our task. What we can do is gather the original research of reliable sources. A ecis^Brievenbus 01:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is highly newsworthy, but in time will become historic. It is desirable that the article is shaped contemporously rather than afterwards. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia yes, but it is an encyclopedia with several advantages over traditional ones. Among those advantages is the ability to document history as it happens.212.219.242.194 12:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not for documenting history as it happens. That's for journalists, not encyclopaedists. "wiki" means "fast", not "first". If you want to write about "highly newsworthy" things, you are in the wrong project. The project for editors who want to be journalists, and which decides what to include based upon its newsworthiness, is Wikinews. This project is an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedists condense and summarize documentation that has already been written and published outside of Wikipedia. If in time the events do become historic, then Wikipedia should have an article. But you yourself imply that they have not yet become historic; and it seems somewhat premature, and skirting dangerously close to flouting our Wikipedia:Biography of living persons policy, to have an article that does little more than simply list the names and ages of specific, identifiable, people who have yet to be actually convicted of the crimes that they are charged with. Uncle G 13:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - but virtually all that belongs in a newspaper, not an encyclopedia. Agreed that this might well be a valid topic if legislation is passed as a result of this. At the moment, this just does not meet WP:NOTNEWS - admittedly still only a proposed guideline - and will not do until someone makes a film or some legislation. To be honest, I'd be surprised if anyone does pass any new laws over this. It's just another averted terror plot. Lots of those these days. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What subjects are or are not appropriate for wikinews is irrelevant to this decision. There is nothing to say or infer that a subject covered on wikinews should not be covered on wikipedia. AFDs should be based only on compliance with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. AndrewRT(Talk) 14:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NOTNEWS is a proposed guideline that does not have consensus. Therefore this guidlene is not relevant. AndrewRT(Talk) 14:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable current event. And as per AndrewRT, WP:NOTNEWS is only a proposed guideline. 23skidoo 14:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand (Disclaimer: I started this article) One of the many reasons to keep this article is that it marks a shift in terrorist tactics, from mass casualty bombings to the use of Iraq style beheadings on the streets of Britain (this will get put into the article when i have the right source). As to legislation, the first thing the police talked about was upping the max 28 day detention without charge to 90 days. Also the "police state for muslims" quote stirred up a hornets nest, especially as he was released under a judges order as he did not think they had enough evidence to continue holding him without charge. Also this article is in List of terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom (disclaimer: i put it there 24 hours ago) under list of foiled or failed plots in the UK.Hypnosadist 14:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a misnomer to say that WP:NOTNEWS is not relevant. Guidelines are not hard and fast rules and DO allow exceptions: an article may be kept despite failing the guidelines, and so too may an article be deleted without obviously failing any guideline. This is one of those cases of an article not failing any obvious WP:N guidelines, but still IMHO unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Please read WT:NOTNEWS and its cross-linked discussions and AfD debates. The entire proposed guideline was born out of an AfD case exactly like this, and many of the arguments presented there are "valid", if not "carved in stone" in the form of guideline or proposal. Zun aid ©® 14:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note Islamist calls for soldiers' heads The Australian - writing that this isn't a one-off story, but a potential trend. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article complies with all the relevant threshold policies for inclusion - WP:N(independent 3rd party citings), WP:V (verifiable sources exist). Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia which means it can go into a lot more detail than usual encyclopedias. This is an important detail within the overall subject of Terrorism in the United Kingdom which you wouldn't want to include in the main article as it would make this too long. AndrewRT(Talk) 14:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several points after reading the Proposed policy of no news. 1) This story has run for over a week (six days to the police state quote). 2)This AfD is obviously a proxy battle to push one view of this proposed policy. 3)This story has vastly more news coverage than the letterbomb attacks that happened a day before this event (yet thats on the main page). 4) this idea has been around for the same length of time as the news story (the raids and the creation of the policy page both happened on 31 jan 2007).Hypnosadist 15:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS Three BBC stories over a 2 day period are refeerences for the article. Several men were arrested, and then several of them were released without charges. Clearly news, not clearly encyclopedic. An encyclopedia is not an archive of everything that was in the news in some locality for a little while. Edison 16:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a few more references showing international coverage:
  - "Terror raids over 'beheading plot'", CNN, January 31, 2007
  - "Britain foils plot to torture Muslim soldier", By Rob Harris, February 1, 2007, Associated Press/Boston Globe
  - (in French) "Neuf terroristes présumés arrêtés en Grande-Bretagne" Le Monde, French "Newspaper of record"

This was covered all over the world, it's a major international story. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable current event, covered by major sources across the world, meeting Wikipedia:Notability which is a guideline. WP:NOTNEWS is a highly debated proposal that explicitly contradicts WP:N, does not have consensus, and, frankly, it does seem like the nomination is overly strongly tied to the effort to make the proposal a guideline. We should be debating the specific article here, not the proposal. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to an appropriate, encyclopedically-important subject. WP:NOTNEWS aside, this is not the wiki-newspaper. That would be two blocks down and take a right at Wikinews. If it becomes clear that this event is of historic and lasting (and therefore encyclopedic) importance (hundred-year test), great, make its own article then, but for now, I'm sure Wikinews would be very glad for help on this newspaper, not encyclopedia, item. It's just too bad we can't transwiki stuff directly to them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article obviously passess WP:Notability (see all the source above), reliable sources have assigned significance to it beyond a routine terror plot, the incident has received international coverage over the course of multiple days. Also, WP:NOTNEWS is not a guideline yet--please do not keep citing it! Though it may not be your intent, it can be misleading. Someone who isn't directly involved with the project may mistake it for established Wikipedia policy/guideline. -- Black Falcon 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, especially due to the apparent WP:POINT violation. The article should get a proper NPOV name that meets simplicity guidelines in WP:NC, e.g. 2007 British beheading plot. --Dhartung | Talk 20:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The (alleged) plot was specifically to behead a British Muslim Soldier hence the name, and why I think it's appropriate AndrewRT(Talk) 20:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think it's entirely true that the point of this nomination was to push the adoption of WP:NOTNEWS and hence violates WP:POINT. This AFD doesn't disrupt wikipedia per WP:POINT. NOTNEWS is currenly being debated in order to find a consensus and the related AFD discussions (more are listed at WT:NOTNEWS) are all an important way to find that consensus. The conclusion of this debate will be an important guide to the debate on NOTNEWS but I don't think there's anything wrong with this. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Jcuk 22:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not wikinews. This is nothing more than the rewrite of a news story. We do not need articles on every minor happening in the war on terror (and yes, everybody, this is minor). Resolute 23:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not WikiNews. This is disturbing but hardly uncommon. Rossami (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable incident with verifiable sources available. As per Dhartung, should be renamed. One of Wikipedia's great strengths is that it is more current that other encylopedias. Capitalistroadster 02:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Knowing the details of terrorist plots is of such obvious value, even years afterwa — oh, I forgot, we're not supposed to cite "usefulness" as a reason for keeping an article. Always remember we're here to cite Wikipedia rules like lawyers without regard to real-world uses of this Wikipedia tool we have. Let's only cite some Wikipedia bureaucratic rule we can find because after all, how important could it be for us to actually use our heads? Let's just blind ourselves to what we might find important in the world because it wouldn't have been put in a paper encyclopedia that couldn't be updated fast enough to deal with a subject like this. Just because we're electronic and instantly updatable here doesn't mean we shouldn't blindly follow what was used in an encyclopedia which had to limit its coverage of developing subjects as it cut down the trees, cut them into sawdust, create pulp, make paper from the pulp, buy the ink . . . . Noroton 03:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:CIVIL, and bear in mind that wikinews can retain this information very easily. Resolute 14:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't confuse strong argument for incivility. Please reread the first paragraph of WP:CIVIL. In my comments above, no aspersions can even be inferred on anyone since (a) I wasn't addressing anyone in particular, (b) I wasn't even criticising anyone in general, but criticising arguments and attitudes. If you consider strong disagreement to be offensive in itself, please consider whether that's intolerant on your part. As to WikiNews — it isn't as easily found by readers as regular Wikipedia articles are. Important subjects, and this is one, deserve their own Wikipedia articles, whether or not they've been in the news. This incident will be of enduring value for years to come.Noroton 15:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - While I agree with you that the article should be kept, it is impossible to say that "this incident will be of enduring value for years to come." Aecis^Brievenbus 15:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You make an interesting point. But in fact it is possible to say: Even failed terrorist plots, when they involve new tactics, commonly have an effect on security policy: The shoe-bomb incident resulted in shoes being checked and often taken off at airports; The liquids incident resulted in containers with liquid being banned. Also, others may copy this tactic. Obviously, those other incidents involved public transportation and this is limited to Muslims in the military, and obviously nobody has a crystal ball, but it isn't a wild guess that this incident will have a strong effect on Muslims in Western military organizations. In fact, it's overwhelmingly probable that attitudes (of Muslim and non-Muslim soldiers) and policies (about protecting Muslim soldiers) will be affected. Soldiers with intimate knowledge of Muslim languages and culture are extremely important in Western armies today. I'd bet the rent money that this will be important five and 10 years from now, just as the U.S.S. Cole, Black Hawk Down incidents have been influential.Noroton 15:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC) (minor edit for clarity)[reply]
        If this incident does lead to any such changes in the future, then yes, it would deserve an article here. However, it has not, and a guess about what may happen as a result is not of any encyclopedic value. Even if one person thinks that it is "overwhelmingly probable" for x to occur, until x actually does occur, that argument is invalid. Also, I cited WP:CIVIL for comments like "how important could it be for us to actually use our heads?" Believe it or not, most people in this discussion are using their heads, and then supporting that thought with policy and guidelines. You should not lose sight of this just becuase your opinion is not universally shared. Resolute 21:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If "how important could it be for us to actually use our heads?" is the most uncivil thing I said, then, after reviewing WP:CIVIL, let's just say we disagree on what Wikipedia's civility standards are. Even taken out of context, it is a criticism of poor argumentation, and in context it shows I'm advocating that editors prize common sense more as they apply rules. Speaking of common sense, to suggest that this terrorist plot might not affect policies and people in the future is simply to ignore how past terrorist plots in the West, when they've been innovative (or at least brought tactics to new countries), have almost invariably affected people and policies up to the present. This isn't one person's "guess". Noroton 18:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Edison. Premature article - properly suitable for Wikinews but not here Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 07:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the story is fit for a newspaper, but is of very little historic interest. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is of so much historical interest, now and for the foreseeable future, that it verges on the practical. Especially if you're a Muslim member of a Western military force, but even if you're a citizen of any place a terrorist might strike. Or perhaps just someone concerned about and/or interested in the phenomenon of terrorism. Wikipedia should be helping people find information on a serious subject like this.Noroton 15:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep Further to my comments above: existing policies and guidelines have thresholds in place which articles have to reach in order to merit inclusion - specifically in WP:V, WP:N and WP:NOT. This article clearly passes all of these criteria. Therefore the only rationale for deleting becomes a debate between the difference between a newsworthy event and an encyclopedic topic. Bearing in mind the Wikipedia:Summary Style recommends that sub-topics within a particular topic are split out to prevent articles becoming too long, you inevitably end up with articles on minor topics which would never expect to see on, say, Encyclopedia Brittanica. I accept that not all newsworthy events are encyclopedic topics, but when does the first become the second? The definition of encyclopedia - a comprehensive reference work - gives a clue in that people should have to want to refer to it. The event must have some historical relevance - perhaps a new law, a new political movement or something. It must be part of a greater trend, not an isolated instance. It should be part of a larger narrative. The article on a notable event - unlike a newspaper coverage of an event - should analyse the context and explain the impact and consequences of the event rather than just detail the event itself. This is, in fact, a good example of an event which is part of some much greater themes. When we start writing decent articles on Terrorism in the United Kingdom, Islamist Terrorism in the United Kingdom and Islam in the United Kingdom, events like this one will be key parts of these overall narratives. It's good to have articles with an indepth coverage of events like these - after all, Wikipedia is not paper - so that we can use our summary style and integrate them in. Isolated events with no wider consequence - like a highway crash perhaps - can be newsworthy but not encyclopedic, but this article is definitely both. AndrewRT(Talk) 01:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 31 January 2007 Birmingham raid. KazakhPol 06:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AFD done with now? Looks like a keep to me.Hypnosadist 13:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. meets WP:N and WP:V. John Vandenberg 07:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thang global[edit]

NN online game, fails WP:WEB, article content is just an explanation of game mechanics. Percy Snoodle 09:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real content here (no incoming links, no substantial outgoing links, no link to the game's homepage itself). Agree that it is not notable. - grubber 16:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete This is an OR game guide for a game of dubious notability. Eluchil404 09:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as a hoax: no evidence this person is on Million Dollar Baby or that any other of the claims in the article are true. Author is a serial vandal. Gwernol 17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Yanque[edit]

Heavy promotion of a real estate agent of dubious notability. Does an appearance on Million Dollar Listing make her significant? Or selling a house to Tom Cruise? My feeling is no, but it's not completely obvious, so I brought it here. FreplySpang 10:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self promotion, WP:COI, WP:NN Selket ^Talk 10:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC) | readded 16:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? I'm a big fan of her's. She's not promoting herself, she is referenced because of her connection to Cruise and the industry. She's on TV Dude!!! A lot of people watch her on the show, check her out some time. The Washington Post uses her as a reference all the time, where have you been dude? You know who Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton are right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.55.178 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 12 February 2007
Great, then I'm sure you have plenty of references to those Washington Post articles at your fingertips, and you can add them to the article. FreplySpang 17:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Charlotte Yanque Broker Associate and Million Dollar Agent Star Charlotte Yanque, and revert all the other articles that she's been stuck into today. Nomination pretty much says it all. Not notable. Every mention of her reads like a flowery advert. --Onorem 17:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, that's exactly what I was just doing. Also, Googling around leads to more questions - there's no particular evidence that she did sell a house to Tom Cruise. And a search for yanque "Million Dollar Listing" turns up nothing but our article. FreplySpang 17:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, clearly the only intention is promotional. -- Stbalbach 17:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Twenty-eight (card game). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:46Z

Fifty-six (card game)[edit]

In the running for most blatant advertising, spammy, vanity, missing-the-point article of the year. Take a look, EIGHT external links to the same promo domain! My goodness. 2005 11:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rewrite from scratch as a basic, non-commercial summary, with no external links - it's a real card game, there's no reason why it shouldn't have an article. (J9A10, on the other hand, should be deleted.) --McGeddon 11:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the article to be about the card game rather than the J9A10 site. However, this would be better redirected to Twenty-eight (card game), which already mentions Fifty-six as a simple variant of Twenty-eight. --McGeddon 11:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep for the current, trimmed version [34]. Tintin 07:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circle of Friends (drinking game)[edit]

Delete Article appears to be about a made up drinking game. It receives no Google Hits that I can find. It is non-notable and is possibly a hoax. It contains no references Maustrauser 11:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Deranged bulbasaur 11:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. WP:NFT? --Dweller 14:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yuser31415 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Morris (activist)[edit]

Keep - I can't see any reason to delete it? Gaysimon 16:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's largely fabrication and exaggeration. I know the guy and he's a rampant self-publicist. In fact you'll probably find he wrote the article himself. The very minor role he did play in the events stated happened many years ago, and if you read between the lines you'll see that he didn't actually do that much. It's basically a vanity piece. 86.146.93.170 12:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I've just noticed that you appear to have written the original article, so I guess you're him. 86.146.93.170 18:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm not. The only requests I've had from Chris Morris have been to REMOVE material from the page, which I did because that specific info was unsourced and untrue (according to him). He doesn't seem publicity hungry to me, his own website doesn't mention anything about his campaigns and he declined to be interviewed for a uni article I did last year. Gaysimon 15:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't the place to settle personal scores, is it? Chris Morris is well known in the gay community and this article has been on Wikipedia for years with edits by many members and ratings by WikiProject Biography and WikiProject LGBT studies. I think 86.146.93.170 could actually be accused of vandalism here. Randomhouse 20:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well known in the gay community? I don't think so. The only thing he's noted for is something to do with the age of consent many many years ago. He was one of a great many people who were involved in that campaign, including myself. The other one was trying (and failing) to arrest Mugabe, which got about 10 seconds on the evening news one evening (primarily because the *genuine* prominent gay activist Peter Tatchell was involved, otherwise nobody would've cared). If you want to keep him on then that's up to whoever makes the decisions. My suggestion for deletion isn't based on malice. If everyone who's ever been involved with a campaign was entitled to their own Wikipedia entry then the size of the site would double overnight. Although judging by the way you previously edited this article to make him an "outspoken" activist (rather than the.. ermm.. other type of activist?), I can only assume you're a mate of his. And I hardly think you can call an "article for deletion" vandalism. This is why Wikipedia has a democratic system for deletions. I haven't made ANY alterations to the actual article text. 86.146.93.170 11:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, would you also like to edit the article to include details of his supposed past (and presumably present) ownership of a gay porn site, or would that go against the rosy picture you're trying to paint of him as the next prime minister? 86.146.93.170 11:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was orphaned and not listed on any logs. It is listed now. Kimchi.sg 11:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; based on the article as of the 10th, the fact that he took a case to the European Court, a case that Jack Straw bartered with him to suspend, and that he personally stopped Mugabe's motorcade amount to notability.--Prosfilaes 13:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment May I also note WP:AGF? The assumption should be that User:86.146.93.170 made an AfD because he honestly thought that it was not notable. Discussions of personal motives should be kept to a minimum; User:Randomhouse also deserves the benefit of the doubt that his goal in making his edits were to improve Wikipedia as a neutral encyclopedia, not promote anyone. User:86.146.93.170, I invite you to edit the article to add NPOV, verifiable information to the article; if you can cite it, his ownership of a gay porn site could fall under that category.--Prosfilaes 13:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the case referred to would appear to actually be Sutherland v. United Kingdom, not Morris v. United Kingdom. I find no evidence for a separate Morris v. United Kingdom case. --Pak21 14:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to add information about the gay porn site because frankly I don't think it's a very nice thing to do. As I said before, I'm not doing this out of malice. I just personally don't believe that he is a "notable". However, once again, this is the reason why we have a democratic system on Wikipedia, so if people believe he should be kept then I'm not going to contest it. 86.146.93.170 09:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to be mistaken: Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Pak21 09:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh for gods sake, you know what I mean. Decisions are more often than not based on discussions like these before someone makes a decision. America is a democracy but it still needs a leader.86.146.93.170 11:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about nice; it's about forming a good biography about someone.--Prosfilaes 12:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also being accurate. It needs to be verifiable and saying someone runs a porn site without evidence, even on a discussion page, is risky. Gaysimon 15:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not risky if you know it to be true. Not that I would claim that of course. Hence why I prefixed my statement with "supposed". 86.146.93.170 16:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do you have any evidence to support this? If not, you shouldn't really bring it up at all. WP:V Nck Martin farmer 18:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I've made some changes in response to this afd; please see the latest version. Gaysimon 15:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a significant factor in Sutherland v. United Kingdom and the Mugabe incident, although I think it should be made clear that Morris's case was never heard by the European Court. At least as I understand it, the case was purely Sutherland v. United Kingdom; the Morris case was essentially identical, but never went before the court: "[Morris's] case was never heard, but he helped publicise the campaign for equality." [35]. --Pak21 16:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The fact is neither case was actually heard in court but the likelihood of them winning (based on the Commission's report) was enough to force the government to change the law. The binding settlement was with them both. They may have fallen out in later years but it was significant at the time that it was a young couple fighting this and not a professional politician. Big respect to them for that and let's remember the good they both did at that time. Nick 80.225.131.144 17:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:57Z

Portuguese Law Bar[edit]

Contested prod. It fails WP:CORP in English (and I don't know the correct Portugese name to check any further). Prod contested by 68.39.174.238 saying "Not a corporation, rather an integrated bar, the lack of Google hits is a result of not knowing it's Portugese name, NOT it's "lack of notability". No verifiable evidence has been added to the article - so I say ~~delete~~. Mereda 12:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - I've moved the article to a more widely accepted name, with links to verify. --Mereda 17:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The name Ordem dos Advogados is now cited on the article. --Petercorless 21:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close, resulting from move and verification. Agent 86 01:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audra Shay[edit]

Nonnotable local political activist. Contested speedy (see talk page). NawlinWiki 12:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kamope · talk · contributions 12:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles have begun to appear for Candidates for Electon to Young Republican National Federation written by several users. Such persons are notable to those searching for Republican persons. Djtierney 13:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See just because other articles exist on similar topics doesn't mean the article in question should be kept. If those people are similarly nonnotable, their articles will also be deleted in time. NawlinWiki 14:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment "Articles have begun to appear..." -- nice use of passive voice. What you meant to say was "I have started writing scads of articles on Team Murphy members." This violates WP:COI. If I hadn't started this AFD, I would speedy it myself. I am speedying all the other ones. NawlinWiki 21:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Running for, or even being elected to, an office within the youth division of a political party is not enough in itself to satisfy WP:BIO. Most of the other candidates linked here look like they should have their articles deleted as well. --Metropolitan90 18:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with Metropolitan90. In past AfD discussions, it has been consistently the consensus among experienced editors that political youth organizations don't provide automatic notability even to their national officers, let alone to their candidates or to local group officials. To pass WP:BIO, such a person must have been a primary subject of third-party coverage that says more than "this group exists on campus and So-and-so is its chairman". Barno 20:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that, while a youth organization, Young Republicans are more of a professional organization and are generally not campus organiztions like College Democrats or Teenage Republicans. MLester53 21:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but no one is proposing the deletion of the Young Republicans entry, just standalone pages of officer candidates. -- MarcoTolo 03:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable individual running for a youth political office. Montco 03:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Team Murphy member. (Okay, that's not really a reason.) Delete as failing WP:V and WP:BIO. -- MarcoTolo 03:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no delete vote. Pea ceNT 11:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Mongolian medicine[edit]

Substub with no useful information and no relevant sources. Lingered in that state for more than a year. Little chance of turning into a real article in the forseeable future. Latebird 12:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reasons you provided are reasons to improve it rather than to delete it. I see nothing here that would make the deletion necessary. Colchicum 13:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NOT#OR are of no concern? --Latebird 21:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. WP:not#DICT and WP:NOR are a concern, but not grounds for deletion. Totnesmartin 21:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am currently improving the article, should be delete-proof in a while. I hope. Totnesmartin 21:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Totnesmartin 23:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Now it's an article, which is of course more desireable than a deleted non-article. Thanks! --Latebird 00:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:50Z

Conor Corderoy[edit]

Subject of article does not meet notability guidelines of WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 12:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ~ Arjun 04:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of former members of the Australian House of Representatives[edit]

Incomplete list of politicians better served by the articles in Category:Members of Australian Parliaments by term. This article was created by cutting out part of List of Australian politicians when that page was proposed for deletion. Scott Davis ^Talk 13:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Scott Davis ^Talk 13:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list was created (in List of Australian politicians) before Wikipedia had a working category system, and appears to be no longer maintained. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons that Scott Davis gives, but the categories need cleaning up. There is no category of "Former Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives" - not sure there should be - just commenting. Just looking at the first two entries, Antony is in Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives and in "Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives for XXX". Barton is only in the latter. --Bduke 21:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...maelgwn talk 01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This list appears to be superfluous as the politicians listed all have articles already. However, I would be fairly sure that not all members of the House of Representatives since 1901 do not have articles and there might be a case for a list to guide our efforts in article creation. However, that would require someone doing the work. Capitalistroadster 02:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Such a list belongs in a project sub-page not in article space.Ga rr ie 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 02:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and expand to a comprehensive list. I'm sick of articles like this being deleted for no valid reason - this could be a comprehensive list of all people who have ever served in the Australian Parliament, complete with their electorate, dates served, ministerial positions (if any), elections fought, etc. It could easily be a Featured List. Let's realise the potential of articles like these instead of nominating them willy-nilly for deletion, where you can't get this information back. JROBBO 08:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not disputing the potential for an article with this title to be useful. I am disputing that the current article is either useful in its current state, or more useful than an empty page as a starting point for a useful list. It has less than 10% of the people eligible to be in the list, and at least one who should not be on it. Prior to this AFD, nobody had shown any interest in attempting to complete, update, or maintain the list, which contains one person who will retire from the senate in 2008. See Garrie and capitalistroadster's comments above. I did not respond to your message earlier as I didn't realise you felt it needed a response. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JROBBO above. There are some excellent lists around and a list of former members can contain summarised information that categories cannot. Compare it to List of signatories of the United States Constitution - closed membership, contains nothing that cannot be in either the article United States Constitution or a category, Category:Signers of the United States Constitution. However, the article identifies why each person was there - the category does not.Ga rr ie 22:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JROBBO DXRAW 06:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of everything that is or has been. Usedup 09:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that? That's not a reason for deletion. Please provide a reason why this list should or should not be deleted. JROBBO 00:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT Wikipedia articles are not...Mere collections of internal links --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As it is now, the list is inferior to the category. Someone can always create a good list another day. John Vandenberg 13:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just leave it and let it be expanded? JROBBO 00:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because in its current state it is incomplete, misleading and reflects badly on the project. It is not a suitable starting point to make a good article with this title. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Peta 23:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote - can you please provide a reason? JROBBO 00:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is anyone going to bother replying to my concerns, or is this just another of those debates where people write comments then don't bother to check back? JROBBO 00:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect many people are watching, but until that post and the post on my talk page, nobody knew you wanted a reply. You had not asked any questions. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not all lists of notable people are encyclopedic. The scope of this list is so broad as to be indiscriminant. The relevant information is better presented in articles on the individual members or more focussed lists by contituency, parliament, or state. No information would be lost in this deletion because as it stands it is fulkly redundant to the category. I.e. just an alphabetic list of names. Eluchil404 09:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigurd Larsen[edit]

Vanity article, no independent sources given. Jvhertum 13:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verifiable non-trivial independent mentions are included by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube 02:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australians[edit]

Random list of some famous Australians with no clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion Scott Davis ^Talk 13:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Scott Davis ^Talk 13:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better to use categories as they stay up to date --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- update I am open to converting to a list of objective lists. See discussion below. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Unmaintainable. Categories are already doing a better job of it. Longhair\^talk 13:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too broad. No clear criteria. Could potentially have millions of names added, most of them NN (for Wikipedia inclusion, that is). 23skidoo 14:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Apologies for not following all guidelines, however, the notable Australian's page is a subdirectory of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_by_nationality . Are they all being considered for deletion alongside this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.134.146 (talk • contribs)
- No. -- Longhair\^talk 15:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any reason who not? Seems the "categories are already doing a better job of it" reasoning would apply to all of them, not just Australians. Tarc 17:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - An interesting point. Perhaps there should be a mass AFD. I'd support deletion if that occurred. 23skidoo 18:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: replace with a category. I would apply this to all nationalities. Peterkingiron 18:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better to use categories as they stay up to date as per ScottDavis--Golden Wattle ^talk 19:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support redirect to a list of lists of Australians --Golden Wattle ^talk 04:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge (see my comment below) -- This list qualifies under WP:LIST as being informative and in helping navigation. Many people find it easier to work with lists rather than categories. I see no reason to delete a list that is not trivial and meets WP:LIST as it makes WP more user-friendly (please keep in mind that WP would begin to stagnate were it not for the constant influx of new users). I have voted to delete lists a number of times (usually either due to triviality or the fact that they can better handled through categories), but I think the only effect of removing this list would be to make navigation on topics related to Australian individuals more difficult. Perhaps the list could use some cleanup by having brief biographical snippets added to it... -- Black Falcon 19:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does a list help navigation if it is not comprehensive and is unlikely to ever be comprehensive? As the nominator observed there is no clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion. If you have a look at the politics sub section for example there is a scattering of prime ministers but not all, the inclusions are definitely random and a very small proportion of Australian politicians which have wikipedia articles are listed.--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I didn't specifically consult WP:LIST before listing, but I don't see this list as complying anyway:

The list is too incomplete to assist navigation, and likely can never be made comprehensive.
Lead section is This is a list of notable people born in Australia.
Does not have ...unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources.
WP:LIST#References for list items describes the requirements for references which have not been followed, and some entries' subjects are still alive.

--Scott Davis ^Talk 21:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed response. I think it would be appropriate to merge this list into a number of smaller, more targeted, and thus more maintainable lists (e.g., List of Australian musicians, List of Australian politicians, etc.), and then to rename this list Lists of Australians, leaving it with links to all of the List of Australian "profession" articles. In response to your points:

Although the list (and thus any list based on it) is incomplete, I think it can be made comprehensive by looking through Category:Australians.
The current inclusion criteria of "people born in Australia" should obviously probably "notable people born in Australia"--we do not want a directory of millions of Australians. WP probably has articles on a few thousand Australians at most. Once they are distributed over 10 or more articles, their maintenance should be far less problematic.
I think changing it to "notable (per WP:BIO) and born in Australia" would make it an unambigous and quite exclusionary membership criterion. We could add a hidden note to the article that only individuals who have WP articles should be listed (all of the "Year" pages (e.g., 1526) do so.
I want to make 2 points regarding references. First, the article links themselves constitute "soft" references (the same is true of including individuals in a category). Second, the requirement for living persons only applies for "negative material" and, I don't think country of birth qualifies under this.

If I can get your support, I am willing to go ahead and split the article myself, add the specific inclusion criterion (notable, Australian, and politician; notable, Australian, and musician; etc.), and try to make them as comprehensive as possible (by adding notable Australians who are on WP)--of course, it would take several days and I would certainly appreciate any help ;-). I look forward to your comments. Cheers, Black Falcon 06:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the lead to "notable (per WP:BIO) and born in Australia" would make it a self reference which is generally frowned on. Making a hidden comment about only adding entries for people already on Wikipedia destroys the suggestion that the list is important because it contains redlinks (a comment below). --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually meant changing the lead to "notable and born in Australia" -- I did not intend that we should put "per WP:BIO" in the article itself, but rather to clarify what I meant as notable. Also, I don't really buy the argument of importance because of redlinks--I think the value of the list lies in aiding navigation and being informative. In fact, I think all redlinks should be removed (either completely deleted or un-linked and left as black text only if there is additional cited information about that person). -- Black Falcon 22:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't support the qualification "born in Australia" - that means say for explorers you wuld include Hamilton Hume but not his companion William Hovell nor many other explorers and 19th century Australians. Citizenship would also not be a test for the 19th century. Are these lists only about 20th century and later?--Golden Wattle ^talk 22:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 19:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After looking at this, it really comes down to case of redundant info. I think the rest of the "List of..." ethnicities should go as well, but not sure if this AfD can be stretched that far. Tarc 20:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The problem with categories is that the subject has to have an article. In the "Science and Technology" section there are 15 redlinks, all for people or objects or organisations that should have an article. There is much larger number of redlinks there than other sections, reflecting the poor covereage of Australian Scientists in WP. A list is a valuable reminder of eminant Australians who should have articles. ~~I'm inclined to weak keep for that reason.~~ --Bduke 20:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response: the red links for scientists are mainly from the article on the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and are replicated there - a more useful concise list explaining criteria for inclusion .... Graeme Clark should surely be mentioned in the article on the Cochlear implant - he isn't ?!? - does that mean he wasn't a significant contributor or that the Cochlear implant article is incomplete? I am sure he would be much more interested in having his achievements included in the relevant article than a random list. Similarly the Stump-jump plough should be updated to include the Smith brothers, inclusion on the list is no substitute for not making sure the article which is the focus of their achievement is more adequate. The only other orphaned red link is Nathaniel Szymczak - in my ignorance I have never heard of him, he is not linked anywhere - it may be that he should have an article but a red link on a list that fails to explain why he is notable is no solution!--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: the inclusion of Nathaniel Szymczak would appear to be a joke - he is a 2002 graduate of the University of Illinois [36]. He was added by an anon on 31 Jan and hadn't yet been reverted. I note also that the page is subject to frequent vandalism and rather random inclusions and reversions - for example, the removal of Jackie Chan from the list [37] - the whole edit history gives a good view as to why this list is useless.--Golden Wattle ^talk 22:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the red links being validated and added to Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Complete to-do. However a quick scan shows most of the red links are linked from either no other article, or only List of notable former students of PLC Sydney or other lists, meaning validation is non-trivial. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added them to the to-do list, but will remove Nathaniel Szymczak. --Bduke 22:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I added them to Template:Australia opentask which is included on the Notice Board. --Bduke 22:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any 'List of x-nationality' is far too broad and indiscriminate to be maintainable (Vatican City may be an exception). This really needs to be a category. Nuttah68 20:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - there is of course a comprehensive Category:Australian people and many subcategories.--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Black Falcons excellent argument, and for the record there is no such thing as a list that is better served by or is superceded by a category. Rather the reverse, as lists can carry far more information than a mere category could ever hope to. Jcuk 22:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, far, far, far too broad a list for my mind. Unmaintainable. Lankiveil 02:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep We have List of Galician Jews but aren't allowed List of Australians?? Either get rid of all the nonsense or none it. Not some. I could be convinced to swing to "delete" if given a very good reason and an address to my concerns. Usedup 03:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I raised the idea at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board to move this list to Lists of Australian people, and maintain a list of lists that are better defined. Currently this list as it stands has poor definition and will never ever be considered anywhere near comprehensive or complete. In other words, it's completely useless. -- Longhair\^talk 03:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that idea (to split the list), and I think the new title by convention would be Lists of Australians. I'm going by what I've seen in a few other cases (e.g., see Lists of Muslims), and apologize in advance if that is not the accepted naming convention. -- Black Falcon 05:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as is. Longhair's idea for coordinating lists of Australians is a good one. --Peta 06:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more notable and encyclopedic than List of Pokémon. --Vsion 23:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Black Falcon. Mathmo ^Talk 00:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Almost all delete votes are from Australians, who would be likely to be the primary maintainers if this list were to be kept and improved, and almost all keep votes are from non-Australians (apologies to those caught in the generalisations). Is this an indication that the list is (or could be) useful to the rest of the world, but Australians know where to find better information? --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't voted either way - and I'm not going to.

If I am looking for information about an Australian - I probably already know who they are and can just type their name.

If I am looking for information about an American - I am probably looking for information about "who was the XXX when YYY happened" or something, and for this I would go to a list of... article like List of Presidents of the United States.

I guess, Americans are in the reverse situation so a List of Australians is more useful to non-Australians than it is to Australians.

This article, should become a list of lists of Australians by subject / profession - then people who want to know who was the Premier of NSW in 1964 can look at a table on a list.

You cannot get that information directly from a category.Ga rr ie 00:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the comment but there are more than 20 million of us right now (not all with wikipedia entries yet) and many more that have died. The argument is not against List of Australian scientists, list of Aust PMs, .... but the very general List of Australians - insufficient inclusion criteria, bound to incomplete, subject to vandalism, useless. List of lists OK but that isn't what this is.--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can make it a list of lists in 5 minutes. In fact, I have proposed doing so above, but did not want to proceed without consensus support (or at least the support of one of the people who voted to delete). -- Black Falcon 00:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of lists supported by me - no problem eminently sensible, as discussed by Longhair above. Each list would be judged on its own merits but hopefully have adequate criteria for inclusion. Note Australian does not equal Australian born - we are a country with a high proportion of migrants.--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, although I can easily create new lists, I'm wondering as to value of a List of Australian academics or aviators that contains only 5 or so names. I have removed all names from the "Architecture", "Politics", and "Sports" sections (leaving only links to the main articles). How about renaming this page Lists of Australians and spinning it off into separate lists where possible, but leaving in particularly short sections? This would leave in sections like "Academia" and "Law", which would later be turned into unique lists of their own once WP gathered more articles on Australian academics and jurists, respectively. -- Black Falcon 01:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be too difficult to add more academics. I can think of several scientists where we have articles and more if we did not restrict the list to "People born in Australia" but added those who worked in Australia. --Bduke 04:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now agree about creating sub lists and making this a list of lists. --Bduke 04:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no trouble in creating a new page lists of lists, but I think the debate about this list of Australians should be allowed to run its course, otherwise the two issues might get confused. Alternative recommendation is to redirect to a list of lists of Australians, a proposal that sounds as though it might have some concensus. --Golden Wattle ^talk 04:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not suggesting that the debate should not run its course. I was just !voting for the final outcome. --Bduke 05:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to the possibility of a list of lists of people. Some of those lists will be fine, but some will likely suffer the same problems as this list - unclear inclusion criteria. I support the lists complying with WP:LIST that have objective, citable references for membership and a realistic chance of being complete and maintained (such as prime minister of Australia#List of Prime Ministers). I don't support lists where membership is based on some subjective estimate of notability or on the existence of a Wikipedia article. "List of Australian aviators" could include every Qantas or Virgin Blue pilot, which makes it unsuitable as a list unless we honestly believe they should all be in it. "List of pioneer aviators in Australia" could be defined to only include people who were pilots before World War I started, for example, which makes it a closed list with a defined membership criteria that makes every member notable. An academics list must require a higher standard than "Has a Ph.D. and is employed by a university". Some of the subheadings will be easy to make suitable criteria for. Most will be hard or impossible.--Scott Davis ^Talk 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are being a bit too literal in your interpretation. A "List of Australians" should not include every Australian who ever lived no more than Category:Australian people should. Lists on WP are assumed to be about subjects who are notable (see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lists of people). The lead sentence itself states that "this is a list of notable people", so you've automatically excluded anyone who does not belong in WP. Is every Australian pilot notable? Of course not! So, naturally, they won't be included. I really don't see what's wrong with having a list of notable Australians. -- Black Falcon 18:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment' This is where notability raises more questions than answers .... by what criteria? I suggest the potential edit wars and arguments about what consistutes a notable australian is a dangerous road to travel - I would support golden wattles list of lists - at leas there is a handle that be hung tighter and less arguable notability criteria... and it would get around the issue - next mentioned - Satu Suro 04:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not opposed to a "List of lists" (and think it can be worked out), I don't see why "notable Australian" is particularly controversial: it's simply an Australian who meets WP:Notability. Also, the "list of lists" option leaves the problem of people who fall in a category with only a few other members (e.g., Aviators). -- Black Falcon 04:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIST includes "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources..." but does not mention notability. I doubt that WP:Notability is intended to be such a reputable source. I support lists that have unambiguous and objective membership criteria. We should be able to tell when a list is complete. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if this is going to be deleted, then you'll have to delete the hundred-or-so List of people by nationality subdirectories along with it. --Candy-Panda 12:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tempting, but stressful. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and feel free to nominate any similar lists for deletion as indiscriminantly broad and unmaintainable. Lists of Australians, on the other hand is good idea but it doesn't need this as a basis to start from since it shouldn't list individuals. Eluchil404 09:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete ~ Arjun 14:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecomorphism[edit]

Represents a neologism and violates WP:NOR - only 5 hits from google[38], one of which appears to be a rival claim to primacy of the term here Mcginnly | Natter 13:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as vanity, author even admits he made it up. Nardman1 14:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, I put a speedy tag on it as it violates Wikipedia:Complete bollocks SmartGuy 15:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Guy, I've removed your speedy tag. This fella only registered today and I don't want to offend him - he hadn't even received a {{welcome}} so he can claim ignorance of policy with some justification. As a undergrad essay it's not complete bollocks (we all write them like that in architecture) but I agree it is per wiki-policy - but WP:NOR is fine to cite as a removal criteria for these purposes and doesn't risk losing a potentially productive new user (WP:BITE). Hope that's ok. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool by me, didn't notice he was recently registered, maybe a bit hasty on my part. Just trying to keep the house in order. SmartGuy 17:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from the article: The term 'Ecomorphism' was first 'coined' by Rion Wight, a Cornell University architecture student,operating under the wikipedia account name of archnoir during February,5 2007 - he made it up yesterday, joined wikipedia and wrote it up. If this stays I might as well write articles about all my lyrics, cartoon characters, stories etc. Totnesmartin 17:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy -- it's a decent-looking article from a graphic-design perspective; shame to waste it. Of course it can't stay in mainspace. --Trovatore 19:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube 23:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ecomorphic design has about 15,000 Google hits,[39] and there are references back to 1992 cited here. Rather than deleting, perhaps this belongs there? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, do we know if the term Ecomophism (as 'coined' by Rion Wight) is the same ecomorphism as discussed by A. Turner et. al? This link , provided in the article doesn't mention the term. Don't get me wrong, the architectural approach mentioned in the article does describe a 'trend' (which can probably be traced back to Robert and Brenda Vale and others in the mid 70's, the concurrent oil crisis and James Lovelock's gaia hypothesis) - my problem is I'm not sure this approach is any different to green design, sustainable design, environmental design etc.etc.etc. (or whatever other articles we have on the subject), and I'm not sure the term is in wide spread usage and so may fail notablility criteria. Perhaps someone will set me straight.--Mcginnly | Natter 13:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm undecided about the article (architecture isn't my forte), but if the consensus is to delete it might be nice to save a temporary copy of the article in Archnoir's userspace, in case he's able to improve it (or if he'd just like a copy of his work for use elsewhere). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Ecomorphism" is the most fantastically ugly, ill-formed, pretentious, clunking neologism. For that reason alone it should be strangled at birth. Twospoonfuls 20:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article's been cleaned up and improved since the last vote, so I'm relisting it. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone removed the claim that Archnoir invented the term and tidied up the 'as long as yer arm' references, but the nomination rationale has not been addressed and edits such as this [40] are even more worrying - The Guggenheim is hardly the best example of form follows function, indeed it's been widely criticised as being quite a bad building to hang art in (something about the curving walls and flat paintings if memory serves - but a great building for people watching) furthermore it's actually quite an expressive building evoking cadillacs, the auto-age etc. and then we get to the usual FLW ornamental glass skylight - conveniently omitted from the image - precisely how is this an example of form following function? Enough now, let's get rid. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy redirect to sustainable architecture or others as suggested by mcginnly. Let the user know to maybe add some of his knowledge there. Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbs High School[edit]

Speedy deletion overturned on WP:DRV and brought here for a full discussion. My opinion is below. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or as second choice merge with the school district. As high school articles go, this one has a reasonably well developed history and alumni section but the sourcing is not entirely adequate as of today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For more media coverage see [41] and other entries at Google News. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why bring it to AFD if you don't really want to delete it? --BigDT 16:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because one DRV opinion said explicitly overturn and list and the other said overturn and optionally list, so it is responsible to list it? Is there some harm in gaining community consensus to keep? I don't see any danger of any article with the phrase "High School" in it being eradicated. GassyGuy 18:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Same reasons as for the previous hundred High School article AfDs. — RJH (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The article may need to be improved but there is no valid reason to delete it Morthanley 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per all aboveOo7565 05:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability. Simply existing and being a school that does its job is not enough: there has to be something that makes it stand out from its peers. The article doesn't say what that is. WMMartin 17:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This was the first black school in Saint Petersburg for blacks, but to know that you would have had to read the article... Morthanley 19:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first black school for blacks? Which was the first black school for whites? Nonsense. Delete. Soltak | Talk 20:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The first school in St. Pete that allowed black students to enroll. It says a lot about you when you say that is not notable Morthanley 22:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Page is and has always been a copyvio from [42]. No prejudice against creation of a sourced, non-copyvio version. Shimeru 17:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comments below, it appears that the information was copied from Wikipedia, not vice-versa. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stricken, see discussion below. Shimeru 09:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve Article is more interesting and informative than the typical high school article, and the school's status as the first high school for blacks adds to its notability. It's not very well organized and written, and it needs sourcing. I don't know if it is possible to tell whether the content in the article appeared first in publicschoolreview or here, since both sites accept user contributions (the same person may have contributed to both sites). However, it should not be hard to improve upon the current article. I found the school's own website and added a link to it, along with an interesting factoid that I picked up during the couple of minutes I spent investigating the school. --orlady 19:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment: Don't high schools generally qualify as "notable" due to their importance in the local context?--orlady 14:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another added comment (related to allegations of copyright violation): Earlier I said "I don't know if it is possible to tell whether the content in the article appeared first in publicschoolreview or here". Having studied the page history, I now believe that it is publicschoolreview (which accepts user conributions) that is using content from Wikipedia, specifically the Revision as of 05:05, 30 November 2006 by SmackBot and the Revision as of 21:05, 15 November 2006 by 66.194.104.5. The Wikipedia article includes contributions from and rewrites by various different registered and unregistered users, starting in September 2006. I believe these November versions are the only ones that have the same wording as the publicschoolreview page. In particular, notice the Notable alumni discussion, where the writeup about Michelle Dowdy has changed several times (the language in the two cited November versions was different from earlier versions and was changed again on December 14), and where Jeffrey Lacey was to added the Wikipedia article on December 3 (Lacey does not appear in the publicschoolreview page). Surely Wikipedia doesn't delete articles for copyvio because another website copied from Wikipedia without attribution.--orlady 04:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a high school, and remove any copyvios. Cloachland 03:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio (so tagged). If the illegal text was excised the article would essentially no exist. If an article on this subject is wanted it should be written from scratch. Eluchil404 09:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the speedy delete tag from the article in favor of continuing this discussion.--orlady 15:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there's not much to discuss, unless someone can determine when the text was added to the above website -- we could then tell whether it was there first, or here. Personally, I was going to wait until the AfD closed and then report it as a possible copyvio for investigation (in this case, that would involve blanking the page, since all versions include the potential copyvio text, but blanking while an AfD is ongoing is not optimal). I'm not sure whether it meets G12 -- the site doesn't claim ownership of user-submitted content, so it doesn't fall under the site's copyright; it could still be a copyvio (the original author would retain the rights, if it were submitted there before here), but I'm not sure it's "blatant." I don't see any means of determining when the text was added to that website, though, short of contacting their agent for claims, and that's a step I'm a bit hesitant to take as an individual editor. Shimeru 04:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the speedy deletion tag, it appears that publicschoolreview.com copied their info from Wikipedia, not vice-versa. Interestingly, the archive.org snapshot of this school profile from February 2006 contains none of these details, and as you mentioned, they allow user submitted content. I have submitted an email to the operators of publicschoolreview requesting that they link back to our edit history for GFDL purposes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that proves anything, since our article only dates to April 2006. It's still possible that the text was added to their site between February and April, and then copied here. Shimeru 06:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proof is in our edit history. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, no. Evidence is in our edit history. It seems likely, though, and applying Occam's razor, I've stricken my !vote. I imagine the response to the email will provide the final proof. Shimeru 09:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Eluchil404. Valrith 13:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn Pea ceNT 05:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of airports in Ohio[edit]

Wikipedia is not a web directory. This information is just a reprint of the data in Airport and Facilities Directory. There are already several web sites (airnav, etc), which provide this type of on-line interface to the AFD data, using automated conversion of the FAA data feeds. Manually maintaining yet another copy adds no value, especially since it largely duplicates Category:Airports in Ohio -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a nomination which isn't garnering any support. I hereby withdraw my nomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has enough other info to not merely be a duplication of the category. I don't think the nominator has really understood what is meant by "wikipedia is not a web directory." Of course we have many articles that are directory-like and we are on the web, but that isn't what is meant. It is to keep people from creating articles that are just lists of external links; wikipedia is a directory on the web but it is not a directory of the web. Recury 16:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per precendent and poorly understood nomination. Just being a list is not grounds for deletion. i kan reed 19:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Recury and inappropriate nomination. This list meets WP:LIST by being informative and useful for navigation. In additiona, as already noted, it is not a duplicate of the category. -- Black Falcon 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Recury. Mathmo ^Talk 21:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets criteria #1 in WP:LIST as an informative structured list. Punkmorten 21:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets criteria in the list guidelines. (jarbarf) 20:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:52Z

Anders Sandberg[edit]

A bio for a postdoc? This is a classic vanity page and is not notable per WP:BIO. Mnemopis 02:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sandberg is a fairly significant name in transhumanism--as mentioned in the entry, he was chairman of the World Transhumanist Association, and this article on the history of transhumanist thought says (in section 4) that he was also a major contributer to one of the organizations's founding documents, which laid out the ideas behind a more "academically respectable" form of transhumanism. Sandberg is also quoted a number of times in the book The Spike by Damien Broderick, and in Citizen Cyborg by James Hughes (Hughes' book also has a long section on the World Transhumanist Association and its founding documents, and the WTA is the main group for those who support his philosophy of Democratic transhumanism). Hypnosifl 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomOo7565 17:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Edeans 06:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete He is clearly not yet notable as a scientist--5 peer reviewed papers in specialized journals , and still a postdoc. ~~He is not mentioned in the WP transhumanism article~~--and they list quite a number of people over several centuries as their founders. Nor is he listed as one of the two founders in the article on the Society. It might be enlightening to look at his web site. DGG 06:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to DGG's comment above, Sandberg is in fact mentioned in the "History" section of the wikipedia transhumanism article, which says "A number of similar definitions have been collected by Anders Sandberg, an academic and prominent transhumanist." Looking back, it appears this sentence has been there since May 5 2006. He is also mentioned on the list of transhumanists article, one of only 54 entries. While I agree he is not notable as a scientist, I think most people with a significant level of familiarity with transhumanism would agree he is a notable transhumanist. Hypnosifl 03:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC) You are quite correct that he is mentioned, right in the middle. My apology.DGG 03:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promising but not yet notable. Edison 15:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable within the Transhumanist movement, and despite his relative youth he has been well known for a while in those circles. I first heard about him when he and other transhumanists were interviewed in an issue of the excellent but sadly defuct 21*C magazine quite a few years back. For what it's worth Google book search "Anders Sandberg" transhumanist Google scholar, Web search, same text query M Alan Kazlev 03:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, try the Google Scholar search and you'll see that his few papers are rarely cited. Not notable. Mnemopis 05:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But no one is claiming he is notable for his academic career! He is notable because of his position in the transhumanist movement, the Google book search shows he is quoted or discussed in a significant number of books about transhumanism, including Ray Kurzweil's influential book The Singularity is Near. I really would advise people not to make a judgment about keeping/deleting unless you have a reasonable level of familiarity with the transhumanist movement as a whole. Hypnosifl 06:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very familiar with the Transhumanist movement, both with its movers and with its mover-wannabes. Anders is a wannabe. He has not done anything notable as yet that merits a Wikipedia page. Maybe some day he will do or write something significant, but he hasn't yet. Anyone who researches the matter sufficiently will very likely concur. I'm still waiting for anyone to show me anything he's done that's notable. Mnemopis 06:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you define as "notable", exactly? There are a number of prominent transhumanists who haven't written books on the subject (Nick Bostrom, Robin Hanson, Max More, etc.)...do you have any criteria for notability besides writing books or founding transhumanist groups? I'd say he's notable as a thinker and commentator, someone whose thoughts and opinions are valued by other prominent transhumanists, as evidenced for example by how frequently he's quoted in books by others such as Kurzweil and Hughes, and by the fact that he is often invited to speak at transhumanist events or collaborate on group efforts such as the founding documents of the WTA mentioned above. The opinion of his peers should count for more than the opinions of us wiki editors, I think. Hypnosifl 07:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I stated at the top of this page, Anders Sandberg is not notable per WP:BIO. Also see What_Wikipedia_is_not. Mnemopis 08:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The central criteria of WP:BIO is that "the person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person", and "This criterion includes published works in all forms". Sandberg has certainly been the subject of a number of published interviews, such as this one from German television, or this one from the BME ezine. Hypnosifl 18:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not notable. Most people here have already voted to delete. Mnemopis 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say it's not notable? Do you disagree that Sandberg has been the primary subject of non-trivial published works? As for your second comment, please note that according to AfD etiquette, "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself." Hypnosifl 20:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't been the primary subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. Mnemopis 22:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I was asking was why you think the interviews I linked to above don't qualify according to the stated criteria. For example, isn't the BME ezine a reliable source on the topic of mody modification? I'd also add this article from the magazine New Scientist--it's an interview with both Sandberg and Nick Bostrom, but it seems to me that when there are only two subjects they could both reasonably be called a "primary subject" of the interview. And this page from the Future of Humanity Institute mentions in its "interviews and reports section" an "Interview for the Swedish youth radio program "Stjärnstopp" about life extension, cryonics and identity, Anders Sandberg" (more info here), along with a few others. This page from Eudoxa links to several more (see highlighted version here to find the ones involving Sandberg), although in most cases the language is not english so it's hard to tell to what degree he was the primary interview subject. Hypnosifl 23:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you produce anything from reputable sources? Show me something about Anders in Nature or Science, or just any respectable source. Mnemopis 23:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(un-indenting) The criterion stated in Wikipedia:Notability is reliability, not "respectability" at the level of peer-reviewed journals like Nature or Science. (and as I mentioned before, no one is claiming Sandberg is notable as a scientist, so if that's what you're suggesting it's a strawman--what would you consider a reliable source on the subject of transhumanism?) TV news programs and magazines like New Scientist would in my understanding be considered reliable, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and I think a notable ezine like BME would also be considered reliable in its specific subject area of body modification, although this one might be more of a gray area. Hypnosifl 00:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so you can't produce anything from reputable sources. Glad we cleared that up. Mnemopis 00:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One-liners are not very productive. Can you state what specific criteria from Wikipedia:Notability you think is not satisfied by the New Scientist article, for example? If not then it seems to me you are relying on your own subjective sense of what a "reputable source" is, not wikipedia's official policy. Also, can you answer my question about what would be a reliable source on the subject of transhumanism, as opposed to the subject of science? Hypnosifl 01:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has a small number of publications, none of them in respectable journals, and they rarely get cited which indicates they are not significant. This person definitely does not belong on Wikipedia. He's not notable; he's not even mediocre so it's amazing that anyone would think he deserves a Wikipedia page. Mnemopis 05:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Anders Sandberg is an important person of the transhumanist movement. If you cannot recognize this, then you 1) do not know enough about the transhumanist movement, or 2) have issues. //Kada, 9 Feb 2007

this is not convincing. If there is anything notable about him, then out with the details and credentials. Mnemopis 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there is no other way I can convince you. The details are right here on Wikipedia, in the article about him. But according to you it's not enough. What must he do, win the Nobel price? // Kada, 12 Feb 2007

Delete. Promising but not notable. Maybe try again in 10 years. Brainsynth 01:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this and this Addhoc 11:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incidental media coverage, as evident from the above searches and links, doesn't yet cross the WP:BIO threshold. Sandstein 06:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though little-known outside the Transhumanist movement, he is very well-known within it and been a significant contributor. In addition, he crosses the WP:BIO threshold via known coverage in New Scientist and a number of minor publications. 210.86.40.235 11:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting, debate still going on and poor consensus. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is a well-known transhumanist, as well as a notable scientific journalist in Sweden. Has numerous published debate articles, though in nordic languages.--85.226.76.109 16:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Avi 15:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant ideological contributions to the Transhumanist movement internationally. Very significant for the Swedish Transhumanist movement. Numerus publications in Swedish newspapers and magazines. Several apperances in Swedish television on Transhumanist subjects. Not a notable Scientist but then his research is very narrow, not many other who write papers with in that field at all. Also longtime Science editor in the Youth Scientist radio in Stockholm. here

Keep. High impact within the transhumanist movement, and a significant contributor to the visibility of transhumanist ideas. Michiexile 22:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Beside the arguments above we have the fact that Anders Sandberg is very often in TV, like scientific programs national Swedish channel SVT and the channel Kunskapskanalen. Fabben 05:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sock-puppets and meat-puppets notwithstanding, Sandberg is completely non-notable as a neuroscientist, which is what his Wikipedia page seems to focus on. If he has some role in Swedish Transhumanism, then his bio should be just over that, though this does not seem notable either. Seriously, if my uncle played a role in Uganda's Transhumanism scene, would that merit a Wikipedia bio? Hardly.

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:53Z

Veronica Lane[edit]

Autobiography of nonnotable wrestling person. Contested speedy. NawlinWiki 14:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic, nonnotable, etc, etc. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. Shimeru 17:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

---Don Coss opens the show up. He tells us that we missed a mixed tag match with Steve Doll & Ginger vs. Scotty the Body (Raven) & Veronica since we weren't at the arena live. No result is given. He announces the Southern Rockers (Doll & Rex King) are leaving the PNW to go on a world tour and their last appearance will be January 27th at the Sports Arena and there will be a big party. http://www.kayfabememories.com/TapeReviews/portlandtv/pnwtv11390.htm

Previous Managers: Diamond Dallas Page, Beulah McGillicutty, Kimona Wana-Laya, Chastity, Francine, Tori, Terri Runnels, Lucy, Alexis Laree, Lori Fullington, James Mitchell, Mike Samples, Veronica Lane, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0506610/bio

World Championship Wrestling

In early-1991, "Stunning" Steve Austin moved on from the USWA to Atlanta-based World Championship Wrestling. Initially, Austin was managed in WCW by a woman named "Vivacious Veronica", http://www.popstarsplus.com/wrestling_men_steveaustin.htm

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gomer (Bible). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:54Z

Gomerian[edit]

This article definitely fails WP:NEO and probably fails WP:No original research. Unscientific, unreferenced, unverifiable, and racist to boot. Jsorens 14:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any material that's not OR to Gomer (Bible). --Dweller 14:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense to me. I'm not sure that much of the article is salvageable, though. --Jsorens 16:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio of [43]. Delete: There is no sourced info to be merged into Gomer (Bible) which talks mainly of Gomerites and where the references to Gomerian added by GomerianGod should rather be removed. Tikiwont 17:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link above was actually copied from wikipedia. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're of course righht I did not look far enough down...So I'll correct my opinon accordingly.Tikiwont 19:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wamper

Ampligen[edit]

Ampligen entry contains big mistakes (e.g. Ampligen phase III trial for CFS was completed in 2004, Bioclones' marketing rights are being challenged by Hemispherx Biopharma, Ampligen raw materials are no longer manufactured by Ribotech) and lacks relevant indispensable elements (e.g. the results of the phase II and phase III trials for Ampligen for CFS, relevant Ampligen patents)while containing a lot of irrelevant material (patent to infuse tobacco ). The serious side-effects that are referred to lack correct evidence. The link that is offered is a testimony of one person who cannot even prove that her problems were caused by Ampligen... It's a hopeless task to correct all the mistakes and the set-up of this entry, so someone should start from scratch. Well, as I don't feel called upon to contribute, let me suggest that someone who is called upon to contribute to compare the Wikipedia Ampligen entry with the information in the following fairly dependable research report http://www.boenningandscattergood.com/research/CI/HEB%20%282006.12.1%29.pdf and in the Sec filings of Hemispherx Biopharma http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000946644&owner=include I for one, as Ampligen is an experimental drug, would wait for an EMEA European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) http://www.emea.eu.int/htms/human/epar/eparintro.htm or FDA equivalent. Wamper 15:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Insufficient reasons given for deletion. The desire to remove any perceivedly irrelevant material is not a reason to delete the article but a reason to reach consensus regarding deletion of such material from the article. Omission of perceivedly indispensable information is not a reason to delete the article (and counterproductive), but a reason to add the information if available. If an article is full of errors and contains no sourced information, that would be reason to AfD, Prod or Speedy. However, the nominator only provides four perceived mistakes, which is not a reason to delete an article. The mere suggestion that the article is full of errors is not sufficient. The AfD process is not intended to invite other editors to check an article for mistakes not listed by the nominator and not geared to replace consensus discussion on the talk page. [44] doesn't strike me as the best of sources, if only because it sounds like a commercial and introduces this 40-year-old drug as "new" and "21st century". AvB ÷ talk 16:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've repaired an error (changed 1997 to 2004, sourced the change). AvB ÷ talk 17:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as per AvB. Moroever, the article was posted here in the middle of an edit war by a single purpose account. Tikiwont 16:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed. It would be interesting to see the nominator cite some sources, if only because it would help improve the article. AvB ÷ talk 17:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per User:Avb. The article has dozens of sources and the assertation by the nominator that "It's a hopeless task to correct all the mistakes" is simply an underestimation of the ability of WP editors. -- Black Falcon 19:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the main contributor, I obviously want it kept, but I probably shouldnt vote in the interests of fairness. However, if anyone feels like giving the article a proof read, and having a go at understanding the drug and correcting the 'mechanism of action' bit, it would be really useful. Thedreamdied 19:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the Ampligen entry, I want to say that to me it is not credible that Thedreamdied on the one hand knows all the things he knows, and doesn't know all the things he has wrong on Ampligen in his article. It's clear to me that Thedreamdied's aim was not to write an informative, well-balanced, well-documented article on Ampligen, but to discredit Ampligen by stating e.g. that it has serious side-effects, a false and defamatory statement, or by stating that "As of 2007, a new trial is recruiting" while, in order to suggest that the completed phase III will not be sufficient for the FDA, Thedreamdied "forgets" to add that this concerns an open label protocol study, carried out to obtain additional safety data (Phase 3 studies), that are typically used when the controlled trial has ended and treatment is continued so that the subjects and the controls may continue to receive the benefits of the investigational drug until marketing approval is obtained. http://www.fda.gov/oc/ohrt/irbs/drugsbiologics.html. Donklo 22:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Donklo, please do not discuss the editor but limit yourself to the edits. You may want to familiarize yourself with our rules. I'll post some pointers on your talk page in a minute. AvB ÷ talk 23:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep — bad faith nomination; note the series of sockpuppets ➥the Epopt 00:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:59Z

Seneca College Student Help Desk[edit]

Delete Article is a stub, and lacks relevance Ohhzone 15:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam for their website. Recury 16:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per Recury. --Selket ^Talk 17:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Spam. Resolute 23:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both to Dreamgirls. Sandstein 16:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Effie White[edit]

Dreamgirls is a great play and movie and all, but there's nothing here about either character that isn't or shouldn't be included in the articles on the musical or the Dreamgirls movie. I'd say redirect both to Dreamgirls. FuriousFreddy 03:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I agree, unless the parent article gets extravagantly long, there's no reason to start creating tons of daughter articles.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The charatcers are now somewhat more in the public eye than before due to the film and the oscar nominations, I say both should stay, as the creator of Effie White's page, I needed information on the character and had to seek it out from multiple sources, surely wikipedia is about gathering information and sorting it out in one place? I think it should stay! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flamer on (talk • contribs) 11:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- If it were to stay, it would need to be throughly re-written. It basically repeats information from the plot summary. An article on the character(s) should detail their creation and development, their particular character personality traits, and, in the cases of these two characters, how they relate to their real-life counterparts, Florence Ballard and Diana Ross. --FuriousFreddy 17:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd Keep The Effie White page, as the main character of a major movie. This character is the type who has already developed amongst at least Americans (I cant speak for anyone else) as a reference; i.e. her situation was like Effie Whites. Someone who dosnt know what that means will want to look her up. Finally, I know this is not a valid argument to make but we do have a page on Philip J. Fry.--CastAStone|^(talk) 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dmz5-MsHyde 18:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now personally written a whole section about the comparison between Florence Ballard and Effie White. Hopefully now, the page will stay. I agree the first part needs some editing down (the part about Effies role in Dreamgirls) but I think in a whole this page is important - seeing as Margot Verger has a page, and she is only a character in the book version of Hannibal, surely someone as influential and motivational as Effie should stay! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flamer on (talk • contribs) 20:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- The article doesn't have the right tone - it reads like a fanpage, and is full of original research and what could be described as fancruft. You might want to review the Manual of Style, because that linked Philip J. Fry article isn't much better. --FuriousFreddy 03:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplication of content from the parent article mixed with original research. This maybe could be rewritten to pass WP:FICT, but I would honestly prefer a page on Characters of Dreamgirls or some such than for Deena Jones, Effie White, etc. to get individual pages when there's only so much to be said. GassyGuy 06:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Avi 15:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only claim to notability is being a "Bryce Select award" winner, but that award's importance or even existence is unverifiable due to a lack of sources. Sandstein 16:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Neff[edit]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:NN. Unencyclopedic and non notable conspiracy theorist. Strothra 16:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Insufficient and illogical reasons given for deletion. The subject is an accomplished, award-winning digital artist as well as web designer for one the most visited and visible websites on the internet. Wikipedia has plenty of entries of digital artists whose works hasn't been seen by one tenth as many people as Neff, you'd better start by asking for all those entries to be deleted first. Your last argument doesn't make any sense, since Neff is a web designer and graphic artist, not a conspiracy theorist. TimothyHavelock 21:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete unfortunately none of the information just provided is in the article, nor is there adequate sourcing. If the article can be imporved to demonstrate his accomplishments, then it would be a keep. I also note the separate WP article [Rense.com.].. DGG 07:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. I'm certainly open to suggestions on exactly which points need to be sourced. The website's visilibity can certainly be sourced easily via Alexa.TimothyHavelock 16:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has been placed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Conspiracy theories

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Award winning artist and notable webmaster of a major website. I predict the following people will appear here Morton Devonshire, Tbeatty, Bov, rogerd, GabrielF, Aude. Where does the conspiracy theorist angle come from? --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 21:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Webmaster and guy who made a landscape that a forum liked. Borderline speedy Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Tim said it best; award-winning, notable, etc. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 16:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing newsworthy (0 results on Lexis-Nexis search of articles) or particularly notable. He is mentioned as "award-winning" with the link referring to the "Bryce Select Award". I don't think "Bryce Select Award" qualified for "multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." I tried to find out about that, but just two google results for that. [45] Doesn't seem like a notable (or verifiable) award. Not notable enough to make him qualify under WP:BIO. --Aude (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aude. Webmasters are not notable unless there are sources about them. Bryce is 3D modeling software. A quick google search showed nothing for a "Bryce Select Award" that would indicate its an award of any significance. GabrielF 18:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GabrielF and Aude. Non-notable. MortonDevonshire Yo · 19:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per above. Travb (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article does not assert notability. I can't figure out what the Bryce select award is, but it links to a dead site place holder. --Dual Freq 04:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neff is a politically opinionated graphic artist and his artwork is known for being controversial. Rense.com is one's the biggest conspiracy/alternative news sites on the web, and I would argue that plenty of people visit the site just to see the latest political montages and controversial artwork. TimothyHavelock 00:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's not a vote, most people make one of their remarks keep, or delete or something else, and mark other remarks as comment. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:59Z

Simon's favorite factoring trick[edit]

My original stated reason for putting a prod on this page was "Articles on manipulative tricks and how-tos of this kind are inappropriate for Wikipedia. It also constitutes original research." User:Rich257 removed the tag, stating "Disagree with prod, this is reference and hence not OR. It is a mathematical method. It may not be notable however". This is simply wrong, as WP:NOR clearly explains that references must be reliable, and in this case the reference is just a discussion forum. --C S (Talk) 16:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the trick does not appear notable. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think WP:NFT describes this exactly. --Selket ^Talk 17:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - this is nothing more than a simple extension of the FOIL Method (First, Inside, Outside, Last), as was taught by my 10th grade geometry teacher and virtually any other geometry teacher worth their salt, reattributed to some dickhead schmuck on a shitty self-promoting website. The naming is absolutely abhorrant, and the self-promoting history is vanity at its worst. Anyway, to summarize - this trick has been around for a while. I wouldn't support a deletion of the correctly named article - I'd rank it up there with ROY G. BIV, Thirty Days Hath September, and other educational folklore. But - but!! - to attribute it to some schmuck on an internet site is demeaning and degrading to the efforts of teachers everywhere. --Action Jackson IV 22:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Action Jackson IV. This is obviously FOIL. JuJube 02:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete attempt to make an article out of an offhand remark. --Trovatore 04:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's OR, and not very good OR at that. DavidCBryant 12:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. artofproblemsolving.com is a reputable maths teaching web site, but this article fails to meet WP:NOTABLE. Gandalf61 17:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Action Jackson IV. FOIL it is, even though I hadn't heard of it under that name, either. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bella Morte. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:56Z

Songs for the Dead[edit]

Delete, possibly redirect to Bella Morte per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleed The Grey Sky Black Avi 16:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Also nominating for the same reason:[reply]

As the Reasons Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Quiet (Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Where Shadows Lie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keep all. Notable acts generally get album articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yuser31415 01:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Morte[edit]

Does this pass Notability? Avi 16:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe they satisfy WP:Music in that they've recorded on a couple of semi-major labels. "Media appearances" are trivial but they do have reliable sources with two separate verifiable interviews. Cricket02 19:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, they do exist as a band. I do not see a reason to delete an article on them. It just needs more fleshing out in terms of origins, concerts they have played, etc. --Ozgod 23:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page should not be deleted, Bella Morte is a legitimate band with a very, very large underground following, if this page were to be deleted I'm sure some fans would catch wind of it in a few days and post a new one back up. Perhaps citing some of the online interviews that are in the external links, as well as citing Bella Morte's page on Metropolis Records' site to prove they are signed onto a major label, could prevent this page from being deleted?Nikolai Revolutionary 02:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as a stub. Pea ceNT 03:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural leveling[edit]

Dictionary definition (WP:DICDEF), now transwikied to Wiktionary. Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 22:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It's a substub, not a dictdef, and the difference is that there can be paragraphs written on the subject. Anything that can be taught in a Sociology 101 textbook should be in WP. hateless 23:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't see much difference between a dictionary definition and a substub. If paragraphs can be written on the subject, then now's the time for that to happen. Otherwise I stand by the nomination. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:DEL makes that distinction. AfD is not a method of cleanup, please don't misuse the process. hateless 00:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This isn't misusing the process. Please assume good faith. I don't see paragraphs of information there, or even an encyclopedia article. I see a one-sentence dictionary definition. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 00:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That it is one sentence long does not make it a dictionary article. You don't understand the difference between a stub dictionary article and a stub encyclopaedia article. Please read our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, which explains it. Uncle G 01:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I've read WP:DICDEF and I still think this one-sentence article is better suited to Wiktionary than to Wikipedia. Please do not get upset or take it personally. If you think the article can and should be expanded, then by all means do so. If that is done, then my nomination of the article as a dictionary definition will no longer be valid and will be withdrawn. Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 01:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Society topic, has encyclopedic potential. --sunstar net^talk 01:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded. It's possible that this is a real term describing a real phenomenon not already discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia (it seems to be related to but different from Cultural appropriation and Cultural assimilation and an antonym of Cultural diversity), but at the moment the article provides no evidence that it isn't just a protologism. —An gr 07:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, transwikied already. --MaNeMeBasat 14:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sunstar and the above searches. Addhoc 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless or until someone writes a sourced article (or even a better stub) that asserts the term's notability and that the term does not have a more prominent synonym, such as "cultural globalization" or "global assimilation", in which case redirect. Pomte 05:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Avi 16:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a stub that could be turned into a decent article. The fact that it is bad shape is reason to tag it for cleanup, not deletion. --Selket ^Talk 17:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per inappropriate nomination. This article, as it stands, is nothing more than a dictionary definition. It is not, however, inherently bound to be nothing more than a dicdef. Moreover, WP:NOT#DICTIONARY states: "if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia". I do not think this critical step was taken before nominating the article for AfD. I don't think this is a bad-faith nomination, but an inappropriate one. Many stubs start out this way. -- Black Falcon 19:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per inappropriate nomination. I don't know whether it's going to do any good to keep repeating that the relevant criteria is whether the topic could have an encyclopedic article written about it, and not whether it already does, but simply denying that won't cause it to disappear from policy. This nomination should never have been brought. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:58Z

Amazona (wrestler)[edit]

Procedural lifting after I removed the speedy del request. No opinion myself. Cowman109^Talk 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet notability requirements for professional wrestlers. Soltak | Talk 22:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a title so meets notability. Keith D 23:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because someone has a title doesn't mean "notability" has been established.

198.138.41.77 22:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this search. Addhoc 11:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cites no coverage by reliable sources, per WP:BIO. Sandstein 06:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the IWA web site as a reference for the title. Keith D 11:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Avi 16:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not make an adequate assertion of notability. There is no one wrestler called "Amazona" who stands out when searched for; several wrestlers seem to have used this name at various times. --Hyperbole 21:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; possible merge. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 22:01Z

Americablog[edit]

Someguys blog. Not notable website. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is crap, but 150+ references on Google News -- that's current news. Aravosis and guest blogger Cliff Schechter are regularly on cable TV, Americablog was part of breaking the Jeff Gannon story[46], and Americablog embarrassed Congress into passing a cell phone records privacy law by buying Gen. Wesley Clark's records[47]. --Dhartung | Talk 19:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May deserve brief mention at Jeff Gannon or privacy law, then, but a whole article about the blog is always going to be crap because of the lack of independent sources specifically about the blog. MastCell 21:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rewrite. I'm with Dhartung on this one. --Action Jackson IV 22:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Used as a source for one of the more bizarre controversies at the White House. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article title should be corrected, though. As the article itself notes, it should be "AMERICAblog". Askari Mark (Talk) 03:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 22:02Z

Todd Kessler[edit]

Hoax article. Gives no evidence from reliable sources that he is actually a motivational speaker. No evidence of notability. A previous version of the page (mid-January) listed three motivational books by him that appear not to exist. (Removed here). The website listed in the article, pyramidskeem.com, does not seem to actually sell those books or anything by him. When it functioned last, it was offering punk rock items. He claims a connection with QVC that can't be verified on Google. EdJohnston 17:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, spammy, and probable hoax. MastCell 21:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable, verifiable resources -> No Wikipedia article. Keesiewonder ^talk 22:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect. -- RHaworth 20:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UP chemical society[edit]

the C in chemical and S in society are not capitalized, created a new article for this with same content pogi 17:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect make this redirect to the other page --Selket ^Talk 17:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to UP Chemical Society. I'm not sure that this organization satisfies WP:ORG but that can be dealt with in a separate AfD for the properly capitalized article. --Metropolitan90 18:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as copyvio. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 03:01Z

Akto S.A.[edit]

I really can't tell if this is notable or not. Ideogram 18:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio from [48] without prejudice to re-creation. The school may be notable, but if it is, the article should be created with original text rather than copying directly from the school's web site. --Metropolitan90 04:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Removing the copyvio neuters the article completely. Nothing salvageable right now. - grubber 17:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed, it's a copyvio. WMMartin 17:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is not sufficient substantial coverage by reliable sources. Sandstein 16:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KKE Architects, Inc.[edit]

KEEP, see below previous discussion copied from Deletion Review Jisher 18:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article concisely states the firm description and scope, with no self-promoting gratuity, and provides unbiased 3rd party references. The article provides a brief synopsis of “notable” existing and proposed buildings. The article also provides a non-promotional history timeline, which is informative and educational to an architectural firms progression. Please see my user page for additional info. Thanks! Jisher 08:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, references must not only be third-party, but must also be reliable and non-trivial. WP:N is not a "pick any one" criterion. First couple of sources (Architecture Week) are trivial directory-style listings (likely paid ones), third one trivially mentions the company (one sentence!), and the rest don't mention this company at all! A non-trivial source means the company is the focus of a full piece (not blurb or directory entry) in a reliable, editorially-controlled or scholarly peer-reviewed publication. (Note: If the company really did help significantly in building Mall of America, I would imagine better sourcing can be found. No prejudice to recreation if better sources are found and cited.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an additional reference to KKE’s involvement in the Mall of America and updated the KKE Architects, Inc. page. As for the architectureweek reference, I simply provided this to indicate what this firm specializes in (as there are many various aspects to this profession). Architectureweek is a free online weekly newsletter with a free directory that is derived from the wiki “Archiplanet.org” website. I could refer the article to the KKE website for the same information, but I thought that would appear too self-promoting. And to address your comment that some of the sources only cite one instance of mention to the compnay, it is not uncommon for these design professional's to be briefly credited. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact the architects routinely rank as one of the least unhappy and lowest paid professionals. One reference does not indicate KKE, but Howard F. Thompson, whose firm/work was acquired by KKE. Also, I noticed someone deleted the pages content…I believe this should not have been done. As stated in wikipedia’s deletion review process “While the review is in progress, you are welcome to edit the article, but please do not blank it…” Jisher 22:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Did this come here straight from a speedy? there is no relevant history before the deletion review., and no AfD. . DGG 02:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, yes. RHaworth recomended I place it here for review. Here is the brief history on my attempt at this article: The article was first posted on 2-2-07, and this was my first ever wiki attempt. That article was speedily deleted by Chairboy. I revamped the article and reposted it on 2-8-07, but it was then speedily deleted by RHaworth who indicated it was "reposted spam". The thing is, I believe he was quick on the gun and must have reviewed the first (2-2-07) artcile deleted by Chairboy, as he made mention of references only in the original 2-2-07 version. I tried to make him aware of this, but he insisted I move this to deletion review.Jisher 04:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List on afd. Assuming that I understand the sequence, it seems an example of over-hasty and rather careless process. There's no point in trying to defend decisions made on such a basis--with the record as confused as that, the course is to have a proper AfD debate in the ordinary way. The ordinary way works fairly well. DGG 05:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

very weak delete 2 of the sources in the refernces section on considered reliable by wikipedia standards, however neither mentions the subject of the article more than once. i kan reed 19:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point of the lack of mention, but as I indicated above, acknowledgment of the design team is often very brief, if at all (for most projects). I will due my best to keep an eye out and include additional interview references and the such (if consensus/admin. decides to keep).Jisher 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a complicated case because these folks designed the Mall of America, but the article's format and style does not sit well with me - i.e., it doesn't place this company's relevance in a broader context. YechielMan 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per yechielman - Mall of America is the only linked article that might possibly give a link back, but it doesn't. Aaronbrick 03:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YachielMan: There are very few architectural firm articles available for reference that I could find as an example of format. As stated in my user profile, I choose to loosley model the KKE article from the semi-longstanding “Skidmore, Owings and Merrill" article. Jisher 06:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaronbrick: Yah, I tried yesterday to add a link within the Mall of America upper right facts box...but for some reason it does not show up (I'm pretty fresh to this). If you have the time, could you elaborate on what I may be doing wrong. Thanks Jisher 06:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of meeting the notability criteria at WP:CORP. —An gr 15:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 guess being the architect of the Mall of America isn't very notable. I give up...no more wiki's for me. This site has no consistent consensus, and is just plain vanilla. It's no wonder the articles I read here continually fail to comprehensively cover their topics. Too many (wannabee) chefs in the kitchen.Jisher 21:44, 19 February 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Hull II[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. CobaltBlueTony 18:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC. MastCell 21:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Selket ^Talk 21:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 22:03Z

Baraminology[edit]

Pretty much this ENTIRE ARTICLE is based on http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/ alone, indeed, there was copyvio from that site until earlier today. As I thought there was reasonable consensus (50% spontaniously suggested merging) in the last afd), and Talk:Created kind), what parts of this article are verifiable and not single-source have already been merged with Created kind, but the changing of this page to a redirect proved controversial, so I ask you for permission to delete a page (making it a redirect, of course) where all the verifiable, notable material is already merged. I'd also like to point out that neither article is well-maintained (check the logs - edited maybe once a month), so merging them will make them more maintainable by focusing what minor effort there is. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC) •[reply]

Redirect No reason not to. I don't know what unhealthy process obsessions are creating this problem but a) they aren't good and b) are an incorrect interpretation of policy anyways. JoshuaZ 19:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and source both or delete. Neither this article, nor Created kind is actually verified by the sources in the references section. While both terms are fairly notable in the area of pseudoscience, verification is really critical for even notable subjects. i kan reed 19:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just two months ago the AfD conclusion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baraminology/Archive was keep as this is a subset of creationist belief not shared by all creationists. And it is difficult to deal with the verification issue: the holobaramin, monobaramin, apobaramin, and polybaramin distinction section is not a copyvio (I wrote it in 2004) but it says similar things to what Adam Cuerden regards as a copyvio. --Henrygb 20:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, the old one was near word-for-word similar, you pointed out that very old ones were slightly different. Those terms still only have one source, and less than a thousand ghits each. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baraminology/Copyvio Have a look at this. I highlighted the words that were identical. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that is a case for reverting back to the earlier and now current non-copyvio version. Which I did, before you put up this new AfD page. So it should not be an issue here. And I see 11,000 hits for baraminology--Henrygb 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but "That Adam considers a Copyvio" is implying that others wwouldn't consider it as such. You brought it up, I just said there was one previously (not naming a section), as it does make me worry that the other sections might have hidden copyvio. Also, I was referring to Holobaramin (~649 ghits), monobaramin (649 ghits as well), apobaramin (348 ghits), and polybaramin (218) - that whole section is clearly non-notable, anyway, and other sections, if anything, are *EVEN WORSE*. This is why it should be merged: there's not enough to say about it that isn't single-source. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, take this section, "Recent baraminology research": In 2003, the Baraminology Study Group applied "analysis of pattern" to multidimensional biological character space data on sunflowers and fossil equids. They found a strong linear relationship and continuity among the sunflowers, and termed this relationship "biological trajectory." In applying the method of fossil equids, they found a branching relationship in the data, which indicated a divergence in ancestry. The linear relationship corresponded to the known chronological order of the fossils.[49] - This is a summary of a SINGLE, NON-NOTABLE PAPER. And I don't think that anything but the sections I put into Created kind does any better. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand This is useful information for several reasons. First, it is clearly a major component of creationist pseudoscience. Creationists, and those trying to decipher creationist nonsense and blather will want to have access to this to be able to understand what they are encountering. This is the principle function of an encyclopedia; to provide a ready source of information about some subject. Second, this term will not likely be covered in standard science texts, because it is pseudoscience, but still those trying to defend against this pseudoscience need to understand it to arm themselves. This makes a WP contribution even more relevant. Third, the only other source of this sort of material will be in the copious creationist websites and tracts. None of them of course will identify it as pseudoscience, which it is. They will only talk about how wonderful it is, misleading the naive. So, in the absence of any proper scientific reference, the only information the public will have is badly biased. This is why it is REALLY important for WP to discuss it from a neutral point of view. Is it plagiarism of a single source? Possibly. Is it still pretty scanty? Yes it sure is. So it should be expanded, and fleshed out, so it can form a resource that is balanced, describing what baraminology is, its relevance, history, providing links, etc. This would be a very useful contribution. --Filll 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are other articles that wikilink to Baraminology. ^ross^nixon 01:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That isn't a reason to keep it by itself, it might just mean they will all redirect to created kind. As far as I can tell, the notion of baraminology hasn't been discussed in any independent reliable sources. Heck, the TOA which is one of the most prominent pro-evolution/anti-creationist/whatever-term-you-prefer groups has not a single mention of the term. [50]. Contrast that to something like Flood geology which has gotten mentioned in major newspapers and other independent sources. JoshuaZ 01:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is a concept used by a considerable number of people in a definable way, and the use of it is (unfortunately) widespread enough to be notable. I have added some additional distinction to make clear that it is not a science, and that the terminology it uses is not scientifically meaningful. There are different groups of creationists, and they use different terms and have organized their field in various ways. They shouldn't be considered as a homogeneous mass, as the disputes among them make evident. There is a single biological science, biology dealing with testable relationships. This is not true of creationism, as its concepts are derived on other bases. DGG 07:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Mirage Islands[edit]

I can't find any verifiable evidence from reliable sources that this republic exists, other than the information given on the website linked in the article. Werrington Downs, the location given for their "consulate", is landlocked, and the website does not give any location for the islands themselves, so I think WP:WEB applies, unless there is some external evidence that this is more than just a website. The Anome 19:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to show notability, and appears to be an advertisement for a money-making enterprise. Only $5,000 for an ambassadorship, eh? PubliusFL 19:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verifiable sources can show that the article is not a hoax. i kan reed 19:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax/spam for a commercial enterprise. Searches of the CIA Factbook, the US State Department website, and the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Offices websites reveal no references to "Mirage Islands". --Charlene 21:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - in fairness, the "Republic" claims to be a micronation. You wouldn't expect to see Sealand on any of those sites, either. Of course, Sealand has plenty of other verifiable third-party references, and this group doesn't appear to have any. PubliusFL 21:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I recently purchased a small uniface coin from this entity, so that claim at least is real. The coin was despatched from a mail-drop address in Finland. The embassy address is in a residential area of Sydney's western suburbs. I suspect this is some overimaginative teenager living with his parents. The stuff about owning a private island is certainly a total fantasy. The verifiable content, such as it is, should be added as a 1-liner in the micronation article. --Gene_poole 01:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, micro-micronation. --Stormie 04:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Pseudo-micronation. — Askari Mark (Talk) 01:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nineteen Eighty-Four. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 22:04Z

Neo-Bolshevism[edit]

I doubt that the term is used in the sense specified in this article. Google search only gives references back to wiki or rather general connotations of new+Bolshevik. Thus the article appears to lack encyclopediatic value. Soman 19:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Speedy Delete: article may be devised as an attack page, with strong POV and possible defamatory statements regarding it's primary subject. i kan reed 19:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. MastCell 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kirby (Nintendo). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 22:05Z

List of Kirby magical items[edit]

This is a perfect example of a "game guide" article that belongs on a fan wiki and/or gaming site. RobJ1981 19:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I wouldn't have nominated this myself, but it does appear to fail on having reliable sources. i kan reed 19:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I fail to come up with a good reason, but I want it kept. Rubbicub 05:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Keep and delete votes need a good reason for/against the article. RobJ1981 04:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything significant to the game articles, then redirect to Kirby (Nintendo) per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: none of these items have any significance outside the games themselves. --Pak21 11:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything significant to the game articles, then redirect to Kirby (Nintendo) per Pak21--SeizureDog 12:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Pak and SD. The colours/paints for instance seem pertinent to only one game, other general power-ups don't have impact outside of the game itself, nor are they iconic like Mario's magic mushrooms (crazy man!) or the Master Sword from LoZ. I'm not against articles like these, but they must offer a strong case for their existence, otherwise it makes a mockery of deleting articles like 'list of BF weapons' etc. etc. which are born from unchecked list-lust. QuagmireDog 13:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the 'common items' are either obscure items used in one particular game, health restoratives (a vast amount of games use these, there's no real need to list them all) and the 'candy' invulnerability item, again invulnerability is not a new or scarcely used concept. That leaves 'magical items', such as the Star Rod, used to defeat the end boss of two games (with a couple of cameo appearances in other Ninty games) and the Rainbow Sword, used to defeat the end boss of a single game. There's no need for this information to be destroyed, but popping it into a seperate article means scrutiny, and it ain't standing up to it. QuagmireDog 14:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mid Keep and clean up i really dont see much reason to delete this. the information is valid and it doesnt state go left on the next corner to find a free life so its not game guide. the weapons and items are just a breif rundown. I aggree though it is a bit guideish so a clean up is in order if it does stay. Maverick423 18:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is the information "valid"? There are no sources, which means it fails verifiability (if you point out the manual as a source, it's a synthesis of several primary sources along with original commentary and thus it fails no original research.) Weapon and item lists tend to be the function of an instruction manual, which is also WP:NOT territory. I would support a trim down and merge into the various game articles, but only of the ones that are significant. ColourBurst 04:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Pak21. Guide guides are located three tubes over: [51] --maclean 05:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eryk Elliott[edit]

This has been prodded, prod removed, tagged for notability, tag removed (along with a "uncategorised person" cat). Article started by contributor called Eryk Elliott who has a redirect to this page on his user page. Fails WP:BIO, WP:COI and WP:PORN for starters. Definate delete from me. --Richhoncho 19:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PORNBIO. Mr Stephen 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Plano Independent School District in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 22:07Z

Carpenter Middle School[edit]

This article has been speedied, prodded twice, and this time hit with a notability tag. As it has been prodded twice I am bringing it here for debate. I have no opinion either way, save that it would be helpful if we were consistent in our dealing with schools. FWIW, I brought a primary school to AfD only to see it survive. As I say, consistency would be nice --Richhoncho 19:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as wholly non-notable. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 21:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tend to err on the side of keeping middle schools, but this one does not even assert notability. -Selket ^Talk 21:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To begin with, I want to remind everyone that there is not policy of notability on schools. The requirement of stating some assertion of notability is mainly created on the fact that millions of articles that are commercially based or focused individual self-promotion would be littered all over wikipedia. I believe that if any article that is not advertising in this said manner is viable. In addition, as an additional requirement, I believe that articles should have some substance and according to policy, they should have some referenced material or at least list some legitimate sources. This article appears to have some information, and I am sure that in the future, individuals could work on and improve the article based on these sources. As always, we should not be excluded articles on wikipedia on just notability alone; self-promotion and commercial characteristics of articles with illegitimate sources should be the targets of deletion. This article appears to have some possibility for growth, and I believe that if until some templates for clean up and additional sources are added, and then if no progress is made on the article within a few months, then the article can be properly assessed. --Thank You. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Browsing through the non-wiki g-hits, I'm not seeing evidence of notability as defined by the notability proposal for schools. Kathy A. 23:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while there is no accepted policy or guideline relating to schools, WP:N suffices, and in this case, I do not see multiple, indpependent, non-trivial sources about this school. The two sources listed, and the only ones I can find on google, are the school itself, and the school division. Neither are independent. I would also suggest that the class nicknames and lunch schedule are about as indiscriminate as you can get, leaving the meat of the article as nothing more than "This school exists." Simply put, this school is not notable. Resolute 00:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Resolute. By the way, this article should not have been PROD'd twice; WP:PROD provides that an article which has once had its PROD tag removed should be taken to AfD if anyone wants to delete it. --Metropolitan90 04:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. WMMartin 18:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_notable_peace_time_veterans[edit]

The list is patent nonsense, does not define inclusion criteria, some people on the list are not peacetime vets in any way, shape, or form L0b0t 19:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE, per my nomination. Prince Andrew? He is a combat veteran for cryin' out loud, he flew a helicopter around as a decoy target for Argie Exocet missiles in the Falklands War. We already have a List of military veterans, this is just silly. L0b0t 19:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely nonsensical, and already covered by other lists. 23skidoo 20:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a (very poorly researched) list of ex servicemen who never saw action. An indiscriminate and potentially endless list, most nations still have some form of conscription. Nuttah68 20:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contains significant original research, some inaccurate. Unnecessary as there are other, better lists. --Charlene 20:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR and decidedly arbitrary. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was expecting a list of famous people with notable peace-time military service. Instead find entries for Du Bois (with a note that he failed his physical) and Rickover (in service during WW2 but may not have "seen combat"). With that range of inclusion, the list is indiscriminate and very ill-defined. Gimmetrow 20:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must also point again to what triggered this nom. (and my ire at the list); Prince Andrew, who most certainly did see combat, even helping to evacuate sailors from HMS Sheffield after she was hit by an Exocet. Cheers. L0b0t 21:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Adding sources or at least showing that they exist would have been helpful, given that the nomination was based on WP:CORP W.marsh 17:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School Island[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:CORP. Nv8200p talk 20:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This site is being used by the NYC Board of Ed. (one of the nations largest school systems) for Regents Exam prep and homework assignments. I'm working on citing sources. L0b0t 20:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also in use throughout New York state. L0b0t 20:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being used by the NYC Board of Ed. does not meet any guidelines for notability. -Nv8200p talk 01:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is as notable as L0b0t says, then he/she should be able to add some references (complying with WP:RS) fairly quickly. NYC Board of Ed involvement should be noted, and the implication of such involvement should be discussed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Selket (talk • contribs) 21:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. First, I feel that the subject is not notable: this is just another piece of software for helping people do their job, and that is not per se notable. Further, this looks like disguised PR rather than a genuine article. If adequate sources ( that is, not provided by CASTLE Software or its affiliates ) are not provided by the end of this debate, I feel that we don't lose much by deleting. Of course, we should allow re-creation if decent references/sources can be found, and a better assertion of notability made, but right now the article looks to me like a cunningly disguised puff piece... No doubt CASTLE Software are aiming to sell their product to other customers, and you can be sure an article like this will help them. WMMartin 18:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Loudoun County Public Schools. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 22:09Z

Belmont Ridge Middle School[edit]

Mulitiple AFD: Today we are in Loudoun County, Virginia for another batch of humdrum middle schools. Schools out? Brianyoumans 20:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also included in this AFD:

--Brianyoumans 20:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all these stub-class articles on middle schools, none of which assert any claim for notability. --Hyperbole 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To begin with, I want to remind everyone that there is not policy of notability on schools. The requirement of stating some assertion of notability is mainly created on the fact that millions of articles that are commercially based or focused individual self-promotion would be littered all over wikipedia. I believe that if any article that is not advertising in this said manner is viable. In addition, as an additional requirement, I believe that articles should have some substance and according to policy, they should have some referenced material or at least list some legitimate sources. This article appears to have some information, and I am sure that in the future, individuals could work on and improve the article based on these sources. As always, we should not be excluded articles on wikipedia on just notability alone; self-promotion and commercial characteristics of articles with illegitimate sources should be the targets of deletion. This article appears to have some possibility for growth, and I believe that if until some templates for clean up and additional sources are added, and then if no progress is made on the article within a few months, then the article can be properly assessed. --Thank You. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 22:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No claims to notability on any of them. Resolute 00:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per resolute and Hyperbole. JuJube 06:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Middle schools are notable educational institutions. The articles serve well as part of a series of Loudoun County Public Schools which is among the fastest growing school districts in US [52]. The Loudoun County is one of the fastest growing counties, and probably the wealthiest county in US [53] (among more than 3000 counties in US). The district and its schools are closely watched in the media for their program and educational reforms. --Vsion 06:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and merge any useful content. Middle schools are notable educational institutions as a class, and WP quite properly has an article on the subject. The middle schools in a region may together constitute a notable part of the cultural and institutional life on that region, and may possibly warrant an article, though I take no position on the appropriate size of the region. Loudon County, being notable as a fast-growing region, probably justifies an article on its middle schools. But not on each individual one, unless there is something truly notable about a particular one. For the moment such content can be merged, and we can then see if there is enough to justify an article on a particular one. I have checked each individual article, and found nothing that might be. In fact, the information would be much clearer in a single article, since almost the entire content of each articles is a description of the changing boundaries between the different zones and the schools into which they feed. As a final note, the article nominated has the revealing comment thatit follows the: "standard Loudoun County Middle School plan," DGG 08:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. Not notable. It's not enough just to exist. WMMartin 18:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All A big load of non-notable schoolcruft. Soltak | Talk 00:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Not notable — MrDolomite • Talk 18:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All or Delete and Merge all into Loudoun County Public Schools or some common Loudoun County middle school page (which DGG suggested). I haven't been on Wikipedia in awhile, but I noticed today that one middle school's page has been deleted and the rest are recommended to also face the same fate. I think Sukh17 said most of what I wanted to say, and being the one who created these pages, I made them for the purposes of being there for others to improve on them in the future, that's what Wikipedia is all about. I also now also realize that making pages for schools that don't have too much info can also get deleted too. In any case, if there is some way for the pages to either be consolidated into a new article of some sort, I'll be happy to help with that. Thanks. 20176 02:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and merge any useful content as per DGG. Icemuon 19:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 04:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orgone[edit]

The page is bs. Wikipedia is not the place for bs. Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 20:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Changed my vote to Keep after reading the other responses. Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 21:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination has been withdrawn; an admin should close the AfD. --Hyperbole 03:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's notable as an example of a popular fraud which the FDA has taken action against. Its discredited, fringe nature should be made more clear in the article. It's BS, but it's notable BS. MastCell 21:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia most certainly is the place for notable and verifiable BS: see, e.g. phrenology. The Orgone energy fraud appears to be both completely verifiable and substantially notable. --Hyperbole 21:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable fraud mentioned by many organizations including Quackwatch[54] and The Skeptics' Dictionary[55]. Notable frauds are still notable, and those whose notability (not claims) are supported by reliable sources belong on Wikipedia. --Charlene 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article makes it clear that orgone is pseudoscience and this is the kind of thing encyclopedias are for - to look up the history and details of an idea (even if the idea is complete nonsense). Jeendan 22:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - the existence of strange theories is as much of a fact as anything else. And if you delete the page, it will be recreated, and recreated worse, and the process of making it NPOV will start over 1Z 23:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "BS, but notable BS" pretty much sums it up. By the way, "BS", being an acronym, should be capitalized. "Bs" it is not. --Action Jackson IV 03:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep WP is just the place for notable BS. It differs from the Web, because this is where the notable parts get identified. DGG 08:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs more information on why the FDA banned it. The link has nothing on why. It should be expanded on what tests they did to determine orgone was fake. SakotGrimshine 11:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:CSD#G4. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isnin.Com[edit]

This article fails to verifiably demonstrate this company's notability per WP:V and WP:CORP. The article was speedy deleted[56] and a variant, Isnin.com (lower case "c"), was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isnin.com A. B. ^(talk) 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't this fall under a Speedy delete cat, what with all the re-creations?. L0b0t 20:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 03:02Z

Britain's Favourite Break-up Songs[edit]

Poor-quality, missing most of the songs, non-notable from a minor TV programme produced to fill out air time on a marginal TV channel. Nssdfdsfds 16:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no indication of the survey taken to produce this list. Presumably it is detailing a one-off channel five program rather than to try an be an article about break-up songs. Pretty non-notable really. Mdcollins1984 23:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like it was only broadcast once, and there isn't any third-party coverage shown. So, non-notable. ShadowHalo 11:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, it's unnecessary. Corqueatsz 14:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable program based on a non-notable, unscientific survey on a non-notable topic. No evidence given that program or its subject were ever the subject of non-trivial third-party discussion. --Charlene 20:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio reproduction of a commercial companies original research without permission. Nuttah68 21:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Britain has loads of cheap, one-off "list" programmes - this is just another one, and on a channel which doesn't even cover the whole country. Also, the list is incomplete, and there is no information about what the programme was like. Looks like someone got bored halfway through writing it, or they turned on halfway through... Totnesmartin 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 04:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer economy[edit]

Delete This stub is two years old, and seems unlikely ever to be useful.JQ 04:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the nominator's reasoning seems to be centered around the fact it is a stub. Which is not a good reason for deletion. Secondly, as the article itself states "As such, the subject is of special interest to economists". And from my experience I'd agree with that statement, which means I also strongly disagree with "unlikely ever to be useful". Mathmo ^Talk 21:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very notable topic, with 100,000+ google hits for the term. [57] This term also appears in 700+ books [58] and nearly 2,000 results on Google Scholar [59]. No shortage of reliable sources for this article. --Aude (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a critical topic in economics. --lquilter 01:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The consumer economy is a major part of the economy in most developed countries. Shops, banks, credit cards, advertising, all depend on it. Nominator needs to read a newspaper sometime. I can't believe this is a stub. Totnesmartin 23:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rivers of Blood speech. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 22:13Z

Druscilla Cotterill[edit]

this person is not notable. That she exists is notable in that it proves the Powell speech was not based on a fabricated anecdote, and the rivers of blood speech is highly notable, but there's really nothing that can be usefully said here that does not better belong under Enoch Powell - she has no notability whatsoever on her own account. Nssdfdsfds 01:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Inspiration for one of the most important political speeches in Britain, and which is considered highly notable today; what her life story actually was is highly important in checking whether Powell was reporting accurately, given that he was challenged for distortion. It's not appropriate to include this in Enoch Powell's article, more appropriate to have a separate article. Fys. Ta fys aym. 11:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to Rivers of Blood speech. The person is not particularly notable in her own right, but there should be a section on the page about the speech. --Grand Slam 7 | Talk 13:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Rivers of Blood speech per Grand Slam. --Metropolitan90 04:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer that Rivers of Blood speech should be merged and redirected to Enoch Powell while Druscilla Cotterill remained a separate article. The identification of Cotterill is not unchallenged (although I think it's pretty clear that it was her). However, the Rivers of Blood speech is pretty much inseperable from Enoch Powell's reputation. Incidentally, we don't have anything from the speech on Wikiquote, where I'm an admin. Fys. Ta fys aym. 09:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has multiple, non-trivial, media articles about her, so (just) passes Wikipedia:Notability. They are recent media reports, so likely to increase in number. Rwendland 08:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the articles only exist because of Enoch Powell. She has no notability of her own. And the reason for the recent media reports is the information that she was source for the Rivers of Blood speech only emerged recently. Having been covered by the media once, she lacks notability, and she appears to have lived a pretty unremarkable life, and there's little chance of any future information being published about her. It's only that she was discovered (retrospectively) recently that there's any sourcing. If this had been found out 40 years ago she would be a footnote in a history book, just because there's online sources doesn't make her notable. Nssdfdsfds 11:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherie Blair is only notable because she is married to Tony Blair (she would not be notable as a barrister), but she has a separate article because she has a life of her own, and because it would unbalance Tony Blair's article to include excessive detail about her. In any case, footnotes in history books often make the basis for very good articles. Fys. Ta fys aym. 11:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability defines notability in the sense of "attracting notice" not "importance". There was a radio program about her, and a newspaper article, so she has attracted some notice - I'd agree two media pieces is very marginal; though that may increase. My view is that Wikipedia is not paper, so accepting marginal articles has little downside providing there is a verifiable neutral-ish source, so if an editor chooses to write a resonable NPOV article on the margins of notability I'm happy to accept it, especially if it keeps the content out of a more mainstream article. Rwendland 14:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect She herself is not notable, the speech itself is. Garion96 (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yuser31415 02:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goler clan[edit]

I am not an expert at this, so I am sorry if I have over reacted, but I felt obligied to blank this article and nominate it for deletion.

1. Even if the Golers were found guilty in a criminal case (a statement which is not made in the article I blanked), referring to them as (mildly) "people who mistreat children" potentially opens Wikipedia up to liability for slander in a civil case. (The issue, for example, in a criminal case is guilt or innocent of particular criminal offences, not whether or not they were unsanitary, which could be the basis for a civil complaint.) Or so it seems to me, but then I'm no lawyer either.

2. In the States, there are some rape shield laws to protect the victim who comes forward with allegations that, usually, she was the victim of a sex crime. Even on Court TV, a rape victim's face is not shown. Using this as a baseline (holding Wikipedia to a higher standard, I would argue, would not go amiss), I believe it to be entirely inappropriate to actually list the name of a child would was allegedly sexually mistreated. I believe it to be inappropriate to name the child even if the child is now an adult and even if the Golers were found not guilty in the criminal case. (Naming children might discourage other children from coming forward if they see they will be listed in a Wikipedia article in the future; so it does not matter if the child in this particular case is an adult or not.) Because a child was named in the article (and hence, will always be listed in the article's history), I believe the only cure is a deletion of the article.

Respectfully, BenedictX 23:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 20:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Comment there appears to be a second discussion page for this article here. Flyguy649 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)~~. It was in the discussion page. Flyguy649 18:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The case gained Canada-wide notoriety in the 1980s when Canada's leading investigative reporting TV programme exposed the story to the remainder of the country. It appeared that over the course of generations (roughly 100 years!), the family had practiced an unprecedented level of incest and inbreeding. I understand the desire to protect the innocent, but the case has gained such notoriety, and the name "Goler" is so well embedded in Nova Scotia culture, that the gesture is pointless. In fact, one of the siblings, under her own name, now gives public lectures about her experiences and about child sexual abuse. References to the Golers when discussing incest or abuse have entered common usage in Atlantic Canada and to remove the term from Wikipedia would amount to denying reality. The entry is relevant. I request it be allowed to remain. Denis 16:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Denis. The article could use better referencing, but there are other sources that describe the events, eg here. Flyguy649 17:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is not censored. This article is on a notable case and is supported by a wide variety of reliable sources. --Charlene 20:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is pretty well known, just needs some expansion and sourcing. L0b0t 21:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep';' , as it was very easy to edit the article to remove BLP concerns about a minor. DGG 08:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets applicable tests for notability, and any other problems can and should be resolved through editing. (jarbarf) 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Chick Bowen 20:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guacaherbert[edit]

Sorry about that. I entered the local nickname for it instead of the actual Common Name. Jegnome^talk _con 00:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search of the name (Here) pulls up zero hits. I'm guessing the name is either spelled horribly wrong, or this is a joke. If anybody knows a correct spelling, please move the page. Thanks, Hojimachong^talk _con 00:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:V. The article gives the binomial species name "Microtus Guacaherbert"; there is no indication anywhere online that this species has been described. The Microtus article suggests no plausible misspellings. I smell a hoax. --Hyperbole 21:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of Jegnome (talk · contribs)'s contributions appear to be hoaxes. Sadly they do not seem to meet the criteria for speedy deletion. —David Eppstein 01:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Not referred to in comprehensive listings of Microtus species, subspecies, and junior synonyms in Mammal Species of the World. --Aranae 07:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 22:14Z

Huerto[edit]

this is a joke, albeit a well-written one. Seventhsaint 06:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in Huerto in the same way that I believe that Jesus was the son of a laundress from South Jersey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.251.125 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 12 February 2007

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Uncyclopedia? At any rate, Delete it from Wikipedia as a hoax. --Hyperbole 21:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. Since it tries to be funny and fails, transwiki to Uncyclopedia is the obvious choice here. JuJube 02:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yuser31415 02:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pearls Airport[edit]

Copy from talk page: I merged this article into the entry for Grenville, Grenada which was the only article linking to this article. Given the lack of notablity for this airport and the noted potential confusion with Pearl Harbor, I have nominated this article for deletion. BenedictX 16:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An ex-airport, probably with a reasonably notable history. A merge and redirect to Grenville, grenada is an option - can't see any reason why it should be confused with Pearl Harbor, though. Do we also delete the article on Codfish Island beause it could be confused with Cape Cod? Grutness...wha? 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split from Grenville, Grenada, keep and expand per Grutness. A nation's first airport, even for a tiny Caribbean nation, seems to have a lot of potential. -- saberwyn 02:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Airports are considered notable, even ex-airports, and this is Grenada's first airport. I also cannot see how anyone could get it confused with Pearl Harbor! --Canley 02:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Possible consfusion with a subject of a similar name is not a reason to delete an article. (Las Vegas, New Mexico... you're busted!). And keep per Grutness' arguments. --Oakshade 03:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yuser31415 02:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save Our Species Alliance[edit]

I originally was going to list this as a NPOV problem, given that it claims the group is just a nasty bunch of corporate types who want to kill the cute little animals, has been written as an attack piece, lacks citations for its claims and what doesn't explain what the group's aims really were. Unfortunately the group is now defunct, and the group's website is now dead. So given that the group no longer exists it's difficult to establish notability for it, and it makes it almost impossible to describe what the group really wanted, so the article is essentially doomed to being a biased piece contrary to NPOV. In other words, it's an ex-group and of dubious notability, and to make matters worse the existing article is contrary to NPOV and probably can't be fixed as the group has disappeared. Nssdfdsfds 18:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Failing NPOV is not a reason for deletion and besides, it isn't so bad that some judicious editing won't fix it up. Notability seems reasonable... a significant effort to influence an important political issue of the past several years. The website may be gone but much of the content can still be retrieved from archive sites like this[[60]].

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:V, as it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial media reports. All those media reports that I've found were highly negative; this article is far more NPOV than any of its sources. There does seem to be a question about whether to write about this organization in the present or past tense, but that's one for the editorial process. --Hyperbole 21:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article should be updated with the fact that the group is defunct and probably changed to paste tense etc. though. I find the NPOV to be under control. Tomtefarbror 21:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Paste tense, eh? So we'll have to glue the article together? Anyway, Keep per all of the above. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (CSD A7) by another admin. -- Gogo Dodo 00:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shabizzlin Videos[edit]

Non-notable Feeeshboy 23:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of recurring kid characters on Ned's Declassified / List of recurring adult characters on Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 22:16Z

Suzie Crabgrass[edit]

There is no reason for this page to exist. Suzie Crabgrass is not an important enough character to warrant her own page, and neither are the other characters I am also nominating. Likewise, we have no need to know the streams of unimportant, not referenced information. Additionally, there is no need for the pages now all characters have their own paragraph of the pages listing the kid and adult characters in the show. They are no longer part of the Ned's Declassified toolbar, and therefore are linked to by very few pages. I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all, merging if any verifiable info isn't already there, to Ned's Declassified per WP:FICT. Characters (especially minor characters) in a work of fiction, with no non-trivial third-party verifiable sources, should be merged and redirected to the article about the work of fiction. Barno 21:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per Barno. This is original research; none of these characters have received non-trivial interest from reliable sources. --Charlene 21:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:FICT and WP:NOT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel J. Leivick (talk • contribs) 21:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge and redirect all to either List of recurring kid characters on Ned's Declassified or List of recurring adult characters on Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide, depending on which target is more appropriate. -- saberwyn 02:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per WP:NOT. --MaNeMeBasat 06:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all to either List of recurring kid characters on Ned's Declassified or List of recurring adult characters on Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide, depending on the character's respective age. But I don't know if it counts as much as I only just got into the show and have only seen one episode. Matty-chan 17:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I must concur with those before me to merge these nominated articles into one. --Ozgod 06:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 22:22Z

Beeswax Magazine[edit]

Google result [61] There is the possibility this is a magazine of some interest. It is mentioned in Achewood, and has published work by Chris Onstad. However, this seems rather trivial. SilkTork 20:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Independent magazines don't become notable before their third issue is published. --Hyperbole 21:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hyperbole is right; where are the relibale secondary sources? Guy (Help!) 22:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 22:23Z

Anant Mathur[edit]

I couldn't verify the content of this page. The only claim of notability is a short film [62]. Tizio 20:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. There's no mention of Mathur or his film on the IMDB - searching for him appears to turn up nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. Also: Delete Rahul's Arranged Marriage for the same reason. --Hyperbole 21:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul's Arranged Marriage. utcursch | talk 14:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarajevo Civil War[edit]

This is a nelogism. There was no Sarajevo Civil War, this term has been invented and placed into wikipedia. There was a siege of Sarajevo by Serb forces, not a civil war in the city. None of major media called siege of Sarajevo "Sarajevo Civil War". It's simply unacceptable and unfair to invent non-verifiable terms and insert them into wikipedia. It's against wikipedia's policy. There just doesn't seem to be enough published information out there to satisfy the notability and verifiability guidelines for a Wikipedia article. Please vote on this matter. Bosniak 20:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is a huge article Siege of Sarajevo witch explainded everything what is inside this article. Also, there is no article witch leads to this one (except list of BiH topics). This article is missing references and external links, so accuracy of all informations is disputed and that includes name of the article (everybody calls it "Sarajevo Civil War"). So why do we need to have two different articles about the same thing (Siege of Sarajevo and Sarajevo Civil War) and besides that, one of them is short and accuracy of all informations in that article is disputed? Why don't we delete one of them? --Kahriman 20:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge. This seems to be a POV fork. Asterion^talk 20:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 27 Google hits for "sarajevo civil war" -wikipedia —Psychonaut 21:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Asterion, clear WP:POVFORK--Aldux 22:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Resolute 00:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There is no doubt of what actually hapened in Sarajevo, it was certainly not a "civil war", unless shelling a town from surounding mountains is a civil war..let's get serious..POV article. Ancient Land of Bosoni
Delete, POV fork of Siege of Sarajevo. Duja► 14:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is simply unacceptable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (facts) not a place to spread personal bias. Vseferović 16:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Content forking // Laughing Man 17:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Siege of Sarajevo. --Action Jackson IV 02:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Edin Sijercic 21:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 since article has been improved to include more sources which assert notability for sure. Flyingtoaster1337 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce McMahan[edit]

Subject is only borderline notable per WP:BIO. He is often mentioned in the news but apparently only because of alleged improper sexual relationships (e.g. [63], [64], [65]). Since the subject or his publicist has been blanking most of the article and he's only notable due to a single incident, this entry should be deleted. I disagree with the talk page reasoning that "Bruce McMahan is notable on account of wealth combined with the fact that the legal conflict between him and his daughter has made him a public figure" - there aren't that few multimillionaires who are more notable than him. (Google "Bruce McMahan": [66]) Flyingtoaster1337 21:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's clearly notable. He's 1) "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" and 2) "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated."

You argue that "Since the subject or his publicist has been blanking most of the article and he's only notable due to a single incident, this entry should be deleted." That's a poor justification for deletion. It shouldn't matter whether an individual wants the information on Wikipedia or not. Exeunt 22:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Type Five:

I agree with Flying Toaster and the Wiki editor who removed this entry last round. Perhaps subject is clearly notable in the mind of poster Exeunt because he is a related party to dispute in question and trying to do damage. How does he know about a PR firm, how was he contacted via email, how is that he refers to the damage to this person's reputation as justifiable in user talk. If this is indeed notable, then Wikipedia should list all wealthy people, and all people who have been accused of sexual impropriety, include all tabloid newspaper and televison content on this database. In my humble opinion, poster is biased with an agenda, not a true contributor to Wikipedia. I am the one who in a good faith edit accidentally blanked the article which I corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Type Five (talk • contribs).

So you're telling me you're a neutral contributor with no ties to Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif LLP who just happened to blank the page for the third time after it was restored? It's disingenuous (very lawyer-like!) to accuse me of being someone with an axe to grind with McMahan; I frequently edit Wikipedia, have no agenda other than improving this project and protecting it from private interests, and I have the advantage of not being a sock puppet and lawyer hired by Mr. McMahan to protect his image.

Oh, and the funny thing about the subjects of tabloid stories--they're notable. What's true and notable about their lives would make it into a good Wikipedia article about them. Exeunt 22:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anything with this much controversy must be notable. The article seems to be suffering from edit wars by interested parties. At this point we have one solid reference, but should have more. The corporate bio is good background, but not sufficient to establish notability. --Kevin Murray 22:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Be careful what you are accusing people of TypeFive, it is ironic to accuse someone of being 'not a true contributor to Wikipedia', and then fill your comment with poor logic, and not sign your post correctly. As for the article in question- Exeunt, you say that there is much coverage, ~~do you think you could link to/cite some more directly?~~ As for the matter of whether people WANT the information on Wikipedia, if information is properly sourced and relevent, removing it constitutes vandalism. It is not for the subject of the article to decide what is in it, otherwise all murderers would demand that the articles on them ommitted the fact that they had killed somebody. J Milburn 22:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I have only just noticed the the nominator provided. This person is notable according to Wikipedia's rules, and the nominator seems to have inadvertently proven that with their links. J Milburn 22:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets strict WP:BIO just on the scandal (same article appeared in Voice and Miami New Times, but the latter had a follow-up too, and the NY Post ran articles as well). The individual is also a founder and longtime president of the National Cristina Foundation [67], which would make him notable in itself. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Exeunt 23:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I am not up on all the protocols of Wikipedia as far as signatures and did not post accordingly. I reiterate my original criteria for deletion per official Wikipedia policies and guidelines and believe the response of Exeunt validates my perspective on this. Type Five 23:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Hope I did the signature thing right.[reply]

Comment You sign your comments by typing ~~~~, or pressing the signature button above the editing window. Your original comment didn't seem to cite any Wikipedia policies- Why do you support the deletion of this article? J Milburn 23:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Though the article is need of a helluva rewrite to be encyclopedic, it appears to cite enough resources to meet WP:BLP. The additional sources listed here only enforce that. Pending a rewrite, I'd say we can keep this one. -- Kesh 23:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm, not sure I'm informed enough on this subject to comment, but WP:BLP is probably worth noting here. I do have some concerns about this article, as the sources do not seem very reliable to me. I don't know that this should be deleted, but I do feel this should get some attention from a person willing to investigate the situation seriously. I do see how this could raise legal issues for Wikipedia though. FrozenPurpleCube 23:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:As long as what is said is sourced, I can't see there being any problem. J Milburn 23:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can, when the sources are not reliable, and the material is defamatory. This isn't the New York Times publishing something, but a much more minor paper. As such, I'm dubious of the source, either in regards to verifiability or notability. FrozenPurpleCube 01:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Okay, the Dealbreaker.com article just references the Broward-Palm Beach New Times articles, so it's not useful. That should be stricken from the article. And the Villiage Voice article is exactly the same as the B-PBNT article, written by the same author, so that one's out. It's looking a bit weaker, but the two B-PBNT articles and NY Post article still support it. The article would be much stronger with new, independant sources, though. -- Kesh 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree that the Village Voice citation should be removed (a) it predates the New Times article (day, hours?), but more importantly it demonstates broader editorial oversight of the writter's allegations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs) 00:27, January 28, 2007
  - Just curious, but how does it demonstrate "broader editorial oversight?" My only real problem with preferring the New Times article is that the second, follow-up article is also on there, and references the first one. -- Kesh 00:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not to reference policies and guidelines correctly. My references on the Wikipedia site were "what Wikipedia is not" along with the policies and guidelines for biographies of livng persons and other guidelines regarding what is "verifiable," encyclopedic in nature, and neutrality. I will try the signature thing again, thanks for the guidance on that.--Type Five 00:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we need is for you to explain how the article violates those policies, not just which ones you feel are applicable. AfD defaults to Keep, so those wanting to delete need to be specific in their reasoning for why it should be deleted. -- Kesh 00:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Type Five, are you kidding us with the "signature thing" you seem to have mastered the reversion process just fine. --Kevin Murray 00:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seriously. You're pushing WP:CIVIL here. Let's keep the discussion to the article itself. If you have a problem with an editor, take it up on their talk page. -- Kesh 00:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Type Five is a single purpose editor recently created whose actions at this article border on vandalism. He/she has also implied that long time editor and broad contributor Exeunt has an axe to grind. Let's call a spade a spade! And I have warned Type Five regarding vandalism at his/her talk page. --Kevin Murray 00:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Call a spade a spade, but leave off the passive-aggressive comments. What you just posted is a lot better than the comment at 00:27. Let the facts speak for themselves, and it's a lot more civil. -- Kesh 01:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to answer you Kesh. I have sent two lenghty responses regarding your question, but they are not going through due to an editing conflict of some sort.--Type Five 00:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC) I will try again. Wikipedia policies regarding biographies of living persons presume that the articles can affect the subject's lives (two parties in this entry), show some degree of sensitivity, are unbiased which I don't believe the author is from his comments and references to law firms, etc.), presumption of privacy, criteria for non-public figures, justification, verifiable sources of high quality, etc. Kevin, I am not kidding about anything, I am a newcomer, I admitted that I blanked a page before I understood how to improve an article, and I was unsure of how to do the signature. I will try to keep this neutral however.[reply]

I appreciate your efforts at trying to explain. There are a few misunderstandings here, though. First, the policies state that the article must be unbiased, not the editors! I have my own personal biases on many subjects, but I still try to maintain neutrality in all my edits. I do have some concern that the reference cited are not of high quality, I'll grant that. And it needs rewritten to be more encyclopedic. However, as of yet, I don't see that it violates policies. It's weak right now, and if the references are shown to be of poor quality, then I would agree that it should be deleted. -- Kesh 01:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Type Five, my appologies. Welcome! You are wrong on this though, and with all due respect, you are trying to push rope uphill at this point. The best that can be done is to try to diversify the article to demonstrate the subject's finer points. Rich doesn't make him notable, and incest doesn't make him notable, but the two are sysnergistic. Per WP guidelines what is noticed and documented is notable, and this poor fellow has definately been noticed in major way. Good luck with mastering that signature function! --Kevin Murray 01:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kevin. Kesh, I have looked up the London Standard on this site as well as the other sources, they all seem to be cited as tabloid or alternative, but I guess they are sources. To me, this is what Wikipedia isn't.--Type Five 01:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to help build this article to include more than the scandal, but don't see much more well referenced information available through the obvious sources. Can we expand the information on his charitable work and his leadership in the investment community? Also, these are at this point allegations from his daughter/wife; how about presenting his side. --Kevin Murray 02:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Times and Village Voice are one in the same company. I retract my argument that the two references demonstrated broader editorial review of the same contributing writer. I have removed the New Times article from the bibliography since I believe the Village Voice article demonstrates a broader geographic interest in the scandal. --Kevin Murray 02:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think we have very much come to the conclusion then, that this should be kept, but worked on a little. J Milburn 11:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on discussion on the article page today there is a warning box regarding controversial and potenially libelous content for bios of living persons. In an effort to create an encylopedic quality quality article, the entry is now really reading like a tabloid. The vibrator entry is particularly troublesome. I suppose the subject matter (wealth, sexual accusations, lawsuits)is interesting to some, but I still feel the article is what Wikipedia is not. When in doubt, do no harm.--Type Five 17:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you argument is 'Wikipedia is not a tabloid, therefore we don't talk about controversial topics?' Something else that Wikipedia is not- Wikipedia is not censored. There is no reason to shy away from talking about more unsavoury aspects of people as long as we source it well. I cannot see why you have a problem with this. J Milburn 17:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 22:24Z

Greenstick Fracture[edit]

This band is a small local band with no record label and no hit singles or albums and none of the band members are notable therefore this band is not notable to be in Wikipedia Joebengo 20:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. No assertion of notability in the article. Band's home page appears to be this [68] Myspace profile, which appears typical of nn local bands. --Hyperbole 21:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC Selket ^Talk 21:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC, no singles, no albums, no touring, no nada. SkierRMH
Delete and create a redirect to greenstick fracture, removing the dablink currently there. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's here, and use the title as a redirect to the medical condition (Greenstick fracture). Grutness...wha? 01:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirection if deleted, plasible misspelling. -- saberwyn 02:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to greenstick fracture. Ye Gods, seems every medical term under the sun has a non-notable band named after it that someone feels the need to disambiguate. MastCell 04:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Greenstick fracture. No released on a notable label, fails WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 05:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Money (Blackadder). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 22:25Z

Leonardo Acropolis[edit]

Stub article about a fictional character in 1 episode of Blackadder Fails WP:N. No independent sources other than the BBC webpage for the specific episode . “Leonardo Acropolis Blackadder –wikipedia gets only 76 Google hits. Per WP:FICT, "Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction" unless the section would become overly lengthy. A sentence in the article on the episode Money (Blackadder) would be sufficient for this character, so Delete Inkpaduta 21:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Selket ^Talk 21:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the episode of Blackadder, so that people searching for the character are moved to the location of the relevant information. -- saberwyn 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Money (Blackadder) - the only episode he was in (for 2 minutes) Totnesmartin 23:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 03:04Z

Critique Report - Wikipedia and the AK-47[edit]

Wikipedia is not for original research on Wikipedia. I'd have userfied this content had the author given any indication that they have registered the problem; there's been no reaction to my talk page message and the PROD tag has, of course, been removed. Also delete the images, which are falsely tagged as "public domain", but are GFDL derivative works (and also OR). Sandstein 21:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is all contra WP:OR, and WP:V. L0b0t 21:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly obvious delete Complete OR, and WP is not a how-to guide. -- Kicking222 22:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete speediable? Pete.Hurd 22:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, if WP:CSD covered this, it'd gone by now. Sandstein 22:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I came across this before- why would someone create this? Blatant violation of various aspects of WP:NOT and WP:OR. Not speedyable for any reason I know. J Milburn 22:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the author has some sort of assignment in technical writing to do. Unfortunately, WP:NOT a free web host. Sandstein 22:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. --Hyperbole 22:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. I thought it might have merit in project space as a guide, but it is too subjective. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an obvious school project. Kafziel ^Talk 23:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from mainspace for obvious reasons, but keep it somewhere, this is too funny to let vanish, and too big for WP:BJ. Resolute 00:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an article. JuJube 02:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
move elsewhere the content is worth preserving, probably by userifying. DGG 08:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
!jaw drops! Pete.Hurd 06:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone figures out a good way to merge/rename these, that doesn't require AfD. W.marsh 16:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of trends in music from the United Kingdom[edit]

I'd like to put Timeline of trends in music from the United Kingdom for deletion, along with all its subpages. These pages are really crap. Maybe redirecting to Music of the United Kingdom would be good, but otherwise the page needs massive reshuffling - the music trends dealt with in these pages is just folk music, and doesn't seem to mention any other sorts of music. I've talked with the article creator, but deletion may be the best thing to do with this, IMHO Montchav 14:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the other pages that would be deleted too are:

English Music[edit]

1500–1899 | 1900–1949 | 1950–1959 | 1960–1969 | 1970–1979 | 1980–1989 | 1990–1999 | 2000–2010

Scottish Music[edit]

1500–1899 | 1900–1949 | 1950–1959 | 1960–1969 | 1970–1979 | 1980–1989 | 1990–1999 | 2000–2010 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montchav (talk • contribs) 14:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Weak Keep with conditions, unless there is a Celtic-Anglo-Saxon folk music time line in existence already. Its not a bad encyclopedia topic, its just badly organized and lacks much information. It also isn't written into sentences. This should be flattened to maybe three articles, one for 1500-1899 for all three regions, one from 1900-1959, and one from 1960 on. It needs sentences, complete with capitol letters, commas, verbs, and periods, like this one. But it doesn't really fall into an encyclopedic category or any other criterion for deletion.--CastAStone|^(talk) 15:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems inevitable that occasionally you will find one whose original author has lost interest in it, and no one has stepped forth to move it ahead. It also seems inevitable that you will find a page whose focus has changed from what the originator had in mind. This may have happened to these pages. Neither of these events is grounds for deletion. Timelines for music, though, serve valuable indexing functions and serve the needs of human browsers. Not averse to merging the pages per CastAStone's suggestion. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pages but re-use the information - there are good pages on the development of music in the UK: Music of England, Music of Scotland, Music of Wales, and Music of Northern Ireland - which deal predominantly with the folk tradition. Any useful information from these lists could be added to these and then the all the mini list articles be deleted. Madmedea 17:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this one the more confused I get - without a decent criteria/definition of what goes in the list it just becomes a repository of random information - and therefore an example . of WP:INFO. --Madmedea 21:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename? Maybe move it something like Folk music in the United Kingdom. --Montchav 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC) (original AFD nominator)[reply]
- Moved to Folk music in the United Kingdom, being bold. I will change the links to there after the closing of this AFD if necessary. --Montchav 18:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regretted doing that!. There isn't really any reason any of the subpages contain the specific bits of information they contain. Most of the articles are about folk-ish musicians, but some are not folk at all, and some aren't nearly as notable as other musicians. I'm going back to my delete opinion. --Montchav 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Question If you regretted doing the move; would you like it to be undone? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Undo the move please It wasn't based on much logical thinking. After that, I'll try to leave this AFD debate alone. --Montchav 14:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Done ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 17:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete or Merge, per nom. I would suggest combining into Timeline in English music, and Timeline in Scottish music only, without the births and deaths entries. --Vsion 05:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep merging, renaming, and cleaning up are probably all called for but none of that involves deletion. Eluchil404 09:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous people of the 2000s[edit]

Indiscriminate list; no criteria to define who's "famous" and who isn't. Wikipedia is not a directory. Extraordinary Machine 22:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indiscriminate and unmanageable GabrielF 23:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was formerly a bad section in a bad article, and now that it's out on its own, it's all the more obvious.Unschool 23:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "Famous" is a POV word, plus this list could contain thousands of items. I really want someone to explain to me how such wide-ranging, indiscriminate list could be of possible use to anyone. 23skidoo 23:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous comments. Otto4711 23:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subjective and indiscriminate list. Prolog 00:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete as many of these type of lists as possible and prevent recreation. Usedup 03:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What about the huge lead template? Gimmetrow 04:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I would not presume to speak for anyone else, but as for me, I actually see "working" on Wikipedia as fun, whether I'm writing, editing, or helping to delete inexcusably crappy articles like this one. Perhaps Usedup doesn't want to enjoy his time on Wikipedia, but I see nothing wrong with viewing Wikipedia as a recreational activity, as long as one continues to be responsible in his or her work. :-) Unschool 03:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the above isn't a whoosh...Usedup wants to prevent re-creation of deleted list articles, not stop people from having fun. Otto4711 14:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, it was a "woosh". (Methinks I amuse none other than myself.) Unschool 20:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just tired of the stupid lists everyone makes on wikipedia. It ruins the reliability of a good site. Usedup 03:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am too. This list was one of many that made 2000s the single worst article in Wikipedia. I created it as an "article" simply because it was difficult for anyone to realize how bad this was as a section, until it got out in the open, so to speak, on its own. Hey, you want to see lists—bad lists—and lots of them? Go over to 2000s, go into history, and check out the article from before January 27. Oh my god is it awful and disgusting. This "article" was simply part of it. You want to put up some more AfD? Just click on the linked articles that are on the bottom of the current 2000s. Most of those should probably be deleted as well. They are nothing but adolescent graffiti.Unschool 18:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Right now I'm looking for any intersection of ethnicity/religion and occupation that doesn't make sense to delete. IE: List of Jewish Peruvian archaeologists. Sadly there are a lot more of these on wikipedia than can be easily found. Usedup 08:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long do we have to wait before someone deletes this crap? Does one need to be an admin to delete an article?Unschool 04:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 04:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter D. Williams[edit]

Apparently a copy-paste from the USMC website, link is 404 right now, no other sources, 32 Ghits of which most seem to be unrelated. Worthy <> notable, sadly. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the creator of the page, I would prefer that the page be kept. The subject is perhaps not the most noteworthy wikipedia subject, but he has received a number of honors and served in a highly responsible role in the USMC. Thanks! JPatrickBedell 00:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have helped clean up the article and it is need of some lifetime biography versus career. There is no need to delete the biography of a military personnel with an established career. They may often be overlooked, but should not be deleted. --Ozgod 06:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual is notable enough. He has commanded major units within the US military. Page needs work but it will improve--Looper5920 12:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actors who have played Hamlet[edit]

Nominated on behalf of 68.39.174.238 (talk · contribs) [69] who believes that this article should be deleted as it is indiscriminate. Tra (Talk) 22:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Performer by performance list. Otto4711 23:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thousands of people have taken the role and for almost all of them it's not a defining moment. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This collection of information is better as a list than as a category, but it still seems indiscriminate and not useful. Prolog 01:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not important enough for a list. Please no category, that would be overcategorization. Garion96 (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ISBN 0028629051 thinks it to be important enough for a list. "Every actor yearns to play Hamlet.", it asserts. Following that it then has a list of actors who have, with a paragraph of information about each one's portrayal, spanning pages 189 to 191. Uncle G 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why Hamlet? Completely arbitrary. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead, anyway. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscrimate list. The Rambling Man 13:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for many actors this is considered defining moment, and this is widely acknowledged. Google search for "played the role of Hamlet" and "actor OR actors who have played Hamlet". Although some cleanup is certainly necessary. Also it is necessary to indicate in what performance each of them played Hamlet. Colchicum 13:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or Lear. Or Henry IV. Or some other randomly selected Shakespearean role. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try Google search and you will see that Hamlet is far more popular in this context than King Lear, Richard III and so on, although I wouldn't object if we had such a list for other key Shakespearean roles. Colchicum 15:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "An actor is a man who wants to play Hamlet." — Michael Goldman (1972). Shakespeare and the Energies of the Drama. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p. 74. Uncle G 00:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list. Significant performances can be mentioned in the Hamlet article. Proto::► 13:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly create a category to include the same information. --Nehrams2020 03:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please no, do not create a category for this. Otto4711 05:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. A category would be overcategorization and much worse than this list. Prolog 16:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 04:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William G. Thrash[edit]

Appears to be a copy-paste form the cited source, USMC, but site is 404. 7 Google hits, none appear to be reliable sources about this individual. Worthy <> notable. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just needs some formatting - which I will readily do after commenting on this matter. --04:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep New reference also added. Thanks! JPatrickBedell 06:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual was a LtGen in the Marine Corps and did command a major unit (1st Marine Aircraft Wing) during the Vietnam War. Article does need some work but we'll get some editors on it and it will improve.--Looper5920 12:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. and mention this at Bill Simmons where there's already a section for this type of stuff. W.marsh 16:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manning face[edit]

Not notable Dlong 22:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A euphemism coined by a sportswriter seems a little weak for an article.--Mike Selinker 23:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't see how this can be an article. I would say merge, but it doesn't look like it should mentioned there also.++aviper2k7++ 23:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A euphemism coined by a sportswriter for ESPN, which puts it head and shoulders above other sports euphemisms. A straight Google search with "Manning face" turns up a large number of uses of the phrase. Searching Google News brings up a few more hits of substance, including AOL Sports and an article citing the background of Simmons' coining of the term. With all of this in addition to the sources referenced in the article, it shouldn't fail on notability. Full disclosure: I wrote and researched the article. fethers 04:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at best, this is a dictionary definition. -- Whpq 22:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bill Simmons. AfD precedent shows that Simmons-coined phrases end up being merged into his article, for instance Ewing Theory and Reggie Cleveland All-Stars. Slic e NYC (Talk) 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bill Simmons per above. This is sourced material, it is just probably not notable enough for its own article. VegaDark 20:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panini's Bar and Grill[edit]

This page is non-encyclopedic in nature. All information contained on this article is from on the business' website and adds little to the Wikipedia community. Godmeat 22:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no reliable sources in the article and 13 outlets gives the impression it is unlikely to meet WP:CORP RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Doc^g 02:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Christian Vote[edit]

Minor political party with the leader not even having an article. There are no references and no sources to show its notability RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, did you make any attempt to find some sources before nominating? I found several in a matter of a couple of seconds. I'll add a few of them into the article right now. Mathmo ^Talk 00:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources seam to be coverage that any party would receive if they decided to go for election. Quite simply, just the number of votes they recieved, the others cannot be classed as reliable. Anyway, 699 Ghits does not seam to make the party notable. So in answer to your qustion yes I did attempt to find sources RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm glad to hear you did at least try. Don't worry I wasn't accusing you of putting it up for deletion with completely no thought whatsoever. Just was asking to check, because it does disturb me the number of times I seem to see this happen. And it is wise to discourage it when you see it. Now onto the more important stuff of the article that is under discussion.... this is not the same coverage as "any party would receive if they decided to go for election." Many parties get next to no media coverage other than the noting of the results when the listing comes out afterwards. However this party clearly has been the subject of numerous media coverage beyond that. Mathmo ^Talk 00:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, but I still don't see how any of the references make them notalbe RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They make the party notable because the sources exist. To quote from WP:N: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other. Mathmo ^Talk 00:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the references you added, but they seam trivial to me. The references seam to just give a mention to Operation Christian Vote rather than Operation Christian Vote being the major subject of the article RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree that they were not the major subject of some of those articles. However... the more important thing to point out is that you said: "the major subject of the article" but WP:N says "the subject of". Notice the difference? There is no major in WP:N, so instead you need to ask yourself was it one of the subjects of the article? Of which the answer is yes. Mathmo ^Talk 00:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that comes down to interpretation of policy and what actually the term subject means - in my eyes, the article should be about them RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the possibility that a reference can be about more than one subject, are you going to say the reference can only be used as a reference for one of the subjects and none of the others? Mathmo ^Talk 00:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a minor but sufficiently notable party. Warofdreams talk 00:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - any political party contesting an election is notable. -- Whpq 22:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasspeedy keep massive nomination of non-related articles is a no-no. `'mikka 23:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aart[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This nomination is part of my attempt to purge Wikipedia of articles that are simply definitions of names, and I am filtering through all in the category starting with 'A'. I am willing to withdraw nominations that are made into valid disambiguation pages, articles or redirects. J Milburn 22:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating-

Adina (Biblical name)
Adnan
Adomas
Aida (name)
Akash
Alexey
Alina
Alper
Althea
Alyssa
Anahita (name)
Andrew
Ani (Name)
Annelise
Antek
Ari (name)
Arif
Arne (name)
Arseny
Attila (name)
Aurora (name)
Ayesha (name)
Ayla - J Milburn 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but... there are too many articles here for me to process them. I won't endorse the nomination with a standard "delete all" until I am convinced that they all should be deleted. I would prefer that the pace of this name-purging be slowed to about ten per day, as with the mass deletion of mast articles. Of the ones I did see, most were deletable, but I thought Ari could perhaps be saved. YechielMan 23:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I looked at a few more. Here's a rule I'm suggesting: keep name articles if and only if they assert a fundamental cultural notability. This would include Adina, which appears in the Hebrew Bible, and Akash, which is derived from a universal element in the Hindu religion. It would exclude names where the only relevance is "some people have this name." YechielMan 23:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Only ten per day? Ok, I suppose that makes sense. I will do that in future, but this has started now, so I can't really do much. J Milburn 23:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep all. Names are labels, and as such don't have a definition. The articles I looked at from the list (Andrew, Annelise, Ayesha) are stubby, but include more cultural/use information than fits a dictionary, I think. Is there anything in the Category:Given_names that you think is keepable? I would oppose deleting everything from it. Articles like Ani (Name) are too contentless to keep, but your approach seems too broad-brush to me. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles must not be blanket mass-deleted like this with one vote. I followed the link from Arif to this page. I don't know about the other articles but if you would bother to read it, it is not a dictionary entry and contains a lot of useful encyclopedic information about Sufi historiography that would be a travesty to lose in a mass deletionist purge that seems to be all the fashion these days. Arif is definitely a keeper, but since you have included it with the others I have to vote keep on all of them. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too many to evaluate at once. Some probably could be deleted, but others should stay. --Selket ^Talk 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 back into Psi-Force. Sandstein 16:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crasniye Solleetsi[edit]

nonverifiable reference to Marvel Comics. Absent on the offficial ,website, only 2-3 weird websites. `'mikka 23:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.Inkpaduta 23:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Psi-Force where all other minor characters from that comic title are listed. -Markeer 00:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is my first instinct, but I should disclose I'm the one to write it, and I'm generally inclusionist. I'd also be fine with merging as listed above - the only reason I went the whole article route was because someone else had a suggestion somewhere (can't find it now, though) that a page be created for the team (and perhaps for the Medusa Web as well), being major adversaries for Psi-Force. Not sure what you mean by an nonverifiable reference to Marvel Comics, though - everything in there is readily verifiable by anyone who reads the comics (and, given the much higher sales-required-to-avoid-cancellation numbers of the 80s, there might well be more of those comics out there than many current ones. ;)). Wandering Ghost 00:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for the moment. I've got some of the comics somewhere and I'm happy to add some citations and issue numbers to help verify this. There might be a case for merging this back into Psi-Force... but I don't think deletion is appropriate. It might also be worth considering that the New Universe characters are currently being revived and republished with the newuniversal series (as well as some trade paperbacks collecting the older material). I don't want to stray into WP:CRYSTAL territory, but I'd be tempted to delay any merge a little, just to get a better feel how that turns out. --Mrph 08:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all keepers fail to address the major issue: wikipedia:Verifiability. I am not a deletionist by nature and I diligently tried to search wed wor each and every weird name in the text. NONE. zilch. zero reliable sources. `'mikka 18:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll try to find some suitable sources in the next day or so, but in the mean time I've found one www.marvunapp.com profile connected to the team - Dehman Doosha. Probably the most notable character connected to the team would have been Rodstvow - and again, although it's not an acceptable reference for Wikipedia purposes, search google groups for "Psi-Force" and "Rodstvow" and you'll find a few old New Universe posts relating to "Russian psychics", "soviet super folks" and "soviet super heroes" - they'd be references to Crasniye Solleetsi. As noted, I'll see if I can find some acceptable sources, but I suspect these will mostly be issue references, not online material. --Mrph 19:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, to my knowledge, there's nothing in Verifiability that suggests that information has to be verifiable online, just as long as it's verifiable. The information comes from primary sources - the text of the comics itself, which is okay so long as no interpretation is there (though yes, it should be cited, and I'll also get started on that), and which, if I'm not mistaken, is frequently the often-unstated source for pages based on fictional stuff. The fact that it doesn't have much presence on the web might count against it notability wise, but again, I'd prefer Wikipedia to be inclusive, especially with respect to things like imprints a publisher is no longer really using from the time before ubiquitous internet. The wiki community should have enough people who own and have ready access to any particular comic, even obscure ones, that information about it can be verified. Wandering Ghost 21:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you personally confirm that the information comes from the comics, I will believe you. But I don't believe any other strange website. For example, what the heck is this www.marvunapp.com ? Does it have a reputation? I also extremely suspicious about the names of charachers. It is a very corrupted Russian. I doubt professionals did not check with Russian speakers, unless it was done intentionally. `'mikka 22:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Fabian Nicieza definitely messed up on that - I think it got some comments at the time (specifically regarding Rodstvow, but I'm not surprised to hear that the others are just as bad) --Mrph 22:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still another suspicion is extremely low google hit rate. Usually fans duplicate such things all over the web, even with the most minor characters. `'mikka 22:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University Business[edit]

Contested speedy some time ago. This magazine is not notable, and is written like an advertisement, essentially by a single user. It does not link to any articles with WP, but to several websites outside WP, which is a telltale sign. YechielMan 23:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Another editor wrote in an edit summary: 46,100 subscribers is an assertion of notability. --Eastmain 02:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Doesn't appear notable. I am the editor that said 46,100 subscribers is an assertion of notability, and that's true, however asserting notability is only enough to survive speedy deletion, it's not enough to survive AfD - you have to actually be notable for that. --Tango 11:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Tango that this would not be a proper A7 speedy as notability is asserted but it is almost spammy enough to be a G11. In any event, low notability and high spam content should always result in a delete. If they really are notable someone will write a NPOV, sourced article. Eluchil404 10:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Active Shield[edit]

Not notable Ideogram 23:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No claims of notability. Written by one single purpose editor. Selket ^Talk 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is an assertion of notability (so no speedy), but there is no references of notability (nothing that would pass WP:SOFTWARE like an WP:RS link or something). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Elements of notability were presented in Misidentification section. SecurityManiac 14:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How so? There are unsubstantiated claims that "Active Shield" was incorrectly associated with Mcafee "Active Shield" (a different application by the same name). Even if the claims become verified by a reliable source (which i doubt will ever happen): being incorrectly associated with a notable program does not notability make. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan James (filmer)[edit]

Apart from the obvious conflict of interest (the author is the subject, as shown in the copyright statement on the image page) there's no real notability here. He's a YouTube contributor. That's it. The only other source in the article is The 9, which is a videoblog, not a news source. Article asserts notability, so I didn't speedy it as another editor requested, but I still feel it should be deleted. Or perhaps I'm too conservative and it could be speedied by another admin. Kafziel ^Talk 23:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO as all external references are associated with the subject of the article. Also, autobiography problems. Selket ^Talk 23:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how you can claim the external sources are associated with the subject of the article. The second one, fine, that was showing the subject was on Yahoo's show. The first source though is Yahoo.com's official website. How is one of the biggest companies in the world associated with the subject? It's not. It's an independant (a pretty big one at that) source. And the third one is from the BBC's Political campaign website. Same as above. Unless you were in the UK and have seen the episodes on the channel Trouble (as referenced) with your own eyes, i do not know how you wish me to validate this. There are many emails from the companies and many statements from others discussing the tv episodes and commercials, but as i know that will be irrelevant to you i am currently unaware as how you wish me to proove these. Until an external sources actually 'writes' about me, as opposed to showing my episodes on national tv then i cannot. You could ask the tv companies themselves if you wish, but i'm pretty certain you won't. Needless to say the sources are external and are CLEARLY not associated with the subject. Unless i own Yahoo and the BBC, in which case i would need a much bigger Wiki article i think. If you don't live in England, then you wouldn't of seen these, so notability is arguable depending where you live. Thank you for taking, time to consider this. -Jordanjj^Talk 00:34, 12 February 2007 (GMT)
- The 9 just shows whatever's on that day. There's nothing selective about it. That BBC "source" is a blog that has just has a comment on it from you saying, "Thanks for using my clip, was nice to see my face on tv," to the guy who the article is actually about. Neither of those constitutes a reliable source or significant media coverage. Kafziel ^Talk 01:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you would have taken the time to watch the short video clip on the BBC website, the video clip which it states was aired on national tv, you will see me on it. I would have thought this would have been an obvious first step upon seeing that page. As for the Yahoo link Yahoo 9 does a daily show reporting on 10 currently 'hot' subjects on the internet. The video linked is from September 5th 06 were if you also take the time to watch, at number 5, is the video referenced in the wiki article. If this cannot be simply comprehended then well i hold little faith that justice will be seen for my wiki if this is the competence of the people who's fate it lies in.Jordanjj ^Talk 10:47pm, 13 February 2007 (GMT)
    - You just proved my point: "The 9" has nothing at all do with any sort of discriminating content, and the tiny BBC clip has a tiny blip of you. We require actual coverage in multiple independent sources, not just passing mentions. Game show contestants have more air time on national television than this, and they don't each get their own articles. I'm sorry you feel that correctly applying our guidelines makes me incompetent. Kafziel ^Talk 04:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Selket and Kafziel. The article was obviously created by the person which it documents, and thus is not in keeping with the spirit of WP:BIO that self-promotion (is not) the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Additionally, as already conceded here by Jordanjj there have not been significant non-trivial works published by a person independent of the subject to justify notability. As a matter of note, I was on New Pages Patrol at the time this article was first created and tagged the page for speedy deletion under CSD A7. thewinchester 04:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third-party coverage of the subject (hosting a video is different than actually writing about the subject). ShadowHalo 12:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources available. The ones cited don't fit the bill. -- Whpq 21:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 04:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carli Banks[edit]

I'm Neutral on this one and it is largely a procedural posting. Was on my watchlist because I removed the speedy tag since it asserted importance. Got a prod tag, which was removed but then re-added, so I sent it here instead. Borderline case might be made for WP:PORNBIO. IronGargoyle 23:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep anyone on the cover of a well recognized magazine with national distribution is notable IMHO. -Selket ^Talk 23:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the above kind of reasoning. More or less. Mathmo ^Talk 00:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scituate-Storrs Weather Service (SSWS)[edit]

Notability not asserted. Submitted by the User:SSWS Alex Bakharev 23:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete group with no notability claimed or established. Nuttah68 18:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources to establish notability. Eluchil404 10:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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