Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 12 February 14 >

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 without prejudice for including some of this information in the Viacom article. —Doug Bell talk 07:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logos of Viacom[edit]

This was nominated for AFD before.

When I found this article, I began to question why this is on Wikipedia. What this is a summary of the various logos used by Viacom since their existance. This includes the "V" that was used in the 1970's and 1980's and some of the more stylized versions later on.

Articles on other logos do exist, such as the Nike Swoosh and, similar to the Viacom article, this. But, this one is different. I see a lot of content that was be considered non-enecylopedic and are denoted in every heading using notes that are seen upon pressing edit. Second, I remember somewhere that while Wikipedia wishes to present the world knowledge, it is not the host of indiscriminate information. I believe this article is full of nothing that adds to the value of what Viacom is or did during their existance. While an outright delete is my main goal, a redirect to this article would suffice or even just a link to a Viacom logos website.

I also wish to point out that because of the Viacom vs. YouTube issue, many copies of said logos, including parodies, have been uploaded to the site. Since they are new, I have no idea if this will be a lasting impact on the logos themselves or part of some cheap and quick viral campaign. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it seems the nominator themselves are struggle to express a reason for deletion. And I'll pressume they are not aware of a similar time when this same article was put up for deletion with a result of keep? Mathmo Talk 12:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the decision on a similar article: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BBC_One_logos. The scant text that does accompany each logo does little but describe what we can see already. This appears to violate WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, which requires that the text provide an encyclopedic context. Aplomado talk 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Movementarian on the last AFD - "Boring? Yes, but I don't see that as a reason to delete it." -Halo 00:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm gonna go with a Merge and Redirect to Viacom here, on the grounds that the subject has some interest and notability for Viacom's history (so it's worth keeping around somewhere), but the article itself isn't much more than an image repository that describes the logos - and we're not an image repository. --Dennisthe2 00:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep for reasons mentioned above, and has a bit of useful information. As previous nom., as well. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 02:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; subtrivia barely worth a sentence in the Viacom article, much less an entire article on its own. —tregoweth (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Viacom: There's really no reason to have two articles about Viacom. This article could easily be absorbed by the Viacom article as a section. Viacom is notable, but it's logos are not, in my opinion, notable by themselves.--Aervanath 03:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article has little point - it's just a collection of logos. --- Jacques Pirat - Talk : Contribs 04:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely no evidence of notability. Absolutely no independent sources showing that this topic has been covered by independent, reliable publications. Unless reliable sources are produced indicating the logos themselves are notable and objects of independent study, deletion is compelled by Wikipedia policy. --Shirahadasha 04:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Viacom. Viacom is notable, so their logo is....but it doesn't deserve it's own page. Philippe Beaudette 04:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per Philippe Beaudette. The only logo in the list of any notability is the 1976 logo, and even then I don't think there's enough to warrant an article. Korranus 05:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 06:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per above. I really don't think all of it needs to be kept, but some can be transferred into the main Viacom article. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 06:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Aplomado. if not deleted, merge. Bwithh Join Up! See the World! 07:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research and pointless cruft. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a gallery of corporate logos, let alone a publisher of OR analyses of such logos. Viacom is notable, it's logos are not (unless of course someone can find multiple, independent, reliable sources of which these images are the subject). -- IslaySolomon | talk 08:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if there was information on what instigated the change, what it was inspired by, or something more than on this date they changed the colour to blue, on that date the made it sharper then it might be a worthwhile article. Khukri - 09:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Aervanath Ulysses Zagreb 09:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons stated before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IvanKnight69 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge to Viacom. Logos are non-notable in its own right and I don't see why Viacom's logo needs an article on its own. The useful and encyclopedic content of the article can be merged with the main article. Terence Ong 10:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious OR. No reliable, independent sources. Recury 15:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORYTellyaddictEditor review! 16:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Inkpaduta 19:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Viacom as we don't need this much articles about Viacom. ~~Magistrand~~ 21:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect there is some valuable information here, but not enough to warrant its own article. Mkdwtalk 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, other pages for logos have also been deleted, such as Columbia Televison, see those AFDs. Booshakla 23:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are no independent sources for this topic. This is original research. -- Alan McBeth 15:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like anyone voting keep to explain to me what is encyclopedic about this: "The screen also changes color, from red to green and then violet. After the word is completed, the view pulls back to reveal the phrase "A Viacom Presentation" on a blue screen. A final note holds until the jingle's conclusion." Aplomado talk 22:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because we don't have videos on here (yet). Abeg92contribs 20:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Philippe Beaudette. While I do feel the logos are notable enough to have information about them on Wikipedia, I don't feel the need for a separate page. --Mikibacsi1124 23:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it does serve a purpose for the encyclopedia. Abeg92contribs 20:53, 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 as semi speedy - snowball. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team Murphy[edit]

Team Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is more or less a campaign page for a group of people running for the Federation of Young Republicans, not for any government office. None of the current candidates hold any political office. In essence, non-notable political ticket with a definite POV. I am not suggesting that the Young Republicans article be deleted, just this and individual pages for the various candidates. I'll be submitting those individually. Montco 00:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Scant Google hits. Definitely appears to be vanity. Aplomado talk 00:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for both this and the following AfD. I notice there's no article for this organization they belong to (Young Republican National Federation). As opposed to the generalized movement Young Republicans. Is this "YRNF" a notable group in it's own right by Wikipedia standards? My thought is if that question can be answered, the sub-questions of these articles should be simpler. -Markeer 00:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Depends on your standards. I wouldn't think so. You will probably have the odd mention of the organization in media outlets in connection with a national campaign. But they don't do any major advertising during campaigns, rather its an organization that provides volunteers during campaigns and perhaps raises some funds. Speaking for my own YR organization, the group is at rest in between elections, only really moving forward once the party has determined its candidates for the fall elections. Montco 00:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Young Republican National Federation is simply the national organization of the Young Republicans. It's not something different from them. --Metropolitan90 05:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete evidence suggests use of Wikipedia for raising the political profile of this organisation and of the individuals within it. This organisation fails WP:ORG, individuals fail WP:BIO; as per Metropolitan90 in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audra Shay: "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" — BillC talk 01:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable, not notable or sourced, and putting {{future election in the United States}} on the article is simply ludicrous. --N Shar 02:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT a soapbox/webhost/vehicle-to-raise-your-organizations-profile. -- MarcoTolo 02:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like an add. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 02:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it fails WP:BIO and I agree with User:BillC that it looks like an attempt to raise awareness of their organization per Wikipedia.--John Lake 03:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear attempt to use Wikipedia to gain notability, rather than vice-versa.--Aervanath 04:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. No sources. --Shirahadasha 04:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for notability. Philippe Beaudette 04:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per so many reasons listed above. --Pigmantalk 05:03, 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. --Metropolitan90 05:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Republicancruft. Philwelch 09:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:CRUFT, WP:RS, WP:N. Terence Ong 10:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Mkdwtalk 11:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no second party sources, therefore fails WP:V Alf photoman 15:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete I think we have consensus here. Cornell Rockey 15:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article fails WP:NOT#SOAP and the article only has external links, no refs.TellyaddictEditor review! 16:23, 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 Speedy delete a7, the assertions in this article don't constitute notability. NawlinWiki 21:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Murphy[edit]

Glenn Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable political activist, POV campaign page, also conflict of interest as one of the editors appears to be a member of the campaign ticket. The individual is not now an officeholder and is not running for any government office, he is just running for the presidency of a political organization. Montco 00:17, 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. John254 22:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crab soccer[edit]

Crab soccer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

10,000 ghits, but the game really isn't notable. YechielMan 00:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It's no dodgeball, but it appears to be a reasonably popular playground game. Aplomado talk 00:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not popularity that's important. It is whether the game has been documented in depth by multiple independent people that is important. There are a large number of books and articles written about children's games by scholars. It's a well-researched field. If this children's game merits inclusion, it should be relatively easy to cite sources to demonstrate that. Uncle G 01:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've just added two references - that's documentation by multiple independent people. I'm sure it won't be too hard to find more references for this article.--HisSpaceResearch 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources or claims to notability. TJ Spyke 01:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't actually own any books on outdoor games, but I think I remember seeing it in one of the New Games Books. It's quite a common playground game, really, and I'm sure there's another source. --N Shar 02:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait on this one. There's enough ghits here that it's plausible that sources might be available. Give the authors an extra week or two to come up with them. But they have to be produced or Delete. --Shirahadasha 04:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I played this game a lot in school, I think it needs an article. --IvanKnight69 10:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources are produced. We also played this at school, which isn't a reason for keeping. I would suggest Crab Football as a better candidate for reference hunting. CiaranG 10:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - changed to keep in light of references added. CiaranG 20:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs references obviously, but if its around, keep it. Pablosecca 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Pablosecca. I played this game as a kid; it's real as other editors have noted. And yes, 'crab football' could be made to redirect here, getting another 2000 google hits, so YechielMan's argument isn't entirely valid. Also, the Google test is far from infallible. Advertising companies aren't going to want to google bomb the term "crab football" as it won't generate any revenue.--HisSpaceResearch 19:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Got another reference, and two external links. It's looking better now and far more worthy of inclusion than it was twenty minutes ago.--HisSpaceResearch 19:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response. I agree that the google test is not infallible; the guideline on WP:SET even says that. What I sometimes do is sort through bad articles in need of attention, such as WP:DEAD. I wonder if they should be deleted under the deletion policy, and generally I check five things:
  1. The article text
  2. References, or lack thereof
  3. History (if only one non-bot user edited, it's not as good)
  4. What links here (is this information relevant to some other topic?)
  5. Search engine test. (Does the quantity and quality of Google results affirm notability?)

The text and incoming links were inconclusive, the references were absent, and the Google results were not so many. So I nominated it. As it turns out, references have been found, and notability has been asserted. We live and learn. YechielMan 04:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 20:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a US government web site to the external links. Fg2 20:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC) (originator of the article)[reply]
    • Comment MY MISTAKE! What I thought was a US government site is not. I've corrected the article and I apologize for the error. Fg2 06:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just about everyone has played this, so it obviously clears WP:N. The fact that it appears on PBS and government websites proves that it clears WP:V as well. --Hyperbole 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - looks good to me. Jefferson Anderson 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Provided it can be properly refernced and stays referenced, this is quite suitable for Wikipedia. And though it doesn't exactly matter a lot, I too played this (or a variant thereof) in elementary school somewhat frequently. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check)
  • Weak keep - seems to be the subject of multiple works, and if we have rush goalie in we should have this. Qwghlm 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've played this game, and all the information on the page is correct. However, some more citation is required for it to become a better article. Asics talk 16:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You could compare this to Dodgeball, to a point, in terms of school popularity. Plus, it has a decent amount of Google hits, so that supports it somewhat. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 18:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please just like dodgeball this is notable too yuckfoo 01:53, 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 delete a7, the assertions in this article don't constitute notability. NawlinWiki 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Colon[edit]

Jessica Colon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable political activist, POV campaign page, also conflict of interest as one of the editors appears to be a member of the campaign ticket. The individual is not now an officeholder and is not running for any government office, she is just running for an office of a political organization. Montco 00:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Aplomado talk 00:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete, see my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Murphy — BillC talk 01:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I'm very, very tempted to say speedy (no assertion of notability), since although the article is written in a style that suggests it is asserting notability, it is, in fact, not. Assistant secretary of the YRNF is not a very significant office. Also, this is self-promotion. --N Shar 02:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks multiple independant sources (and seems unlikely to be able to meet the criterion), is a candidate for a collegiate organization (national, yes, but still not notable), and is generally, well, non-encyclopedic by virtue of failing WP:BIO and WP:V. -- MarcoTolo 02:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - vanity, non-notable --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 02:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent reliable sources provided. Fails WP:N, WP:V,WP:BIO. Delete. --Shirahadasha 04:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For Notability. Philippe Beaudette 04:23, 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. --Metropolitan90 06:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources no second party references, therefore fails WP:V Alf photoman 14:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well there are many policies in which this article fails: WP:N and fails WP:BIO. As-well as (this is not a deletion reference) but it's not wikified, not correctly referenced.TellyaddictEditor review! 16:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources to show why they should be on here.SlideAndSlip 20:34, 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 Speedy Delete. AfD didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being kept, plus the author blanked the page, which in my book, is a concession. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temple of the Jedi Order (Real)[edit]

Temple of the Jedi Order (Real) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is not written in a neutral point of view; it reads partly like an advertisement, partly like an argument, and partly like bylaws of an organization. It does not read like an encyclopedia article. The editor(s) who have authored it claim that the basis for notability is "Notability wise, the temple has over 900 members, and is substantial because it is one of the few Jedi groups who actually have been recognized by the government in any capacity". This does not pass any of the notability tests in WP:ORG. Specifically:

  • From a google search engine test, using "Temple of the Jedi Order" (in quotes), we get 49 unique articles, nowhere near the "1,940,000 results" that the editor claimed in the article diff
    • All of these results fall into one of these classes:
      • the organization's own website
      • exact duplication of the organization's website content (mirror)
      • state of texas corporate registrar (simple listing; no context)
      • blog
      • myspace
      • personal unreliable non-notable website
      • critical website (claiming they are a hoax)
      • Google Answers Expert Opinions (all say it is not a religion and/or may be a hoax)
      • mirror of wikipedia content (eg. answers.com)
  • The article is self-promotion, contrary to WP:ORG#fn_2_back

In the edit summary, one of the contributing editors threatened legal action if his content was removed again: "I will seek a federal injunction if necessary". This is an inherantly bad faith remark.diff

This article should be deleted. Recommend the contributors enter a small amount of content on their organization in Jedi_(census)#Related_movements. Jerry lavoie 00:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Kudos to Jerry on some fine detective work. I suppose we could call the Jedi a non-notable religion, but that doesn't do justice to the absurdity of the whole thing. Part of it might belong on WP:BJAODN. YechielMan 00:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a stupid hoax. Aplomado talk 00:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nom has it right, this article comes of as an advert for a currently non-notable and apparently newly-formed religous group. I'd almost say BJAODN here. --Dennisthe2 00:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thought, Strong Delete. I just looked at the note that the nom made about the history, with the link to the diff - and threats of any sort of legal action don't sit very well with me, for one. --Dennisthe2 00:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Funny how (Real) was in the article's title... Mathmo Talk 00:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, they are ever now asking for deletion: "Please delete this article. We do not fit the criteria. We support the policies of Wikipedia.". Maybe even speedy close this. Mathmo Talk 00:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT by nom The original contributor had blanked the page and requested article deletion, as Mathmo pointed out above. Since page blanking while an article in being considered at AfD is against policy I reverted it. Any admin please close this AFD as speedy and delete the article per this discussion and contributor's request. Jerry lavoie 01:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Message requesting administrator assistance to speedy close this debate has already been posted at WP:AN. Jerry lavoie 01:23, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan elite[edit]

Fan elite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Severe NPOV violation. Barely falls short of speedy deletion as an attack page, because it doesn't attack a particular person. YechielMan 00:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as original research. Aplomado talk 00:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and WP:NEO (630 GHits, mostly due to the name of a newsgroup). Unencyclopedic page complaining about fancruft; I guess that makes it fancruft-cruft. cab 01:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a definite agenda being pushed by this article as it currently stands. However, the phenomenon of elitism in various fields of fandom is documented. ISBN 074861995X discusses elitism in the fandom of Japanese horror films, for example. ISBN 0415078202 discusses fandom itself as a form of elitism (fans being an elite when compared to ordinary consumers). ISBN 0415192048 discusses E.E. "Doc" Smith's assertion that science fiction fans are superior to the casual reader, who "does not understand science fiction". There's an article to be had on the subject of elitism in fandom. But this article isn't it. This article requires rewriting from scratch, and a better title to boot. Uncle G 01:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Looks like your sources are well on the way to starting that article, Uncle G. I say this with great respect: I never would have found any of that. YechielMan 02:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Article is not written in an encyclopedic manner, not referenced no interwikis and fails WP:NOT#INFO.TellyaddictEditor review! 16:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Uncle G, there could be an article about elitism in fandom under some other title (I suggest the search phrase "fans are slans" as well). I don't think the current article will be any help in writing that one, though. —Celithemis 20:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If anyone can produce sources on the topic, then keep. Otherwise, it'll sadly have to be delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 21:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete doesn't seem encyclopedic. Jefferson Anderson 21:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research and unverifiable. --Farix (Talk) 21:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The germ of an interesting topic for an article is present, but right now the scent of OR is too strong, and there are no adequate references. Perhaps in its next incarnation this article will be a keeper, but not now. WMMartin 18:11, 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 valid assertion of notability, part of slew of articles on "Team Murphy" by same author. NawlinWiki 21:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Barclay[edit]

Clay Barclay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable political activist, POV campaign page, also conflict of interest as one of the editors appears to be a member of the campaign ticket. The individual is not now an officeholder and is not running for any government office, he is just running for an office of a political organization. Montco 00:27, 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. John254 22:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lover of sin[edit]

Lover of sin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

On Wikipedia, some articles are stubs... this isn't even a stub. It has no article content and is just an infobox, along with promotional band links (which are just "coming soon") WP:SPAM. The article has no use. Deathrocker 00:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, probably speediable, per nom Changing to keep, per Prolog-from K37 00:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article doesn't make a single concession towards meeting WP:MUSIC guidelines. I'd say this is speediable. janejellyroll 00:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Christian Death. This seems to have members from several major bands, besides Christian Death; Savatage, Morbid Angel and Monstrosity, thus satisfying at least one criterion of WP:MUSIC. I added a lead and references to the article, although it still needs cleanup and more context. If kept, it should be moved to "Lover of Sin". Prolog 01:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete for WP:MUSIC - and I tagged it as such. Philippe Beaudette 04:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Change to keep. Article now asserts notability, but still needs some cleanup. Philippe Beaudette 05:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - but the article now asserts notability, (the band) having members from some notable, popular bands[1]-from K37 05:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Needs a bit of a clean-up, but it asserts notability. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 06:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, which members were involved in "Monstrosity, Morbid Angel and Savatage"?... the names in this band's infobox don't corespond to any in those bands. - Deathrocker 15:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It says originally that it had no text, sources etc. Well somebody added the refs and more info so It's got enough information in it too keep.TellyaddictEditor review! 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks like whatever was missing has been added. Jefferson Anderson 21:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per K37's changes. The article now passes WP:BAND for having members of other notable bands. ShadowHalo 03:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TellyaddictEditor review!. Mathmo Talk 09:00, 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 05:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Framingham Plaza[edit]

Framingham Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article about a non-notable rest area in Massachusetts is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by deleting it. YechielMan 00:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wow. Now that's non-notable. Aplomado talk 00:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article may require deletion to meet Wikipedia's Wikipedia's manual of style. Veinor (talk to me) 00:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To comply with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, this article or section should be deleted. --N Shar 02:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rest stops don't need articles. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 03:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ok, Ok, show me the sources -- alright, I'm willing to believe maybe there could be such a thing as a notable rest stop -- really willing to be open-minded here -- but ya gotta show me the sources. No sources means no WP:V and no WP:N and that means Delete. Sorry. --Shirahadasha 04:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I live around there (when I'm not at YU), so I know it exists. But that's not the point. YechielMan 05:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable. Very, very, very non-notable. Philippe Beaudette 04:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no official policy on what makes a rest stop notable because I don't think anyone ever thought that one would be notable. This one certainly isn't. Selket Talk 04:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stopped, I rested, I deleted. -- Black Falcon 06:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination Ulysses Zagreb 09:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, rest stops are non-notable. No rest stop in the world assert any form of notability in one way or another. Terence Ong 11:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely fails WP:NN and no sources/refs so it fails WP:V.TellyaddictEditor review! 16:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If anyone can produce reliable sources on it, then keep. Honestly. I'm an inclusionist. If not, otherwise delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 21:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete unless it's been in the news. Murders? Busts? why is this rest stop any different than other rest stops? Jefferson Anderson 21:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can think of an instance where a rest stop may be notable, but this one isn't. --UsaSatsui 18:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we can speedy this one per WP:SNOW. Aplomado talk 23:00, 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 valid assertion of notability, part of slew of "Team Murphy" articles by same author. NawlinWiki 21:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Robison (politician)[edit]

Charles Robison (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable political activist, POV campaign page, also conflict of interest as one of the editors appears to be a member of the campaign ticket. The individual is not now an officeholder and is not running for any government office, he is just running for an office of a political organization. Montco 00:38, 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 05:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Webster (politician)[edit]

John Wilson (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minimal content. Article is on a city councillor of a small city. Notability not established and city (Markham, Ontario) is not large enough to justify its city councilors automatically being considered notable. Sixth Estate 00:39, 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 a7, no valid assertion of notability, part of slew of articles on "Team Murphy" members by same author. NawlinWiki 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B.J. Perry[edit]

B.J. Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable political activist, POV campaign page, also conflict of interest as one of the editors appears to be a member of the campaign ticket. The individual is not now an officeholder and is not running for any government office, he is just running for the presidency of a political organization. Montco 00:42, 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 ~ Arjun 03:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anneli Rufus[edit]

Anneli Rufus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod tag was removed without comment. If this seemingly nn author meets WP:BIO there is no evidence of it in the article. janejellyroll 00:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oops i am tired Feeeshboy 06:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here are several examples of Anneli Rufus as the subject of multiple works:
  • Interviewed on KPFA Radio, 12/24/2006:

http://www.sundaysalon.org/archives.asp?offset=10

  • Interviewed on KPFA Radio, 8/22/05:

http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=9741

  • Interviewed on WNYC Radio, 8/16/05:

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2005/08/16

  • Interviewed on WNYC Radio, 3/31/03:

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2003/03/31

  • Interviewed on NPR Radio, 2/19/00:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1070607

  • Keep per the above sources, coverage by other publications, including [2] and [3], and 37,000 unique ghits.
  • Weak Keep , sources must not be included in an AfD but into the article, therefore weak Alf photoman 14:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here's more sources:
  • [

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/05/04/LV284573.DTL (San Francisco Chronicle: Berkeley author Anneli Rufus shares the pleasures of a misunderstood breed) ]

  • [

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/inquirer_magazine/13934871.htm (Philadelphia Inquirer: This Way Up - Only the lonely know... how contenting and liberating it is to be a loner. Extroverts should take heed) ]

  • [

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/06/news_pf/Floridian/Loner____or_paranoiac.shtml (St. Petersburg Times: Loner . . . or paranoiac?) ] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.192.21.44 (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Keep. An author who has been published multiple times but---more importantly---covered by mainstream press. I'd love to see some more content though...DOB, what are these books about, etc. Cedlaod 02:36, 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 Speedy delete a7, no valid assertion of notability; part of "Team Murphy" PR campaign. NawlinWiki 21:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Tierney[edit]

Dan Tierney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable political activist, POV campaign page, also conflict of interest as one of the editors appears to be a member of the campaign ticket. The individual is not now an officeholder and is not running for any government office, he is just running for the presidency of a political organization. Montco 00:45, 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 a7, no valid assertion of notability, part of slew of articles on "Team Murphy" members by same author. NawlinWiki 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Fong[edit]

Vince Fong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable political activist, POV campaign page, also conflict of interest as one of the editors appears to be a member of the campaign ticket. The individual is not now an officeholder and is not running for any government office, he is just running for the presidency of a political organization. Montco 00:47, 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 Speedy delete a7, no valid assertion of notability, let's conduct the campaigning for Young Republican offices somewhere else besides Wikipedia. NawlinWiki 21:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason_Weingartner[edit]

Jason_Weingartner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable political activist, POV campaign page. The individual is not now an officeholder and is not running for any government office, he is just running for the presidency of a political organization. Pfunkbalr 00:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A Team Murphy horde member, this entry seems, on the surface, more notable than the others. Alas, a search for "Jason S. Weingartner" returns 7 ghits, all non-independant references (blogs) or trivial (lists of organization officers). A search of "Jason Weingartner" is more numerically successful (193 ghits), but, again, none appear to meet WP:RS standards. So, I guess I'd pitch that this article--like the others--fails WP:BIO, WP:V, and a whole pile of WP:NOT. -- MarcoTolo 02:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I'm getting tired of vanity pages tonight.  :-) Philippe Beaudette 04:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failing WP:BIO and its conflict of interest. Team Murphy may yet win its race, but tonight they go down in a landslide. Montco 04:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Touché. Unfortunately, this is the only one not from Team Murphy. He's from "States First," not "Team Murphy," according to the article. Not that that makes him any more notable.... --N Shar 05:43, 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. --Metropolitan90 06:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Ulysses Zagreb 09:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. •CHILLDOUBT• 11:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , no sources, no second party references therefore fails WP:V Alf photoman 14:52, 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. Aha, I came back to it again while closing AfDs :P. Yuser31415 04:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great_Britain_and_Ireland[edit]

Great_Britain_and_Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This is a content fork with the page British Isles--Triglyph 00:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The page briefly and usefully discusses use of the term "Great Britain and Ireland." It avoids content forking by limiting the discussion to that and contains links to the relevant articles for more substantive discussion. Newyorkbrad 01:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is not a content fork, although it seems a bit like a borderline disambiguation page. No reason to delete, and I don't even think a redirect is appropriate. --Canley 02:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Could stand to have a reference or two, but I agree that this is not a fork and should probably stay as a useful "Disambiguation-plus" page. -- MarcoTolo 03:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I previously closed this nomination as speedy keep, but it was challenged. Therefore, I have reopened. Yuser31415 06:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. I don't see the problem with this. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 07:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should have explained my reasoning more fully. There is an archipelago off the north west coast of Europe. It has perhaps twenty different labels attached to it. The most popular term, British Isles, is somewhat controversial. Perhaps for this reason, several other articles have been created that describe exactly the same thing - Great_Britain_and_Ireland and Britain_and_Ireland for example. There are also very full articles on Great Britain, Ireland, British Isles (terminology) and British Isles naming dispute. Use of the phrase Great_Britain_and_Ireland is covered in these. Looking at the policy WP:WINAD it is difficult under these circumstances to see why Great Britain_and_Ireland and Britain_and_Ireland merit separate pages from British_Isles, any more than Iberia would merit a separate page from Spain_and_Portugal or color from colour.--Triglyph 08:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced. Other than keeping the article as is, there are far more appropriate options than deletion which you may not be aware of (setting up this deletion being your first and only edits from this account). The first is to redirect, but what to redirect to? United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? Britain and Ireland? British Isles? There's no obvious answer, so a disambiguation page may be the answer as "Great Britain and Ireland" is a valid and likely search term. However, this is what the page actually is: it explains the above possible uses of the term and links to the equivalent meanings. It may need a bit of cleanup, but it looks fine to me. I'm afraid I don't agree with your original nomination or your expanded explanation as to why it should be deleted. --Canley 11:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all of the above term are valid terms and have different connotations. However possible merge of Britain and Ireland with this article Khukri - 09:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not a fork, term is valid. Just need a couple of references and the verifiability problem is fixed. Merge Britain and Ireland to this article. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 13:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Triglyph: you misunderstood what deletion is for. Issue such as you describe are more correctly dealt with my merging and redirecting NOT with deletion. Ariel. 16:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but some sources would be useful. Alternatively, redirect to British Isles. --HisSpaceResearch 21:27, 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 05:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Hogue[edit]

Russ Hogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable (local only) - also appears to violate WP:COI and WP:OR. Peter Rehse 01:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a myriad of titles is given, but their importance and veracity is dubious. The most legitimate claim to fame seems to be being an alternate to the Pan Am Games. Furthermore, the only news coverage I could find were three trivial mentions of how he did in specific tournaments, e.g., ...heavyweight Randall, 17, who stopped Russ Hogue of St. Louis at 1 minute 55 seconds of the second round... (The Milwaukee Journal, April 19, 1994). -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn notable athlete. Checking the links this caught my eye Pat Riley a former basketball player and coach for the LA Lakers, New York Knicks, and Miami Heat is linked in the article as a Karate teamate along with Richard Osborn and architect John James makes me doubt whether any of the article is verifiable or a possible hoax. --John Lake 05:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - The dubious wikilinks are likely the result of blind linking. The names are what would generally be considered common names. -- Whpq 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:BIO. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 13:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - According to WP:BIO, this person might qualify as competing at the top of his sport. But, there are no sources provided, and I am unable to find any through googling so for me it fails WP:RS, and WP:V. -- Whpq 17:07, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katarzyna Izabela Miednik[edit]

Katarzyna Izabela Miednik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This young singer does not seem notable at all, and the article about her is promotional in character. Even though she has won some competitions, there is no mention of any albums recorded. Additionally, the corresponding article on Polish Wikipedia has been deleted on similar grounds: [4]. Mairene 01:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails Wikipedia:Notability fails Ghits [5].--John Lake 04:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 06:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:MUSIC does not require albums--it is one indiciation among many (including receiving awards). As for promotionality, the sentence "Since early childhood she demonstrated talent for dancing, acting, music, and singing." can just be deleted. However, given the lack of multiple mentions (at least that I could find), I remain neutral. -- Black Falcon 06:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability is asserted (with citation). Jefferson Anderson 21:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As usual, we need to see a claim to notability, and supporting references. But they aren't here. Goodbye. WMMartin 18:14, 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 05:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split Decision (TV series)[edit]

Split Decision (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball Avi 01:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and notability is not yet established. YechielMan 04:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for notability. Philippe Beaudette 04:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, however I disagree with the two above votes. All shows produced for network TV are inherently notable, and if this pilot were to be broadcast, it would be notable enough for an article. However until such a time as either a series is commissioned or the pilot is broadcast, this falls under crystal ball territory. 23skidoo 06:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is insufficiently referenced (only IMDB listing is referenced, which is really only reliable for stats and casting details, not behind the scenes info and such). Also, as above, the article gives no reason or evidence why this show, which ever aired, meets notability guidelines. While some unaired pilots are notable, they still have to provide sufficient independent references to prove that it was indeed notably discussed by published sources. Thus, barring the article meeting its burden of proof, it fails to meet the guideline to demonstrate its own notability. Dugwiki 20:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per 23skidoo Bbagot 04:05, 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, but one might want to create a new article about wrestlers who died "on the job". —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:08Z

List of deceased professional wrestlers[edit]

List of deceased professional wrestlers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Given the size and scope of the pro wrestling world, there are literally hundreds of wrestlers who could be listed here. Creating a list of deceased ones is not only impossible to compile but impossible to maintain. Hemlock Martinis 01:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft for sure. The fact is every pro wrestler will eventually end up on this list. What is the point. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list could end up being infinite. It is useless to have them listed here. It's better to have a "deceased" or date of death status in the dead wrestler's article, rather than list them there. — ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 02:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Eventually all wrestlers will be on here. What is the point of the Living people category when lists such as this are created? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dysepsion (talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Similar articles (like List of dead actors) have been deleted for the same reason: it's listcruft. The number of dead wrestlers (as is the number of dead people in any profession) is huge and will only continue to get bigger over time. TJ Spyke 04:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rest in peace. I've had enough of these dead people lists already. This is the rare case where I vote without actually checking the article. YechielMan 04:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - eventually, every professional wrestler will be on this list, won't they? Philippe Beaudette 04:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but restrict to ones who in the course of the job I don't have a problem with keeping the list if it is restricted to wrestlers like Owen Hart who died "on the job". (I might also be willing to make an exception of notable mention for someone like Eddie Guerrero, whose untimely death at the height of his career had major repercussions in the wrestling industry.) Beyond that, though, everybody dies eventually, so there's no real reason to list people who were wrestlers but whose deaths aren't actually directly connected to wrestling. Dugwiki 20:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useful information for wrestling fans. It should be transferred to a wrestling wiki. RobJ1981 23:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rescope per Dugwiki to list of professional wrestlers who died while under contract to a major professional wrestling organisation. We have a category for American football players who died before retiring and I imagine the purpose of this list is similar. MLA 13:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We're not a collection of arbitrary lists. And why on earth don't people use categories more often ? WMMartin 18:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listcurft, the dead playboy playmates article got deleted recently. Booshakla 00:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change I agree with MLA. The scope can't work, but can be altered. Something addressing active wrestler deaths would be more appropriate. Hopefully it would also have age at time of death and year, so it has more meaning. This one reads too much like a list and needs to be cleaned up. Bbagot 04:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change Per above poster. Eenu (talk) 06:10, 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 consenus, now you have to take a drink. —Doug Bell talk 08:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moose (drinking game)[edit]

Moose (drinking game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not for things made up in college one day. Inherently unverifiable. — brighterorange (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I hate the idea of the article, but it's got two references to outside Web sites, so some of it is apparently verifiable. Please, please overcome this objection. Noroton 04:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The links given would have to be reliable, of course. One is to a personal site literally titled "Eric's Web Sites" and the other is to a collection of cocktail recipes and drinking games. Since anyone can make a website, I don't consider these reliable. However, Mathmo has found some news articles below. — brighterorange (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's one thing to verify the game exists, but the article is very detailed and we don't have proof about those details. YechielMan 04:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of the game can be proven from the links given. However, only a very brief overview of the rules can also be proven, not the incredibly detailed content currently present. Therefore, the content of the article is unverifiable. Trim down and/or source the information, or, failing that, delete. -- saberwyn 04:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following the addition of three websites where the subject is at least mentioned, I have slightly changed my view. I am now neutral on the outright deletion, but suggest to those who wish to keep/continually develop the article that they get some Wikipedia:Inline citations and Wikipedia:Attribution happening, and that everything from the "Signing Game" heading down to the categories goes 'poof'. -- saberwyn 10:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but article should be trimmed to reflect sourced information only. Anything extra that was simply "made up in college one day" should be removed. janejellyroll 04:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as made up in class. Philippe Beaudette 04:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Maustrauser 05:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but more sections need to be sourced. There are a couple in the article already, here are some more: californiaaggie.com statenews.com boiseweekly.com Mathmo Talk 11:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'm surprised to see the rules in a news article, but I think that'll do. These are all about the top game. I'd be okay with blanking the second section and using these references to source the first. — brighterorange (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a mention of the second moose in the article [6] --AW 20:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you guys really think this site (barmeister.com) is a reliable source? It just looks like someone's collection of drinking games and cocktails to me; it could even be the same person that made the Wikipedia entry. — brighterorange (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, an encyclopedia isn't going to mention Moose the drinking game, but there are a lot of bar, drinking and beer related websites with the first Moose on them. I've found a couple with the second, like that one. I'd be OK with deleting the second part though, if we can't find more. I think the first is fine. --AW 19:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holding my nose at the smell of spilled, stale beer and recommending Keep, but only as per brightorange's suggestion of blanking the second section and citing the references in the article. Noroton 15:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mathmo's sources. --AW 20:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At present I'm not inclined to treat student newspapers as acceptable publications for reference, as the risk of including "stuff made up at school" is too high, and on that basis I don't see adequate referencing to support this article. WMMartin 18:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought the problem with "stuff made up at school" was that either (a) the stuff was made up at one single location, so if it wasn't widespread it was unlikely to be notable, and (b) it was possibly a hoax or unreliably sourced for other reasons (accuracy, exaggeration, etc.). What we have here are three different campus publications — in California, Idaho and Michigan (I think it's Michigan). For me, that's enough. Noroton 18:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Boise Weekly isn't a student newspaper. Plus like Noroton said, I've played this in Washington, DC, and a Canadian guy taught it to me. So I think it's pretty widespread. --AW 19:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At the request of AW I have reviewed these comments. I still don't feel we have "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other", which is our criterion for notability". One source, at best, though personally I feel the article cited is trivial - filler for a local newspaper - and that's not "multiple". Sorry, I'm not ( yet ) swayed. WMMartin 16:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Off Topic Request for Help. Reading what I just wrote, it looks badly punctuated to me, but I can't work out how to improve it. Any guidance would be appreciated ! Thanks in advance. WMMartin 16:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still don't see multiple non-trivial sources. However, the one source that's left when the student newspapers are removed is an award winning one, so.... I'm actually wavering on this one, but I think the guidelines are pretty clear - if someone can come up with another non-trivial source I may be forced to watch my thinking change. Philippe Beaudette 20:08, 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 05:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Cummins[edit]

Kent Cummins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Probable WP:SPAM, WP:COI. Leuko 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know. The guy has written two books, which is more then some of the people we keep around, plus he is an Austinite, which automatically makes him a good guy and I like the picture in the article. -Nv8200p talk 02:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: WP:BIO requires "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work," not just the fact that they published something. Please also see this and this. Leuko 03:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Nv8200p, please make an argument for keeping or deleting based on Wikipedia policy. Thanks! --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The fact that you like it isn't a valid argument. Veinor (talk to me) 21:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. I only found this lone article[7] and nothing in the way of book reviews. Locally notable, that's it. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and WP:V by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This article could be merged into the The Magic Camp article. 22:25, 13 February 2007 ZimmerBarnes 22:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)ZimmerBarnes[reply]
  • Delete personal promo. Seems like a nice guy though. Wile E. Heresiarch 10:14, 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 05:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic Camp[edit]

The Magic Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deleted multiple times under WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7, but author keeps recreating article. NN summer camp, probable WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Leuko 02:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete appears to be barely notable in a local way. Zero national or international notability asserted. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SOURCED local importance given by recept of the 2004 "Creative Business Award" [8] from "Business Investment Growth Austin", a 'non-profit micro-enterprise development organization' [9]. Other claims are unsourced. Beyond that, the article is nothing more than "We are a summer camp. We do summer camp things", and thereby being broadly indistinguishable from the hundreds or thousands of summer camps in the United States of America and worldwide. Delete unless multiple externally verifiable sources containing information about the camp can be provided. As an alternate, add a paragraph (no more) sourced from the camp website about the camp to the Kent Cummins article (being one of the founders). This is pending the deletion discussion for Mr. Cummins. -- saberwyn 04:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:N in that this was all I could find[10]--Dhartung | Talk 06:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless problems with WP:V can be resolved Alf photoman 15:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save WP:V and WP:N have been fixed ZimmerBarnes 22:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: IMHO, WP:V was never a problem, but WP:N was, and again IMHO, still isn't resolved. A event listing, another event listing in a local newsletter, and a listing on a local parenting website really aren't non-trival coverage as required by WP:N. Also, the blog posting is not only not a WP:RS, it's self-written, leading to WP:COI problems. Leuko 22:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment What is our cutoff point for notoriety? There are some claims for local accolades and honors with references. While we want to weed out highschool and college kids promoting themselves, at what point do we tell an organization that you're not worthy? Bbagot 04:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The blog isn't a blog, it's news footage, which should fix both WP:N and WP:COI as it is supported by a major news agency, the Austin-American Statesman. ZimmerBarnes 22:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)ZimmerBarnes[reply]
    • Comment: I was talking about the TypePad blog, which is obviously a blog. Leuko 00:44, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 18:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meet Your Meat[edit]

Meet Your Meat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There are no sources that state this propaganda film is notable or any external sources that discuss it at all. It entirely exists on self-sourcing. It links directly to the sources in multiple languages causing Wikipedia to be a promotional tool for an otherwise bland and un-notable advertising campaign. SchmuckyTheCat 02:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article history shows interest from multiple users, as does "What links here." 90,000 ghits: also good. May not meet strict criteria for notability, but I think it should be given time to develop - and I'll kill the bad external links. YechielMan 04:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The other contributors to this discussion have persuaded me to come to their side. YechielMan 04:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not listed on Alec Baldwin's IMDb page and when I tooled around some of those ghits I couldn't find a review except from some extremely obscure sites (like a blog). Amazon sells it (for five bucks), but I see no outside reviews except what the creators made for publicity purposes. I was a bit put off by the nominator calling it "propaganda" but that's actually a fair description of it. If it were put together independently from an activist organization, I think it would be more worthy of an article, given all those hits. But if those 90K hits are a result of PETA's propaganda efforts over the past few years, then why should Wikipedia get drawn into that? If there were some independent confirmation that this propaganda had a notable impact, then that could be a reason for an article on it. Noroton 04:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge into PETA. Does not meet general notability guidelines: has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." As a point of interest, also does not meet the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (films) guideline. —Trevyn 06:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The AP ran an article about the film in 2003: see [11]. (This may not be the best site, but a quick Factiva search shows that the article did indeed exist.) I think it's likely that there are more sources available if someone wants to do some digging, so let's wait and see what people can find. Zagalejo 15:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this counts for something. Zagalejo 16:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is an advertisement for a video press release. The Baldwin award does not make it notable because it is not independent of the subject of the article (Alec Baldwin narated Meet your Meat [12]). Selket Talk 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your argument here. There is a USA Today newspaper article about Baldwin's PETA award. USA Today is independent of PETA, right? Zagalejo 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you make a good point, Zagalejo. The article lends some support for notability. I originally thought the award was from PETA as well, but looking again I see it was something given out by the Linda McCarthy Foundation. (I'm more impressed by the information on changing Burger King's policies, but the problem here is the information all comes from PETA. Independent confirmation of that would change my vote.) I can't bring up anything on the AP article by following the link above. Wikipedia has articles on TV commercials (the Mac/PC series of commercials a good one), so in theory this could be an article, even considered as propaganda. But we still need more citable evidence. Noroton 18:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless adequate independent references can be found. WMMartin 18:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have drawn attention to this AfD at Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights. The participants there may be able to provide some reliable sources. Rockpocket 22:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (my first shadowy step into the AfD world) there is no current mention of it in the PETA wikipedia article, Maybe mention of it in that discussion Page will spark some intrest. Andyzweb
  • Merge into PETA or Animal rights —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teardrop onthefire (talk • contribs) 08:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I know there seems to be precious little information on this page, but it is still the best source of information out there. Just the fact that there are multiple versions and the latest is from 2003 is potentially useful info that is not easy to find elsewhere without really searching around. It's not that there is no outside info on this video (although it is certainly scarce), but rather that the info is hard to get with a simple Google search. I understand other WPians are saying this article is just part of the problem as it seems like a link drop; I'm arguing that it is also part of the solution because it provides some information not otherwise easy to locate. --Chinasaur 22:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
soooo, what you are saying is that it isn't notable and nobody pays attention to it. SchmuckyTheCat 22:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I said it's something people are interested in, but not easy to find real information on. Nevertheless, the article preserved and provided what little information was available, so IMO it served a useful purpose. Ah well... --Chinasaur 21:23, 20 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 05:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balamurugan Garden[edit]

Balamurugan Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable street; most of the article is already included in Thuraipakkam. BuddingJournalist 02:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a travel guide. NOTE: an IP address removed the Afd template, so I put it back on. If it happens again, please tell an admin. YechielMan 04:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge and redirect, no keep to Thuraipakkam. In particular, a slightly modified version of the map would be useful for the Thuraipakkam, to replace the green map. -- saberwyn 04:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Not most of the article is incluede in Thuraipakkam. Compare it if you want line by line. If some are there you can delete only that portion . why you want to delete tyh ewhole portion Balamurugan Garden?????

  • Delete for an utter lack of notability. --Huon 21:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article is ostensibly about a street without indicating any sort of notability for it. The rest of the atricle is simply window dressing. -- Whpq 17:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The facts may be true, but so what ? What's notable about this place ? The article doesn't say. WMMartin 18:25, 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 05:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future World Music[edit]

Future World Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:CORP. Nv8200p talk 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly summary of Big Brother (UK series 7)[edit]

Firstly, to summarise, this article has been split off from Big Brother 2006 (UK) and I am arguing that it is now redundant to a table already existing in the article for the TV series.

  • Previous nomination
  • For those unfamiliar with the subject matter, 'Chronology' and 'Weekly summary' mean essentially the same thing, and series 7 is the series of Big Brother broadcast in 2006.

There have been several discussions already about whether this page should exist or whether it should just be a section in the Big Brother 2006 (UK) article. The main arguments expressed over May and June 2006 (around the start of the TV series) were that the section could get too long, and it should therefore be split, whilst others argued that it would be better for the section to be cut back.[13][14]

The article was created and nominated for deletion where concerns were raised that the article was unencyclopaedic; the importance was questioned; it was suggested that the weekly summary should be trimmed; and it was also suggested to wait until the end of the series before taking action. The result of that debate was to delete the article but the weekly summary remained as a section in the article for the series. However, during the series there were further discussions about whether the weekly summary should be trimmed or split on to a separate article.[15][16]

After the series finished, the series article underwent a peer review where it was suggested that the weekly summary was trimmed down. It was therefore trimmed down to around half its original size. Later on in the duration of the peer review, it was suggested that the weekly summary was split off into its own article.[17] This happened and since then, it has received very few edits, apart from fixing some dead links and correcting formatting. Meanwhile, the weekly summary section in the series article was turned into a table and trimmed down further, but not significantly.

Now, we are at the stage where Weekly summary of Big Brother (UK series 7) is essentially redundant to the table at Big Brother 2006 (UK)#Weekly summary where the only noticeable difference between the two is that one is formatted as a table whilst the other is separated by headings. For this reason, I think Weekly summary of Big Brother (UK series 7) should be deleted. Tra (Talk) 02:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree that article is redundant when compared to the table. Suggest that the footnote citations be copied over from the article into the table, as several points/facts are without reference. Following that delete or redirect as appropriate. -- saberwyn 04:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've copied the footnotes over, so the table now contains all of the same footnotes that were in the article, and a few more. Tra (Talk) 19:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And now this article is truly redundant. Thank you. Upgrading to Strong Delete or Redirect as article duplocating section in another article... I leave it to the closer's discretion as to the actual outcome. -- saberwyn 00:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unecyclopedic metter and as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 06:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obsolete fancruft. Interesting comment on previous nom, of at least keep it till it's over, and it was still deleted. Khukri - 09:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not appropriate material for an encyclopaedia. Individual incidents which attracted particular note and produced public debate can be mentioned in the article on the series. Sam Blacketer 21:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Highly unlikely as a search term so no need to redirect (unless you're in favour of keeping the page history). — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there's much point in worrying about the page history. Since the article has existed, the only changes made were formatting the references section, correcting a few spellings and dead links and nominating the article for deletion. Most of the work involved in making the content can be seen in the page history for Big Brother 2006 (UK). Tra (Talk) 01:11, 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 05:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg kendall-ball[edit]

Greg kendall-ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 02:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO •CHILLDOUBT• 11:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete for no assertion of notability. (I think 99 people subscribing to a blog feed is not an assertion of notability.) Sam Blacketer 21:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability. Jefferson Anderson 21:51, 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 The result was Speedy Delete as No assertion of notability (CSD A7). -- NoSeptember 10:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Huyuni Suratt[edit]

{{a7:0|}}

Huyuni Suratt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Incomplete nomination by IP user. No stance at this time -- saberwyn 04:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete A7. No assertion of notability. Thanks Saberwyn for beating me to it with the procedural nom. YechielMan 04:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A7, and convince the anon to get an account. --N Shar 06:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. So tagged. MER-C 08:37, 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 speedy delete. -- RHaworth 13:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lurkeritus[edit]

Lurkeritus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's a neologism, uncited, and probably original research. It's not an acknolwedged "psychological disease." My prod was removed by an anonymous user. Deranged bulbasaur 03:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable neologism, very few google hits (search for "lurkeritis", also), no secondary sources cited, and it's not likely that there are any secondary sources to be found. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete A7. The article is totally ridiculous, and my predecessors' substantive research confirms it. YechielMan 04:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, delete, delete Wow. I'd be astonished to find real sources for this. (shakes head) --Pigmantalk 05:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy this chozzerai per WP:SNOW. --N Shar 05:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7 per YecheilMan. Patent nonsense, without even being amusing.... Quantitative: 0 ghits in English, 5 ghits in all languages. WP:NFT. -- MarcoTolo 06:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. So tagged. MER-C 08:37, 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 no consensus, although the arguments in favor of deleting had the discussion leaning that way. —Doug Bell talk 12:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Webster[edit]

Sam Webster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Not notable, unverifiable. Possible WP:COI & vanity issues. 22 links to same *.hermetic.com domain are bulk of sources in article.

The Sam Webster article was cut & pasted directly from here. Looking in the history, and by comparing the autiobiography of the creator of the entry here, it is quite clear that the article was written by Sam Webster himself. Then banned user 999 copy & pasted the article to wikipedia. So in the original format, this is clear WP:COI. Most of the references and links circle back to the *.egnu.org domain the original article was hosted on or the spammy personal website *.hermetic.com which has 226 links from wikipedia. I think this is clear undue weight, since hermetic.com is essentially someone's private website. Also, the subject of the article has not authored a single book, and the scant interviews and secondary mentions of him are in zines and self-published books which do not meet notability requirements. - WeniWidiWiki 03:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's more likely that Al Billings, who owns hermetic.com, had something to do with it... and the rest of the hermetic.com links from wikipedia. Khabs 07:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could be, but this is pretty compelling. Diff - WeniWidiWiki 07:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's not Aleph. Somebody else wrote it. Khabs 08:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The linkspam is out of control. YechielMan 04:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From what I can see, there is no indication his writings have been published anywhere. One interview in Modern Pagans does not a notable person make. --Pigmantalk 04:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe they've all been published. Unfortunately, Al Billings, who runs the hermetic.com site, doesn't bother to tell where things were first published. Khabs 07:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, many of the articles listed were published in Mezlim, Gnosis or PanGaea.
  • Delete Unless WP:BIO requirements are met. janejellyroll 04:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I suspect more sources can be found. I'll trim the linkspam, which isn't a valid reason to delete, is it? Khabs 06:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - everything appears to be verifiable. Khabs 07:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there must be something wrong with the article because nobody calls himself member of the Golden Dawn since 1914 anymore, it was dissolved. What remained is the Golden Dawn in the outer, captained by Mathers and Thelema gurued by Crowley, both of which have also been dissolved ... so I guess this is somebody who wants to establish himself as Great Kophta. Besides, there are problems with WP:V Alf photoman 15:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nearly all the information in the article is verifiable. I believe Webster was an initiate of Regardie's. That's the Golden Dawn tradition. Khabs 15:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I suspect Khabs is the same user who made/edits this account. Check edit history. Captain Barrett 17:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Your comment is incomprehensible. What does it have to do with whether the subject of the article is verfiably notable? Khabs 17:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep asserts notability and provides good sources. Jefferson Anderson 21:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it. I think it is just a copied article from the web page up there. BackMaun 22:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete At least he is an actual person, and there are two mentions from outside his own cult, and he has actually received a degree from a well-known mainstream theological school. It is hard for an outsider to tell which of these individuals, (or groups, which may be much the same thing), is actually notable. There are no sales figures for the books, and the web sites change and mirror each other. What we need to know is how notable they are within their own community. In more conventional religions there is are offices and distinctions that are commonly accepted and discernible from outside.
From another AfD, I put some credit on the listing in http://www.93current.de/groups.shtml, and a little on http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Fcrowley.htm. They both seem to list groups other than their immediate affiliation. He is mentioned in neither. The wiki article in http://www.egnu.org/thelema/Sam_Webster lists links for more of his writings than the one here, but examining them would require deciding on their theological merits, which is fortunately not relevant to WP. There is a problem with evaluating the in-universe sources as compared to the mainstream: a totally insignificant person to the initiated may be good at getting conventional interviews. I accept the material as V, but not as showing N.
and we have deleted articles for ministers of ordinary well-known religions who have done at least as much. The key distinctive accomplishment of this less-than-conventional figure is that he has acquired the basic degree that all conventional ministers acquire.

DGG 00:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    • changing vote to weak keep---is at least documented. Whether his work is notable or just written about is hard to say, but as he is apparently leader of a religious set, that's not a distinction for WP to make. DGG 05:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed what he is notable for, as a pioneer of open source religion. Christine Wicker devotes close to 20 pages to this in her book, much of it specificly about Webster and his Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn. Khabs 01:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should also note that while http://www.93current.de/groups.shtml doesn't list his Golden Dawn order, it does list his church (Ecclesia Gnostica Universalis), next to last link on the page. Khabs 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - smells like spam to me. :bloodofox: 01:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - on the low end of notability, however there seems to be enough 3rd party sources to make a decent article out of. --Jackhorkheimer 05:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Doesn't appear to be particularly notable, the article doesn't make a particularly strong case for significant attention outside that community.ALR 17:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to have enough credits as a writer and liturgist to merit an article. A journalist or other type of writer need not write books to be notable if there's a big enough and respected enough body of articles & essays. The data in this article keeps growing; I urge those calling for a delete to at least wait a while longer and see what else those supporting the article come up with, then revisit the issue. (However, it might be advisable to limit the list of essays to ones that have been published; including a link to the rest might be preferable.) Rosencomet 23:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment on open source religion -- I would gladly delete that article, much more so than tis, , and claiming it makes him less notable, not more. WP can not be used to support WP. DGG 03:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability established enough and seems to be well-documented. Foolio93 22:57, 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 speedy keep, nomination withdrawn based on references provided by Hateless and the community consensus. YechielMan 19:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar tit[edit]

Sugar tit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A google search reveals that people do use the term "sugar tit" as in the article, but there is not a single notable source - say, a news item or a significant fiction writer - to affirm its notability. YechielMan 04:09, 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 No consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Academy of Higher Education[edit]

National Academy of Higher Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) (and redirect National academy of higher education)

Unnotable accreditation mill. Started by a user who has been vandalizing Concordia College and University (a degree mill) in trying to give this place the look of a legitimate school. (This article is listed as that diploma mill's accreditor[20]).

It is not an legitimate accreditor, which means its "accreditation" is worthless. (And see List of recognized accreditation associations of higher learning.) It is listed at Credential Watch as nonrecognized. A user has tried to say it is legitimate with a link that fails to prove otherwise.[21] FGT2 04:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As I stated previously when I removed the PROD notice from this article, expanded the article, and tried to revise it in a manner that presents a relatively balanced view of the topic, I think the real reason for the proposed deletion is the allegation that the article topic is a fraudulent organization. This is one of the types of "reasons" discussed at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Fraudulent organizations can be notable (for example, see Mafia). If a notable organization is alleged to be fraudulent, it seems to me that Wikipedia should make the information available to people, rather than hiding it by deleting the article. I believe the topic is notable, as indicated by the fact that prominent Diploma mills cite NAHE to support their claims of credibility and several "quackwatch"-type organizations include it in their lists of known unrecognized accreditation agencies.--orlady 04:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't explained or given reason why it is notable, see: WP:CORP. Is there enough details to write an article? FGT2 04:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have the notion that Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". That is not the same as "is easy to find extensive information about." Factors that indicate this organization is "attracting notice" include the diploma mills that use it to establish credibility for themselves (examples: International University of Fundamental Studies, Concordia College and University, American University of London, and Bircham International University), news stories about fraud incidents involving this outfit (for example, Cheyenne police chief defends distance-learning degree), and its appearance on fraud-alert lists such as http://www.cpec.ca.gov/CollegeGuide/NonAccredited.asp . --orlady 05:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three unaccredited places that give degrees in weeks (as opposed to years) make this notable how? onlineeducationfacts.com promoting Concordia College and University is notable how? Read WP:CORP: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the source of which is both: 1) independent of the company, corporation, organization or group itself, or of the product's or service's manufacturer or vendor, and 2) reliable."FGT2 07:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the above, but there isn't any results on google for this, the only result is a UK site and totally contradicts the article. Can you give any links to prove this organization existence? Rysin3 05:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you Google for "National Academy of Higher Education" (including the quotation marks) you will definitely get results (in addition to results for the similarly-named legitimate national organization in Pakistan).--orlady 05:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But where did you get this information? Really some proof is needed, i have looked on Google as well as other search engines but i find nothing to match what you wrote. I agree what you said about allowing more articles, but this one seems nonsense to me. Rysin3 05:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the fact the article has been edited to show that it is an un-accredited facilty, with little else of note, maybe worth a re-direct straight to List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning. Khukri - 09:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure it's discussed a lot, and often in reliable sources, but only in the manner of a directory entry listing it as unrecognized. I can't find a source which states outright that it's an accreditation mill, but I can find sources that state several of its accredited schools are degree mills. Smerge and redirect to the list of unrecognized accrediting agencies may be the best result. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep vandalism is not a reason to delete an article. Fix up the POV problems instead. Selket Talk 16:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not have multiple, non-trival mentions, and therefore should be deleted. This is a WEBPAGE tied to diploma mills. Can you verify this is a real group or anything it claims to be? 17:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC) --The preceding unsigned comment was posted by FGT2
  • Keep per above. If we are going to do lists of red links, i.e. List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning, we should do articles on the underlying institutions. --JJay 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether it's a real organisation or an accreditation mill doesn't matter in this debate: it's got the references to support the notability claim, so the decision is straightforward. WMMartin 17:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No one has proved it is notable. The only thing cited is it belongs on a list of accreditation mills. Read WP:CORP: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the source of which is both: 1) independent of the company, corporation, organization or group itself, or of the product's or service's manufacturer or vendor, and 2) reliable." The newspaper in the article does not mention this subject, it mentions a diploma mill. FGT2 01:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a fraudulent business isn't reason for deletion, but being a probably dishonest attempt to pose as a notable fraudulent business is good reason, especially as the article exists in good part to promote another article. Truly notable fake accreditation agencies get many more media references than this one has. DGG 05:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while vandalism is not a good deletion argument, lack of sourcing is. The three sources cited in the article are a "name drop" and therefore trivial. No indication this subject is notable. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 05:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - I have (just now) created redirect pages, pointing to National Academy of Higher Education, for both Association of Distance Learning Programs and Association for Distance Learning, both of which were separately listed on List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning, but appear to be components of NAHE. Since ADLP is the accrediting unit of NAHE, more diploma mills claim its accreditation than claim NAHE accreditation.--orlady 17:43, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW - closing early - Peripitus (Talk) 12:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Osbourne[edit]

Sharon Osbourne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject is rich and married to a rock star. So? The article doesn't discuss much that she's actually done that's notable in any fashion. A pittance to some charities, some health issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzmadmike (talk • contribs)

  • Keep Don't be so ridiculous. Rysin3 04:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Subject is famous from having a reality television show made about her husband, herself and their children, and then going on to host talk shows of her own. I'm not even sure this nomination was made in good faith. --Metropolitan90 06:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. If this is a good faith nomination, then I have to call WP:OSTRICH. Extremely notable individual who would be notable if all she did was co-star with her husband in The Osbournes, but she went on to host a talk show as well. 23skidoo 06:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Metropolitan90 and 23skidoo. --Lmblackjack21 06:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 23skuidoo. Ulysses Zagreb 09:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep huh? Khukri - 09:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Delete?!?! Are you kidding.... ?!?! Mathmo Talk 11:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep screw it, I'll say it: bad faith nom. JuJube 12:04, 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 as nonsense (CSD G1). -- Gogo Dodo 06:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austin janovich[edit]

Austin janovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced borderline nonsense about the Croatian knight (inventor of electricity) who just so happens to share a name with the creator of the page. Fails WP:V. janejellyroll 04:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete nonsense and so tagged for speedy deletion. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as complete rubbish. Montco 04:58, 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 04:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoko[edit]

Smoko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Unsourced slang term for a smoke break. Even if this met WP:V, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. janejellyroll 04:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No sources cited or assertion of verifiability.--lightspeedchick 04:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears to be a hoax, given the silly content. Even if the content were the result of vandalism, I agree with Lightspeedchick.Noroton 04:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now Strong Keep Calling it a "hoax" was a bit overboard on my part because I didn't really know whether "Smoko" actually existed or not, but the article was obviously pulling the reader's leg from top to bottom. Thanks to some fine work by some of the editor's here, it is now an entirely different article (is there anything remaining of the original at all except the title?). Different article, different opinion.Noroton 14:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although it should be noted that Smoko is widely used by blue collar workers in Australia. Much of the rest of the content is rubbish. Maustrauser 04:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep I've changed my view. The editors have done an excellent job in cleaning the article up. Good work! Maustrauser 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and perhaps redirect to cigarette. It is a commonly used phrase in Australia (as Maustrauser noted), although article is a bit rubbishy-from K37 06:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 08:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs a fixup but worth keeping DXRAW 08:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is rubbish as is but there may well be a good article to be written about the institution of the smoko. I may do some research and rewrite if I have time. If I don't, by all means delete. --Zeborah 09:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are currently four sources in the article, which is enough for this and I can only see the article getting better from this point on. I'm surpised it was called a hoax by another editor, but then I understand they probably are not from around this end of the world. Is extremely common not just in Australia but in NZ (I'd expect outside there, but my experience is naturally limited). Mathmo Talk 11:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, been looking at the history. Was of a rather low standard when first nominated, so that is understandable. However DXRAW has since greatly improved it. Mathmo Talk 12:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand that some editors are not aware of the term, but it is definitely verifiable, notable (subject of multiple reliable sources: Ban the smoko? No way, gasp diehard smokers, Abbott says smoko has had its day (The Age), S is for Smoko (ABC)) and widely used in Australia and New Zealand. It's also expandable so it's not just a dicdef. --Canley 12:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've expanded and rewritten the article, and added heaps of references, so hopefully that can pull this one out of the fire. I don't blame the original nominator, the original article ("Latin: Smokeus Breakus") was dreadful. --Canley 14:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome, page is now looking sweet as. Only got one question for you now, did you re-write it during your smoko break?! Mathmo Talk 14:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article has been well rescued. Nice work, all. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- well referenced article. - Longhair\talk 16:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements implemented. Concerns brought up in the nomination have been addressed. -- Black Falcon 19:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm apparently coming into the conversation after the article was improved. But based on its current state I'm ok with keeping it. Dugwiki 20:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirection to cigarette clearly shows that someone doesn't know, even non-smokers take smokos in Australia... Unfortunate proof that AfD leads to improvement of articles (but not all articles).Garrie 22:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - both a common term and part of popular culture in both Australia and New Zealand. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on current state (and a credit to the rewriters) - the original looked terrible. As Garrie noted, it's become a cultural term even at times divorced from its original meaning. (Smokeus Breakus? :D) Orderinchaos78 00:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well done for those who improved the article. Capitalistroadster 01:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When I added this debate to list of Australia-related deletions, I was very undecided. It is great now. Well done, folks. --Bduke 02:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Smoko Is an intergral part of the Australian Culture. 210.11.34.9 05:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I very much agree that the original article was a mess. But being Australian, I can personally vouch for the Notability and importance of Smoko. Needs to be wiki'd imho. The Pace 14:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks for making the article all that it could be guys being the nominator for this page I would like to redeem myself by saying that I was not the person who wrote the "Smokeus Breakius" thing that was some silly anonymous, but again the article looks great thanks guys. Eyenomad 9:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wow, what a change since the nom. Nice work. John Vandenberg 13:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and commonly used slang term for a ciggarette break. Used in the media. --Candy-Panda 12:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is important to australian culture no need for erasure of this yuckfoo 01:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Proof once again that an australian article which has been thrown an afd can be improved with v and n shining out as always SatuSuro 04:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now a good article. Smoko is definitely an old Aussie institution and deserves a wiki page. Zamphuor 10:05, 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 06:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan McKinnon[edit]

Nathan McKinnon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:BIO. Cannot verify claims in article. Nv8200p talk 04:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Last line of article: "McKinnon currently resides in Saskatoon with his wife Alana, and his girlfriend Beatrix" Hoax.Noroton 04:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as probable WP:HOAX. -- MarcoTolo 06:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources, no references therefore fails WP:V Alf photoman 15:03, 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 Speedy delete as a copyvio of http://www.eca.usp.br/nucleos/njr/

Núcleo José Reis de Divulgação Científica[edit]

Núcleo José Reis de Divulgação Científica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Disputed PROD. This appears (I'm not quite sure what the article is about) to be about a program at a university. I do not believe that any notability has been proven. The text is difficult to follow. If the article is to remain it perhaps should be in the Portugese WP. Maustrauser 04:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as far as I can tell (the article is borderline incoherent) there is no attempt to assert notability. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Jefferson Anderson 21:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a copyvio, text taken from here. Tagged with speedy. -- Whpq 17:30, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super capitalism[edit]

Super capitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I could not find any rock-solid references on the web for the use of this term. It seems not to have gained wide acceptance. YechielMan 05:17, 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 06:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Living Receiver[edit]

Living Receiver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete I would suggest a merge, but I think this is covered somewhere. As for the delete nom., non notable fictional element in a movie. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 05:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a fictional item, in a fictional book, written by a character in a fiction movie. -- Whpq 17:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from the above reasons, the chapter is already covered in the article about the ficticious book, Philosophy of Time Travel. -- Donald Albury 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Covered elsewhere. No redirect, as I don't feel the search term is likely to be used often ( if at all ). WMMartin 18:48, 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 06:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeVry DuPage[edit]

DeVry DuPage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A Myspace page. Despite the article's grandiose claims to notability, there's nothing - especially no reliable sources - to indicate this is in fact more notable than any other Myspace site. On the contrary, the last paragraph, "About the Author", indicates it's original research. The author has removed {{unsourced}} and {{notability}} tags, so I'm forgoing PROD. Sandstein 05:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is unverifiable and unsourced (sources do not meet reliable source criteria). It is also not notable. --N Shar 05:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - I wish I could have an article about my myspace too :(-from K37 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete for violating WP:SPAM - page is an advertisement for an advertisement for DeVry), WP:POV for terrible wording, the majority of the external links are to other Myspace pages, and probably more if one looked further. Korranus 05:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy changed to strong, let's see if that watchful author can do anything to save it.Korranus 06:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article violates WP:NOR as original research and WP:WEB since it is about a non-notable web page. The creation of this page may have been a misunderstanding. --Metropolitan90 06:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless properly sourced by end of this AfD cleaning up the problems with WP:COI Alf photoman 14:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above arguments. Jefferson Anderson 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like an essay, and as original reasearch. Lacks reliable sources. Promotional. Resolute 00:28, 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 06:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jameson Smith[edit]

Jameson Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Auto?) Bio of nn student filmmaker. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self promotion. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 05:36, 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 per sources added. Nomination withdrawn. PeaceNT 11:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxion[edit]

Galaxion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A comic strip, nonnotable under either WP:WEB or WP:BK. No third-party sources, such as reviews, are cited. I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt for now and assume the note that it is published is an assertion of notability under WP:CSD#A7; what are the community's views on this? Sandstein 05:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Withdrawn after sources were provided. Thanks, Zeborah, for your work on this article. Sandstein 22:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Keep zero notability, could be a speedy. notability established --Daniel J. Leivick 05:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Found three reviews [22] [23] [24] and a interview with the creator about the comic on Sequential Tart, an important (third-party and edited) webzine -- there'll be more on that zine alone, I didn't drill down past the first five results. The editorial reviews at amazon.com also suggest more places to start looking for reviews. I'll research more tomorrow but even this quick search suggests the comic is notable. --Zeborah 09:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not a speedy delete, but I would like to see evidence of reviews beyond Sequential Tart, before I change to a keep. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Here's one from Cold Cut Distribution - granted they want to sell the comic, but they want to sell a whole heck of a lot of different comics from different publishers. Also one from The Comics Journal, another third-party edited magazine, and from Silver Bullet Comic Books (messy website but I think ditto). I find it harder to evaluate iComics but those are probably enough to start with anyway. --Zeborah 06:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your research. If you will include these citations in the article, preferably inline so as to source the content, I'll withdraw my nomination. Sandstein 06:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, for the most part. I still want to do something with the cast section (and if anyone knows how to make the "date" field in the web citation work when I only have month and year, that'd be good) but the page now has sufficient references to satisfy notability. --Zeborah 09:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 13:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete not a speedy, but still lacking nonetheless. NetOracle 06:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the presence of multiple sources. Do rewrite. Balancer 14:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep since neither WP:WEB nor WP:BK apply to comic books, and nor does sppedt criteria A7 or whastever the number was, I fail to see a legitimate reason for this nomination. AFD is not cleanup. We have cleanup tags for this stuff, and a comics project that will clean them up. It will take time, granted, but there is no deadline on Wikipedia. Hiding Talk 20:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability established by revivews listed above, replace AFD tag with cleanups per Hiding. AFD's should not be used as substitutions for source and citation tags. Timmccloud 00:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - you'd think that this has happened enough times to teach to look before leaping. Oh well, there's plenty of counterexamples too. --Kizor 23:04, 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 06:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkling (hand signal)[edit]

Twinkling (hand signal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Incomplete nom by anon user. Unlike most procedural noms, this is not neutral: Delete per WP:NFT. N Shar 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Brand Studios[edit]

Alternative Brand Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure if the (unsourced) assertion that these people were the first to found a webcomic collective is an assertion to notability, so I'll bring it here instead of speedy deleting it. Their activities fall short of thenotability standard of WP:WEB, WP:ORG or WP:CORP, and there are no reliable sources to support any assertion of notability. Their webcomics themselves are not notable, or at any rate not notable enough to confer notability on this collective. Sandstein 06:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - utterly non-notable Feeeshboy 06:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 13:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. - Francis Tyers · 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to be non-notable, does not assert notability, and reads like spam. NetOracle 06:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two of the comics apparently included in the original ABS (according to the article) are notable enough to have their own articles on Wikipedia, and 1-2 others of those may be; among that list are both Keenspot and Blank Label Comics authors. If the article's unverified content is correct, i.e., it was the first webcomic collective and did include who it says it included, then it is fairly clear that it will meet notability standards. Can the content be verified? Balancer 15:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no third-party reputable sources, let alone any suggesting importance. The unsourced "first webcomic collective" claim appears to be false advertising -- the comics in the group started around 2000, well after the webcomic collectives from the mid-90s.[25] -- Dragonfiend 05:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then. Balancer 12:08, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:13Z

Safari Books Online[edit]

Safari Books Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article doesn't assert notability enough for inclusion under either of the two possibly applicable guidelines (WP:WEB and WP:CORP). It started off as an advert along with articles for Rough Cuts and Short Cuts. It still seems like an advert to me. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 06:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not the best-written article, but I think Safari is notable as an arm of O'Reilly Media and as an unusual means of publishing. There's already a blurb about it on the page for O'Reilly, so it could be merged there, but I think there's probably plenty to be said that warrants moving that content to a separate page and expanding it. Pinball22 15:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely an important arm of O'Reilly. A merge would make sense if few secondary sources are found. --- RockMFR 20:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Jefferson Anderson 22:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note previous no-consensus related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rough Cuts. --Dhartung | Talk 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 keep. —Doug Bell talk 12:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul King (New Zealand)[edit]

Paul King (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged WP:CSD#A7 but notability asserted. Failed candidate, formed own party of no evident signficance. No sources. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, came very close to getting into Parliament and then later on attempted to form his own party. Mathmo Talk 06:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The deselection of a candidate who was otherwise likely to become an MP was, I believe, a notable event. It got media coverage, certainly. -- Vardion 18:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: it describes a man whose only notability is that he failed in a quest for notability. Kripto 02:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Tikiwont 13:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I also nominated the creator Vardion who may not be in a position to respond. -- Tikiwont 13:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep He came very close to getting a seat under te NZ proportional representation, he has founded what seems to be a significant new party, the article is written without any apparent COI. DGG 08:31, 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, Quarl (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
?? The article cites no sources at all and does not claim any media attention (not that that would be automatically evidence of encyclopedic notability anyway). Bwithh Join Up! See the World! 07:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, guess for some people it simply isn't obvious that they would have had media coverage.... that is ok, really quite understandable. So I went and added in a couple more external links to the article, both from major big NZ media companies. Mathmo Talk 14:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minor political candidate with minor parliamentary kerfuffle over business connections (just 2 distinct short-ish articles in regional/local NZ newspapers about this in a Factiva news database search for Paul King + Wizkid) which stopped him becoming an MP. The party he went on to help found in 2005 (apparently out of pique), Freedom Party (New Zealand) failed to carry out the most basic action of registering for the 2005 general elections, fielding no candidates (according to the wiki article)- this party article should be considered for deletion as well (though currently its official website has been taken over by Turkish hackers so it is impossible to evaluate its website at the moment) Bwithh Join Up! See the World! 07:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Vardion. I wouldn't call the Freedom Party a significant one, since it failed to stand any candidates in the only election held since it was formed, but King's formation of the party combined with his near entry into parliament under interesting circumstances tip the balance.-gadfium 04:06, 19 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) 2007-02-18 08:14Z

Malakii[edit]

Malakii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 but notability asserted. Several very weak claims to fame, questionable overall. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree: weak claims to being notable. - grubber 23:08, 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) 06:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete concert of 200 people says it all, does not meet WP:NOTE Khukri - 09:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Resolute 00:30, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Talbot[edit]

Steven Talbot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged WP:CSD#A7 but having a production at Bristol Old Vic is a claim to fame of sorts. Not much to see, though, no sources (of course), and honestly if we need to know that thiey got a 2:1 in drama from Hull then we are reaching a bit. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 8 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) 06:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - aside from a single touring production, there's nothing here to see. He's apparently written several other plays, but there are no claims that they were even produced. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google doesnt return much. Orphaned page. Was written by a user who has this SINGLE edit only. Written 9 months ago and no improvement or notability development since. Definite delete. - grubber 16:20, 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) 2007-02-18 08:15Z

MaryAnne (ysabellabrave.com)[edit]

MaryAnne (ysabellabrave.com) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy (spam and/or lack of notability), bringing here to get broader input about notability as applied to youtube performers than just the few of us on the talk page. Should we copy that material here, or at least flag it, so that if page is deleted the discussion is still preserved? DMacks 07:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - When looking into this article (despite my objections on the talk page), the popularity is correct and even acknowledged by the person featuring in it. But the article will obviously need to be improved if it has to be kept. Rysin3 07:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being popular on YouTube is not notable. TJ Spyke 09:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm going to take a face value that this individual's work has been viewed and enjoyed by a number of people, but unfortunately even if that is certainly the case, it fails notability per either WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Above all other considerations, either of those guidelines (which I realize are not at all absolutes) insist on "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." In it's current form one has to presume that this wikipedia article is a first-account piece of text written by either the artist herself or an admirer, and has absolutely no relationship to any verifiable secondary source (much less multiple). Find a few reputable articles about this person or her music or her influence on internet culture...and then an article on her can be started. -Markeer 17:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pretty straightforward fail of WP:BIO/WP:WEB. Wikipedia is, unlike YouTube, built upon a broad consensus of standards for contributions, and under no obligation to support democracy of content creation or other flavors-of-the-week. --Dhartung | Talk 23:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heck-I-Don't-Know - Thank you for the discussion and for giving me some education on the foundations of wikipedia. I am starting to see the distinctions between an unbiased factual article and a review by an admirer and I will keep an eye out for "reputable" articles about the subject singer to validate the need for a wiki article. My interest in the subject, aside from the entertainment value, lies in my amazement at the power of the Internet to allow ordinary people to publish works on their own and easily distribute to a global audience with little control by government and commercial enterprise. And to see that audience interact and voice its many opinions. At some point enough people would be influenced by the subject's work to merit some acknowledgement in the pages of "reputable" sources such as the wikipedia. I guess that is what we are exploring here. How many people does it take? By the way, I do not know the performer personally nor do I have any commercial or personal interest other than as an admirer of her work. My motivation is just to let other people know about it and share the enjoyment I get from the entertainment. I suppose I like hearing myself talk too, and writing way too much about this, but I do like learning about the process wikipedia has established. Anyway, certainly, there is a need for standards governing the content of wikipedia, but I have to wonder about their interpretation. It seems like the wiki requires a middle-man between the performer and her audience to validate her work. I.e. commercially produced recordings, advertising to aquaint people with the performer, radio or TV play time, an agent to get reputable publications to notice and write articles, etc. I am impressed by the simplicity of YouTube in providing a medium in which the performer can display her talent with no outside help, and her audience can easily access and choose to watch and listen to her works. What is notable about this performer is the huge following she has acquired in such a short period of time, and the acknowledgement she receives from her fans. I think her impact on internet culture is significant and people would find it interesting and useful to find out about her in the pages of wikipedia. It seems to me that the wikipedia is a place to note such people and what they have done. Now, in my mind the subject, i.e. MaryAnne, is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I do see the points made by contributors to this page about how an article should be written, the neutral point of view, the need to prove assertions made, and so on. Based on those, perhaps it should be deleted. I would much rather see it improved upon, to bring it up to standards, so it can stay in wikipedia. Readers will enjoy discovering a singer who provides good entertainment for them to enjoy. Voyagr7 02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Voyagr7, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your question How many people does it take? is beside the point; it takes a few of them being reporters or whatever who "note" the subject in the media. Your observation It seems like the wiki requires a middle-man between the performer and her audience to validate her work. is spot on, as Wikipedia is a tertiary source compiling the work of others. It is no longer unusual for a YouTube "celebrity" to develop a following in a short period of time; what makes one stand out is making the jump to another source or medium. It's possible that could happen starting tomorrow. As of now, however, she is just one of many. --Dhartung | Talk 05:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Well, when you put it that way, I can see that the article does not meet the criteria. Maybe tomorrow... Thank you all, for the education and your time. Voyagr7 06:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Abstain - A cat is fine too. Koptor 12:46, 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 07:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Womensing[edit]

Womensing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A Cappella group which utterly fails WP:MUSIC. Local to Vermont, the six-member group which has only had self-published discs, singing international songs, and cover versions of songs made famous by notable groups. Delete Ohconfucius 06:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Listings of their free performances can be found to show they exist, but could not find articles where they are the primary subject of any substantial coverage. Unless someone can find such and add it, the article fails to meet the standard for notability. Inkpaduta 20:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. ShadowHalo 22:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cedlaod 02:59, 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. –Llama man 00:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Garner[edit]

Harold Garner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable; self-written vanity article ENDelt260 20:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless reliable sources are provided substantiating a fact about him which meets WP:BIO. Presently, this is a resume, albeit with some material which if verified and expanded could potentially meet a WP:BIO criterion. A look at Google doesn't help greatly because there are many false positives for identically named individuals. I find violations of WP:COI distasteful, but once posted, the article has to be considered on the merits.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course he's notable Physicist now a biophysicist, professor at a major medical center., Named chair, large research group, about 40 peer-reviewed papers in the last 5 years, most in major international journals.
Unfortunately, his web site is written as if it were a commercial organization, and is very hard to take seriously from the home page--He has titled it "Garnering Innovation"--but it is different when one looks inside. This is written as a vanity article, so it is confusing until you get to the actual scientific work, but we are judging the notability of the subject. I wikified that article a little. I remind people that an official university web page is a RS for the academic work, but I even found 2 news items about his work. DGG 08:11, 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, Quarl (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, the problem here is not the notability of the subject but the failure of the article to show that, if somebody adds sources and references I am willing to review it again before the end of the AfD Alf photoman 14:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with sources fixed by DGG notability is demonstrated Alf photoman 13:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Named chair, unusual double career in high energy physics and biomedical engineering, founder of multiple companies. I completely fail to see what Alf photoman means about the failure of the article to show notability. Of course he's notable. At least Alf didn't just copy and paste his standard delete comment this time. —David Eppstein 06:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, my problem is not that I dispute the notability of Prof. Garner but that the article fails to show references and cite sources. It does not matter what I know now, or what you know now, but what people can learn 25 years down the line from Wikipedia. Without sources and proper referencing the articles are completely worthless after the references just catch dust in some archive Alf photoman 17:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it's not so much notability but verifiability that you have a problem with, right? I agree that proper sourcing is necessary. I'm less convinced that deleting articles is the way to achieve it. —David Eppstein 18:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment on sources It may not have been evident because of a typo, but that has been fixed and the article now demonstrates two separate mentions of his inventions in Science , on the notable computer products section--they are editorial reviews, not ads. the rest of the documentation is his articles, as listed in the website, which is the acceptable place for them. (I had trouble with this, too, till I saw those two Science reviews) DGG 05:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:N and is verifiable. John Vandenberg 02:34, 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 - Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaners (Max Payne)[edit]

Cleaners (Max Payne) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete or Merge Perhaps a notable antagonist in the Max Payne 2 game, it does not deserve its own article; not notable enough in the real world. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 20:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Appears to be important element within the game, as one of the primary protagonist groups. Would support a merge, although the size of the Max Payne 2 article is pretty solid, so I would also be happy keeping this as a split out section. -- saberwyn 21:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like I said in the nomination, they are one of the main antagonists, but they don't deserve their own article; it's not notable enough in the real world and they only appear in one game. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, per User:Klptyzm saberwyn . Mathmo Talk 06:27, 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) 07:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • lol, sorry! That has got to be the craziest error I've ever made... must have had a minor brain fade. Fixed now. Mathmo Talk 15:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Probably my momentary confusion came from the fact you would even support merging yourself (which is kinda an indirect vote for keeping, for now at least). And that you even acknowledged yourself that they are "one of the main antagonists". Mathmo Talk 15:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, just the fact that its an antagonist does not merit separate article creation; if that did merit separate article creation, thousands of articles would need to be created. Do you see where I'm going with this? ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 05:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • So you want this article deleted on the basis Wikipedia might perhaps end up with thousands of articles if it isn't?? And why is that a problem? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. My view if people want to write and read this much stuff then let them, and what you said of merging doesn't seem like a good idea. Because for readability we want keep articles from getting extremely long. Mathmo Talk 06:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yeah, apparently, you didn't see where I was going with that. Perhaps it was my fault for wording it in such a fashion. It was basically another statement supporting the fact that it's still not significant enough to have a page; I'm basically trying to say that lots of unnecessary pages would need to be created if this one is allowed to stay. For instance, Roy Knife is a main antagonist from the "Gun.Smoke" video game; we don't know 2 cents about him other than his name, so, just because he's a "main antagonist," he deserves his own article? Maybe I should have stated that in my above comment. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 06:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Also, just because Wikipedia encourages addition of information doesn't mean to make an article about everything. Wikipedia would be extremely, and unnecessarily, long if that were true. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 06:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • If not even two cents is known about "Roy Knife" then it shouldn't be created because you could barely squeeze a stub out of it. This article however is well beyond stub status. Mathmo Talk 07:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Yeah, you still don't understand where I'm going with this. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 20:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                              • The article itself says "not much is known about the organization." Also, there is a high possibility that all of this is original research anyways. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 22:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR and the duck test. If it seems like OR, and it doesn't have references supplied by the original editors, it almost certainly is OR. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:38, 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lords and Ladies (Max Payne)[edit]

Lords and Ladies (Max Payne) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete or Merge Non notable element in Max Payne. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 20:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fictional television show in the background of the game. Appears not to have much importance in itself or to the overall plot. Delete. -- saberwyn 21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, is a running theme throughout the series and quite unlike anything else I've seen in any other game. Mathmo Talk 06:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • State and support a claim for this so called "recurring theme." I don't recall anything about any "Lords and Ladies" in Max Payne 1, and I've played through that more than once. Don't take this the wrong way, but your above statements seem like fan support rather than citing a good reason why it should stay. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 21:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • wwwwolf mentioned in the other AfD Lords and Ladies was in the first one. Mathmo Talk 15:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And also, the article itself says it was in both. Mathmo Talk 15:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both Address Unknown and Lords and Ladies appear in MP1, though they both have perhaps one TV appearance so it's more like one-off joke there. Both are much more widely used in MP2 though. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect without merge to Max Payne, if someone wants to cover it briefly in that article, that's OK, but I don't think there's enough to be said about this to warrant an article of its own. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:09, 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) 07:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NOR and the duck test again. Miserably failing to consider WP:WAF is the icing on the OR cake. If you base an article entirely on your own original observations and extrapolations of a text, it's inevitably OR and not WAF-style. So {{inuniverse}} is a good reason to believe there's OR about. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:43, 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 - No consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpship (Battletech)[edit]

Jumpship (Battletech) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lack of multiple non-trivial independent sources about Jumpships. Pure WP:CRUFT. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 20:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not necessarily; also not really a suitable criteria for deletion.M.U.D. 20:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main form of interstellar travel within the Battletech franchise. Article has minimal sources, primarily from one of the roleplaying books. Weak keep to avoid constant repetition and justification whenever a Jumpship is mentioned in another Battletech article. -- saberwyn 21:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I could not find anything that would make this article look encyclopedic. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:20, 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, Quarl (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to BattleTech technology (itself barely notable, or possibly not so at all). cab 11:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jumpships appear to be discussed in that article already. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jumpship (Battletech) at least has inline citations, whereas BattleTech technology has none as all; those cites would seem to be worth preserving, since someone went to the trouble of looking it up. cab 01:16, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 21:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaws: Rising[edit]

Jaws: Rising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreliable sources, crystal balling. Probable hoax. Was nominated for speedy, but listing here for second opinion. Will support speedy. The JPStalk to me 07:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC) •[reply]

Comment
Speculated to be made, even on a reliable source, does not constitute "made". Crystal balling isn't superceded by reliable sourcing. It's a straight to TV movie, or DVD (or whatever), on something that has yet to be. Fits the crystal balling policy, and lacks notability.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  02:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If actual production news arises, then article can be recreated. In the meantime, there's no guarantee that production will take off. Projects often spend many years on the shelf before they actually enter active production. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:28, 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. –Llama man 00:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Williams Street Mix[edit]

The Williams Street Mix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable college a cappella group (WP:MUSIC). Only claim to notability is this song ("Walk of Shame") for which there is no evidence that it is notable except possible trivial mentions. Savidan 20:14, 8 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) 07:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move no good because we dont have any sources for the claim that the song is notable. Savidan 19:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No notability. It's already mentioned in the Connecticut College article, and the rest of the "content" in the group's article comes from the song, which as the nom established is apparently not notable in the slightest. Cedlaod 03:16, 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 No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 23:26Z

Hullabahoos (2nd nomination)[edit]

Hullabahoos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable college a cappella group (WP:MUSIC). Was kept in the first nomination because the group allegedly "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." However, the only citations (actually, there are only external links) in the article are to the group's own website, not to any independent, non-trivial, third party sources. Savidan 19:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP Although some of the external links, etc., revert back to the Hullabahoos' own website, some of them actually revert to credible sources: an article from the Kennedy Center, a Charlottesville newspaper, the RARB, etc., all suggest to me that this article is note-worthy enough to maintain. It also falls under the scope of the WikiProject University of Virginia Rebwahoo 00:50, 10 February 2007
    — Rebwahoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KEEP I agree. GQ Senior Editor Mickey Rapkin has signed a deal to publish "Pitch Perfect", a book about the world of college a cappella that will include a year in the lives of the Hullabahoos. This is a legitimate group with a legitimate product and does certainly fall under the scope of WikiProject University of Virginia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.111.193.72 (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    — 199.111.193.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:IAR in regards to WP:MUSIC. This is a niche sort of group and the places they've been invitted to perform lends notability to them. Bookings at major political conventions and the Kennedy Center shows they are elite in their genre, albeit a capella music isn't "pop" nor terribly popular. Kyaa the Catlord 13:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Kyaa the Catlord and [[User:Rebwahoo|Rebwahoo]. Mathmo Talk 15:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, yet another example of why Notability is subjective and should not be used as a criteria to keep articles off Wikipedia. I have never heard of the group, but that doesn't mean that the group should be excluded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanielZimmerman (talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I will not argue with the claim that non-notable articles should be kept on Wikipedia, only point out that not a sigle keep voter has referenced an inclusion criteria at WP:MUSIC. Some of the keep voters are explicitly arguing that the group is not notable
The argument for deleting the article started off as them not being notable and that is why I included it in my argument to keep the article. As long as the article follows wp:v, wp:nor, and wp:npov there is no need for notability guidelines. DanielZimmerman 21:08, 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 Merge to Arlington Heights, Illinois. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:16Z

Arlington Heights Memorial Library (AHML)[edit]

Arlington Heights Memorial Library (AHML) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN local library branch SUBWAYguy 18:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 13:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep based on above searches. Addhoc 13:41, 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, Avi 19:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The publisher of the books is: Friends of the Arlington Heights Memorial Lib. In other words, it's self published. It may have been intended for more serious purposes than the typical vanity press book, but that's all it is. I like libraries, notable and non-notable; this one is among the non notableDGG 07:33, 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, Quarl (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems to be a good public library (long may they prosper!) but not encyclopedically notable. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into Arlington Heights, although only about 10 percent of this short article is even worth merging. No claim to notability is given, and the book clearly isn't enough. The book should provide some good information for a section in the Arlington Heights article: Year started, some landmarks in the history of its growth, number of books or other material, the large number of library card holders (and percentage), perhaps even size of buildings and branches in square feet, and especially anything else unusual that sets it apart from other libraries. It could make a fine section. An article on a library would show something unique or very rare and valuable about it.Noroton 17:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing notable about this library, for example, it is not on the National Register of Historic Places ([[List_of_Registered_Historic_Places_in_Cook_County,_Illinois#Arlington_Heights|our list). --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above, to the extent feasible. The self-published source doesn't qualify under WP:RS, ergo not under WP:N either. I wouldn't just delete it outright, under long precedent that effort should be made to merge things like local libraries and schools into articles on the larger systems/towns to which they belong. The other books results appear to be in-passing, not in-depth, and the "news" results are either local or in librarian specialty publications, and don't seem to support a claim of notability either in general or in the field of librarianism, being also in-passing and not detailed information about the library per se. The fact that the library board had a meeting recorded in a local paper helps establish that the library exists, but lots of things exist that don't need articles.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:50, 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. --Coredesat 06:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sedat Laciner[edit]

Sedat Laciner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability, self-promotional material Tumbleweedtumbles 17:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is a (now modified) auto-biography. A search on Sedat Laciner on some of the main ressources for social science: Jstor, containing more than 143.000 journal issues; ProQuest more than 6.000 periodicals, and SAGE Publications/CSA Illumina with +1,200 resources gives 0 hit, neither as author nor as reference! Not having published anything or being used as reference in any respected journal nulifies IMHO any claim of notability. Please also see WP:AUTO, the combination of lack of notability and being an autobiography effectively makes the article unverifiable. Bertilvidet 17:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I know that Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is just a proposal, but it seems like a useful breakdown of the problem here- professors are expected to publish, but just publishing doesn't make a professor notable unless the books have received significant critical attention, which I don't see evidence of here. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He is even not a professor, but an associate professor. Bertilvidet 18:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. he is not notable in the language he writes, no SSCI indexed contribution, no reference given to him in the academic databases, Clearly a vanity-seeker more than an academic.cs 10:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The user is a suspected sock puppet of User:Slaciner, and the above comment should thus be seen as sarcastic. Bertilvidet 00:03, 11 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. W.marsh 14:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave Travel Concession[edit]

Leave Travel Concession (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be about a minor Indian law, however, there is limited context. Also, it looks like a bit of a how-to guide, and possible copyright violation. Delete from me. J Milburn 18:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a how-to guide of limited notability. Seems to be copied from here. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I thought that, but it isn't quite a copyvio, I don't think. J Milburn 19:17, 8 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) 07:38, 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 07:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storms sexuality axis[edit]

Storms sexuality axis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable theory. I could only find one journal article relating to this and almost all of the Google hits for this are simply Wikipedia mirrors. Thus, fails WP:V and WP:Notability. Jackhorkheimer 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; no evidence that the concept is in widespread use. More sources would be required to show this. Walton monarchist89 19:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, several non-trivial Google Books results. It's possible this would be better noted in an article on Storms himself. The axis is more an illustration of his hypotheses than anything else. --Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my nom. While there are nine references to Michael Storms from Google Books, only four mention the concept at all. --Jackhorkheimer 19:29, 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) 07:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Theory that has little currency. Could create hundreds of pages of discarded or dusty psychosexual theories. Rkevins 09:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as copyright violation from here (which, in turn, is mostly an apparent copyright violation from page 52 of ISBN 0415166594). It's not at all clear this is notable enough for its own article in any case. —Celithemis 09:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio per above. Jefferson Anderson 22:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Celithemis (I wonder why the copyright violator didn't just upload the picture of the x-y axis too...). Cedlaod 03:33, 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 speedy redirect to hormesis per Choess. (I double-checked, and he's right.) Non-admin closure based on WP:IAR. YechielMan 05:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hormensis[edit]

Hormensis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I may be wrong, but the google results would suggest that (if this is even the correct definition of the word) that it is not a widely used phrase. In any case, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. J Milburn 18:40, 8 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) 07:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism. Do not transwiki. A redirect might be possible. YechielMan 19:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to hormesis, the correct term. Choess 03:35, 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duck crossing[edit]

Duck crossing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Hoax? Ducks do not walk far on land, except when leading new ducklings to water. Ducks crossing a road usually fly. Duck crossing is uncataloged and has no external refs. Anthony Appleyard 07:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now pending further research. Although not a valid AfD argument, I have to say I've come across duck crossings. Also, BBC news story from Google's cache here. CiaranG 09:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They also seem to exist in Canada, and there's another BBC story here. Also a DIY duck crossing in Florida, and they have them in Texas (last item on page). CiaranG 09:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ISBN 084939645X has a case study on page 196 of a campaign to have duck crossing signs installed on Jefferson Street in Carlsbad, California. Here is a picture of the duck crossing sign at the Palo Alto Baylands Preserve. Uncle G 10:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That "DIY Duck Crossing" item is actually from a blog, not a newspaper, but your point is still taken. --Calton | Talk 15:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not a standard sign in the MUTCD [26], but sources exist for this, so they should be added to the article. Dave6 talk 10:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proposed "waterfowl crossing" sign for the MUTCD, sign W11-15, can be found on page 34 of this. Uncle G 10:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Is there a generic "animal crossing" (not the game) article this could potentially be merged or redirected to. Seems to me if you can source and define one type of animal crossing, you could get them all. As an aside, and although not a valid AFD reason, I live near an area where an unsignposted 'duck crossing' exists... I've nearly run over them several times. -- saberwyn 11:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about this? ;) CiaranG 11:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two snares and a cymbal fall off a cliff.... -- saberwyn
  • Keep, because unlike the nominator I know it is not a hoax. And of course because of the excellend sources from Uncle G. Mathmo Talk 15:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this article and duck crossings are genuine, wether or not they could be encapsulated into another article is another question. Despite suggestions that it could come under something like waterfowl or animal crossings, duck crossins are most well known and in britain there are not any or rarely any other type of animal crossing. popular culture references include the simpsons episode - homer the heretic 9F01. Armtom 14:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into some sort of unusual crossings article. Duck crossings certainly exist (I'd add a picture of one near here, except the sign was recently stolen. Guess I wasn't the only one who thought it was cute). I know there are places out there that have frog crossings and crab crossings, and there are undoubtedly others. Pinball22 15:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I've seen a Newt Crossing sign in Berkeley, California. --Calton | Talk 15:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources provided by Uncle G and the fact that this is mostly definitely not a hoax. Ducks don't always fly across a road, especially if it's a mother with her young. -- Black Falcon 20:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep believe it or not, I've actually seen ducks crossing at a duck crossing sign! Jefferson Anderson 22:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Real, and yes, Anthony, ducks can quite often be seen walking across roads. Ducks do not fly short distances well, requiring a lot of effort to get airborne. It makes far more sense for them to walk short distances - like across roads - especially if they have (non-flying) young with them. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not a hoax. They are often placed near ponds, rivers, and in parks. --Petercorless 06:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've seen the signs and I've also personally seen a mother duck and her ducklings walking across a fairly wide road in suburban California -- I stopped and held up traffic, my good deed for the day. --Calton | Talk 15:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others, this is not the product of quackery. (jarbarf) 20:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No hoax. Duck crossings are very real and frequently legally regulated, depending on where you are in the world. An encyclopedic topic, just as pedestrian crossing and level crossing are. --Oakshade 03:00, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 19:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trident entertainment group[edit]

Trident entertainment group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not establish notability. One casino group in the Microgaming stable. There are over 90 Microgaming casinos. Microgaming itself is notable: this is not. See also other afds: [27], and [28] Nssdfdsfds 23:27, 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) 07:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claims of notability in article at all: it's a group that owns some websites.... and? - grubber 16:22, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Presidents by previous occupation[edit]

List of United States Presidents by previous occupation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Per reason of Otto4771 about AfD nomination of List of Philippine Presidents by previous occupation that it is in a series of arbitrarily broken-out biographical lists relating to the presidency and that these information should be in the individual articles, and not broken out as a list. Kevin Ray 08:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:NOT#IINFO doesn't seem to be applicable. I've been convinced by the many arguments below. -- Black Falcon 20:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is no worse than any other Presidential trivia list. Biophys 23:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Its at least as bad as any other Presidential trivia list. A list on an arbritary topic; demonstrating the connections (if any) between these jobs does not demonstrate any connections between the presidents themselves. Also per nomination. -- saberwyn 11:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a list on a clearly defined topic, not an WP:NOT#IINFO. The topic would probably merit an article in addition to the list. -- User:Docu
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and per precedent. --Folantin 08:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this list is well maintained and of specific scope and likely to be desired by those interested in Presidents. I don't think you can call it indiscriminate information when many people consider a candidate's occupational history when voting for them. So worth keeping. NoSeptember 13:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Amercians seem to make a fairly big deal about what their presidents did before they became president, so unlike general lists this one might actually be useful. I would have voted to keep the Phillipine presidents one if I'd seen it. Point me to a deletion review on that one and I'll support it. 23skidoo 14:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me too. This tit for tat Phillipine/US thing should stop, and we should not overly restrict our article base to the most populous English speaking countries only. NoSeptember 15:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per precedent & per president Cornell Rockey 15:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NoSeptember has a good point. Significant and verifiable enough information about the history of the US presidential office. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per User:Docu. Mathmo Talk 15:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Docu, NoSeptember and 23skidoo. The list has clear bounds and it shouldn't bother us if every nation in the world had one.Noroton 18:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We're not here to create index after index, which is what all these "Presidents (of any country) by XYZ" articles really are. This particular article is unnecessary and verges on being just a collection of facts unified by one factor; it also almost vergest on trivia taken outside of the context of a biography of an individual. It's enough to have the biographies of each of these presidents to contain their prior occupations. Agent 86 19:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The precedent is significant. YechielMan 19:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons here and at the other half-dozen presidential lists that people are trying to delete. I don't understand how anyone could even begin to argue that information about presidents like this is unencyclopedic? If you're not interested in politics, fine, go read other parts of wikipedia -- but why try to destroy something that is so obviously interesting to so many people?--JayHenry 19:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree with you that this is interesting, and I am interested in politics, but interesting is a matter of opinion and it is not a reason for inclusion (just as "boring" is not a reason for deletion). Agent 86 19:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I know. But I'm tired of stating the case that I and others have made at here and here and several other places. These lists are clearly encyclopedic, and I'm really struggling to assume good faith to editors who classify this sort of information as frivolous trivia, and are nominating all these lists for destruction. "Notability" is a matter of opinion as well, and apparently the definition of the word "indiscriminate" is a matter of opinion on wikipedia. I'm genuinely frustrated by these nominations. The ability to index something in multiple ways makes wikipedia better than any other source of information. These lists are notable by any standard, verifiable, relevant, useful, discriminate, more important than 95 percent of the content on wikipedia, etc., etc. WP:NOT#PAPER!!! There's no good reason to destroy these indexes.--JayHenry 22:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And there are those of us who are probably tired of stating our contrary case in these discussions. You're right, notability is largely a matter of opinion, and as such we're all entitled to our opinions. What you may see as "destruction" others, like me, may see as diminishing the overall value of this encyclopedia. Throwing around loaded terms like "destruction" doesn't really convince me that this list is "clearly encyclopedic". Saying so doesn't make it so. I see this list as clearly trivial, but likewise, saying so doesn't make it so, so I rely on the observation that this is simply a bunch of otherwise inconsequential facts strung together only by the fact that there happen to be "presidents" involved. I'm also not clear why anyone with a contrary opinion is being lumped into whatever spat is going on with Philippean-related topics. Some of us just browse AfD and comment on those articles that garner our attention. Agent 86 02:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You honestly think that it's unimportant what presidents did before they were presidents? Even though it's incessantly covered and important to millions of people when they vote? Even though a president's early career is covered in probably countless news articles before the election, and however many biographies after? It's unimportant what sort of previous experience the people that lead countries have?--JayHenry 08:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It shouldn't be too difficult to come up with guidelines or rules that could rope in the more serious "Presidents by XYZ" lists. Topics that are or were important to voters or to the lives of the presidents themselves could stay in and those that are not could stay out. IN would be height, military service, religion, basic information about their wives and family, reasons for dying; OUT would be things like taste in music, dental hygiene, what musical instruments they might have played. All the IN stuff would be potentially useful (very broadly defined) to people seriously studying history and of some interest to the rest of us, the OUT stuff would be totally useless to the historian. Them's my thoughts, anyway. Noroton 21:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete who the hell cares if President X used to clean toilets!? You wouldn't have a List of Monarchs of the United Kingdom by Previous Occupation (ie Prince of Wales, Princess Royal etc) and this is no different to my mind. Jcuk 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I care if President X used to clean toilets! Isn't that opinion Jcuk? Just because the Philippine lists aren't getting enough support doesn't mean Kevin Ray has to lash out at the related lists. Being insulted is no reason to start a nominating frenzy. The information can be merged and people interested in world politics can be given the heads up instead of this. Many of these lists are good tools for research no matter what country's leaders they are about. It can save a lot of time when trying to gather information. Many people would find it interesting of informative to find out what world leaders did before and after rising to their status, like Governor-General of the Philippines, William Howard Taft.... Jjmillerhistorian 23:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, thats your prerogative to care. But it's also a list of indiscriminate information held together by the single fact the people mentioned in it happened to be President of a country. Jcuk 00:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, which would mean it's not indiscriminate.Noroton 01:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as prior occupation is very often used to identify Presidents and classify their styles (e.g. The Railsplitter, haberdasher) and is also frequently a campaign issue positive or negative (CEO President, actor President). In particular the number of Presidents who have been lawyers, Senators, or Governors is often of interest. --Dhartung | Talk 23:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also: Anyone interested in this discussion probably would also be interested in another discussion on this very similar topic: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unsuccessful major-party United States presidential candidates' military service. I'm seeing some of the same arguments used in both. Noroton 20:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dhartung and JayHenry. A president is notable, and his(/her?) past is also notable, given the huge amount of media coverage spent covering it. I think it's very similar to List of United States Presidents by military service. (Which may not convince you to keep this one...) Cedlaod 03:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and to retain a neutral point of view, the Phillippines President's page should be undeleted. FrozenPurpleCube 21:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename title is way too long, and I am not sure the article is encyclopediac.--Sefringle 04:48, 19 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game classification[edit]

Game classification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be an unencyclopedic arbitrary list of game classifications. I thought I'd start an afd debate to see what people thought. Jules1975 16:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's verifiable, not original research, and, as can be seen (see Hopper+Bell and Vossen in particular), has a lot of scope for further expansion. Keep. Uncle G 15:59, 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) 07:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References added by Uncle G, though still reads like WP:OR and article could be improved by explaining who Werner and Alomond etc are, and add an intro piece explaining why games are or need to be classified. Khukri - 09:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of the good work done by Uncle G once again. Mathmo Talk 15:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the excellent improvements made by Uncle G. Thanks, Black Falcon 20:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since there is no longer an issue with original research. Could use some more work though. --Rambutaan 06:13, 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. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better Badges[edit]

Better Badges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN company, WP:CORP. Delete - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 16:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - article asserts notability, viz. "[the company] became the leading publisher/merchandiser of 'punk badges' - exporting millions worldwide from their offices"; but no evidence of extensive coverage by independent sources. Delete unless sources are added. Walton monarchist89 17:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the external links there is a [29] link to a scan of an article in the [The Face] June 1980 which describes MacFie as "the leader in his field" and mentions an annual turnover of 150,000UKP. The article includes photographs and more information that reinforces that claim. Wwwhatsup 18:32, 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, Quarl (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Although I can't get much on Google about it, the topic could be notable -- I just cant verify it. It's a fairly new article, so I suggest we let it be for a bit, and judge it once it's more fully developed and wikified. - grubber 16:28, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 13:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melewar Corporation[edit]

Melewar Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn company Zhenghong 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without prejudice to re-creation. The unreferenced claim of the article that this corporation is owned by an apparently local aristocratic family (see Negeri Sembilan) may make a case for notability in some future version of this article. I think more is required, though, as is some information about what they do. This article may contradict the brief article on the monarch of this district (Yang di-Pertuan Besar) which suggests that the monarchy is elective. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That an article is a stub, or contains factual inacuracy is not a criteria for deletion. A factual inacruacy should be corrected or removed. The only applicable reason for deletion here is if the company is notable or not. And it seems that the company is listed on the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange (see [30]) thus it meets the criteria of a notable company, especially since it is on the main board. Arsenikk 19:30, 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) 08:06, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 14:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Septier[edit]

Septier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn company Zhenghong 15:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no media coverage - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Septier is a multinational company that delivers a very narrow technology to a very small customer group - mobile telephone networks. Their customers though include multinational giants like Vodaphone, Sprint and Telefonica. The company has only 20 employees, but it seems to me that if they are a small, global niche company with a very concentrated clientell they still meet the criteria for notable. This type of company can be very important and thus notable in their industries, without them ever having any newsworthiness. Newsworthiness is not a criteria for notability in Wikipedia. Still, I don't acutally know how notable this company is, as I know absolutely nothing about the mobile telephone network subcontracting market. Arsenikk 19:48, 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) 08:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep, seems to be an important part of the Israeli police state. Maybe even spying on You! -- Petri Krohn 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay card[edit]

Gay card (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not UrbanDictionary. - ∅ (∅), 12:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's been transwikied, which is far too kind for it. --UsaSatsui 15:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Couldn't find it on wiktionary, and definitely shouldn't be here. Whilding87 16:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although I have come across this phrase, it means something else around here. Certainly unverifiable, and non-notable. J Milburn 16:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and I rather doubt Wiktionary wants it either. —Angr 07:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can see the idea that this is possibly more appropriate for Wiktionary. However, I note there is a large list of LGBT Terms existing in Wikipedia, so it might just be that there is insufficient information about this term. Please note that I have just added references which (unlike the Google link I originally provided) probably meet Wikipedia's verification requirements. Notatest 05:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC) (original poster) Also, the list of items which allegedly qualifies one for loss of one's gay card is not something which belongs in a dictionary and is, I believe, more suited to an encyclopedia. Notatest 06:10, 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, Quarl (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Quuxplusone 09:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Khukri - 09:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'references' (appearances) section is larger than the article itself. Weak rewrite using the references as ... well ... references, or delete. -- saberwyn 11:07, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nat W. H. Chan[edit]

Nat W. H. Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article Nat W. H. Chan has been proposed for deletion as there is no real significance as an "top rated Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game player" as he's not listed in the current Top 50 players. Also, much of the information does not have a listed source and has little to prove of his nobility to have an article. I can't really put it in words, but if you look at the article, I think you'll get the picture. DiamondDragon contact 20:01, 3 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) 10:33, 8 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) 08:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ranked second in the Hong Kong region for the official Konami Yu-Gi-Oh TCG tournaments, following a search at the official ranking website (Territory = Asia, Country = Hong Kong), but is not in top 50 (same page, Territory = All). His recent playing record in the tournaments can be found at this official website. None of the claims in the article are sourced. 124 total hits for his English name, although most if not all appear to be wikipedia mirrors. Searching for his Chinese name gives 202 total hits, which seem to imply that the claim of a second in the 2004 tournament is real. I'm going to be lazy and say weak delete unless someone who has the interest in this subject rewrites the article to be sourced and externally verifiable. -- saberwyn 10:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional. Is not in top 2300 worldwide results, perthe official ranking website (Territory = All, page 50. Person at 2300 has rating score of 2894, the above has score 2588) -- saberwyn 11:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, because of the truly excellent work done by saberwyn. Mathmo Talk
  • Weak delete per saberwyn. YechielMan 19:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per extensive research by saberwyn. -- Black Falcon 20:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and saberwyn. Cedlaod 00:14, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 21:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JT Aultz[edit]

JT Aultz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:BIO, not referenced RHB Talk - Edits 21:29, 3 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) 10:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I can only see one source actually quoted in the article. No evidence of notability - delete unless sources can be found. Walton monarchist89 13:11, 8 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) 08:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable (ev. sources of notability). Cate | Talk 15:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found by RyanPostlethwaite. (and have now added them in, so the article currently has three references) 15:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the lack of incoming links from other Wikipedia articles shows that he's not relevant in the skateboarding community. I also suspect it's not NPOV. YechielMan 19:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Skateboarding.com page on him seems to respect him. The article needs to be wikified and improved, but it's a notable topic. - grubber 16:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears that most of stuff written about him on skateboarding.com [32] (a total of 19 mentions) are more of updates: a trailor of a video he just appeared in (with a dozen other skateboarders) [33]; "JT Aultz broke his nose and is probably getting plastic surgery to straighten it out." [34]; etc.. The results from EXPN [35] can also be found at skateboarding.com [36], but nothing of real substance. Speaking of the EXPN page, he placed 7th, not too impressive considering his notority is supposedly based on his success as a skateboarder. Cedlaod 00:38, 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) 2007-02-18 08:19Z

Joie[edit]

Joie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It is an article that has been made up using singers for the band members Lillygirl 08:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: non notable. Cate | Talk 15:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Keep - (sorry. edit button to wrong AfD), notable: 3 top singles in UK make the group notable. Anyway: improve article! Cate | Talk 15:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. This band does not exist - Kelly Clarkson, Hilary Duff and Ashlee Simpson have never recorded together. Extraordinary Machine 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. -- Ssilvers 04:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - They are a very notable group and the page is maintained by their management. Iheartkelly 20:52, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Punjabi origin[edit]

List of English words of Punjabi origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is almost two years old, and has never contained any content. I think it's past time we deleted it, and let it be recreated on the day somebody finds an English word of Punjabi origin. (Especially if they have something encyclopedic to say about that word.) Quuxplusone 08:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless one is found before the expiry of the AfD. I'm surprised there aren't any listed, although that may just mean there aren't any incontrovertibly from that language. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has ... nothing. Wiktionary has ... nothing. Delete this article of nothingness, as it is without content or context. -- saberwyn 11:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an article waiting for future language evolution? Jefferson Anderson 22:07, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:20Z

María Inés[edit]

María Inés (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Recently tagged as unsourced article, the subject is a serial contestant in TV singing contests in Mexico, but has not won once, yet. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. She may have potential, but it does not seem that her day has come, yet. 74 unique Ghits, mostly directly for La Academia or its related blogs, chat and fansites. Ohconfucius 06:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete some people can become notable for losing, but it doesn't look like she has yet. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources or references provided therefore questionable if it could pass WP:V Alf photoman 15:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources added by Oakshade should suffice WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC Alf photoman 15:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, reality contestants are inherently "notable," and this one moreso because of her unique history with the show. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is the subject of multiple published works [37] [38]. --Oakshade 01:48, 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, Quarl (talk) 08:50, 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 07:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spicy Clamato[edit]

Spicy Clamato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not every student group needs an article on Wikipedia. I recently made some large edits to the article, but before that,[39] the article pretty much only gave showtimes and explained improv comedy. It's really not notable. I would have listed it for speedy deletion, but the history log shows advice to list it here. Tell me if I am doing this wrong, please. Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 08:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well, all my edits were reverted anyway. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable student group. If not deleted, redirect to Clamato. Agent 86 19:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Noroton 19:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. -- Ssilvers 04:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability given. IrishGuy talk 00:17, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:21Z

TheCollegeWeb[edit]

TheCollegeWeb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete: The site this article is about is defunct and the new site isn't in any way notable. A vanity page from the beginning. Korranus 03:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no hits on Google News Archive, fails WP:WEB. --Dhartung | Talk 10:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The website in fact works. I just looked at it. It meets WP:N on the basis of multiple independent and verifiable coverage in reliable sources where it is the primary subject. Inkpaduta 18:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only references seem to be college newspapers. NetOracle 01:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Inkpaduta. Mathmo Talk 06:14, 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) 09:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of the references. YechielMan 19:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the website works just fine; and the references establish notability (even if somewhat limited). -- Black Falcon 21:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the references provided by Inkpaduta. Meets WP:WEB guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Reyes Mortensen[edit]

Cecilia Reyes Mortensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person. Deprodded by creator. Ezeu 04:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:N by it's own contents In last years WSOP Main event she placed 374th place out of 8,773 players. Jeepday 04:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Don't know the notability guidelines for poker players, so I've no opinion here, but if she is deemed non-notable, then she may still merit a sentence or two in the article about her notable poker-playing ex Carlos. GassyGuy 04:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've cleaned it up a bit and it appears to have sources available. Finishing 374th out of 8,773 is a reasonably notable achievement, actually. I'm at work and access to poker-related sites is blocked but from a google search it appears that there is sufficient material available about her life and career that she passes notability guidelines. Otto4711 13:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete $230k is tiny for career earnings by a professional poker player. Subject seems to be slightly photogenic, and that is it. NetOracle 01:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The amount of money that she's won playing live tournaments strikes me as not being relevant to whether or not she meets Wiki-guidelines. Otto4711 06:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Career earnings are directly related to skill, time spent playing, and thus, notability. NetOracle 00:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, they aren't. Notability guidelines are silent on the subject of career earnings. So is WP:BIO, which states in relevant part that sportspeople are notable if they "have played...at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable." She has finished in the top 5% of the largest and most notable poker tournament in the history of the world and is a known quantity in the poker world beyond that. Jamie Gold has the highest career earnings in tournament poker at $12,00,000+ but he's been playing tournament poker for just over a year and not professionally. He is not notable because of how much time he's spent playing and the amount of time he's spent playing seems unrelated to his career earnings. He is notable because he won the WSOP main event. Otto4711 02:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Otto's compelling argument --Kevin Murray 23:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO - "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States." She has clearly played at the highest level in Poker leagues. --Oakshade 02:03, 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, Quarl (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article says she's top ranked, but finishing outside the top 300 is not what I call top ranked. No evidence that she has been the primary focus of multiple non-trivial treatment by reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see a position 374 player notable, unless she has some other notability other than playing poker. Do not see any reliable and independent sources in the article. Terence Ong 11:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • She has been the subject of multiple profiles on ESPN during its coverage of the World Series of Poker. It is rather difficult to link to those in an article. As for whether finishing 374th out of a field of 8,773 is an achievement, with all due respect, let's see you do it. Otto4711 13:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not about us, its about her. --Ezeu 18:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Otto and oakshade. Mathmo Talk 16:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per excellent arguments by Otto4711 and Oakshade. She clearly passes WP:BIO as she has "played in a fully professional league" and placed in the top 5 percent. Moreover, she is covered in a number of published sources (those in the article and others including [40] and [41]). -- Black Falcon 21:12, 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 keep. Majorly (o rly?) 13:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sreelakshmi Suresh[edit]

Sreelakshmi Suresh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article has since been reworked and anything above this line may have been voted upon review of a previous version. Mkdwtalk 10:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - She is the recipient of 17 national and internation awards in India, the United States, and UK. I have added the proper citations and references along with eliminated the NPOV and formatting issues. Mkdwtalk 10:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete nn little girl, nothing but a news sideshow. Haven't seen any awards that seemed to be notable and/or awarded for a real purpose (as in, not her age). A big part of notability is Thus, if a topic once satisfied the primary notability criterion, it continues to satisfy it over time.. 25 years from now, would she still be notable? -- febtalk 12:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't really meet WP:NOTE as per above, unfortunately the only thing different from thousands of other web designers is her age in a couple of years that will change. Khukri 14:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, there are numerous references there. I disagree with people claiming she will not be notable in 25 years from now, they are misreading WP:N. Consider this, if I win the Olympic gold medal for the 100m sprint and then do nothing else ever again in my life does that make me not notable? Of course not! Likewise, even if this girl insteads up being a complete slacker when she grows up she is still "notable" for what she did in the past. Mathmo Talk 16:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- 17 national and international awards!?!? In 25 years, very few people will remember Harry Blackmun (a former U.S. Supreme Court justice). In fact, very few people remember him even now. To say that the subject of this article fails notability (after the improvements made) is a serious misinterpretation of the idea of "lasting notability". -- Black Falcon 21:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I never meant that future notability is a sign for current notability. I meant, that considering she's basically just a news sideshow, and there are probably thousands of children designing web pages, without her fame, she doesn't satisfy a real notability. Sort of how even if they're working at Pizza Hut now, the original Power Rangers might be notable, but someone who only had a role on an episode or two isn't -- febtalk 23:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please stop the edit war on this AFD page immediately. --Dhartung | Talk 23:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, it already has -- febtalk 00:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- The age at which someone achieves international recognition does not change with that person's age. Mvandemar 23:37, 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 07:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Mendoza[edit]

Alan Mendoza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Close to an A7 speedy, no assertion of notability and no secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, WP:BIO, WP:RS. Terence Ong 11:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless properly sourced during the course of this AfD. The best I can come up with is this radio 'appearance' which is not enough for WP:BIO. CiaranG 11:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:35, 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 07:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Ideas[edit]

Institute of Ideas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A think tank with no obvious claim to notability. No secondary or independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 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 bus terminals in Moscow Oblast. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:22Z

Kolomna Bus Terminal[edit]

Kolomna Bus Terminal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Substubs about 13 bus terminals in Moscow Oblast. All information in these articles is adequately conveyed by the List of bus terminals in Moscow Oblast, moreover, these terminals are not really notable. Delete or redirect to list.

Conscious 10:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The nominator hasn't substantiated his/her claim about notability. It is also not true that all information in these articles is adequately conveyed by the List of bus terminals in Moscow Oblast, as the articles contain pictures, and I expect them to be expanded in the future so that it will not be appropriate to keep this information in a list. Colchicum 12:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the pictures should be deleted, as they're replaceable fair use images. Conscious 13:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We are not supposed to discuss this here. They haven't yet been deleted, and it is not up to us here to decide whether they should be deleted. It's another procedure. Colchicum 14:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. The information would be better if it were all kept in one article, but those photos are awfully nice, and should not be deleted for being in a stubby article. If the articles are deleted or merged, remember to put the template on TFD. YechielMan 19:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Generally bus terminals, as opposed to bus stops, are long-term structures that have been built to house buses. --NE2 19:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - most structures in Moscow have some kind of history behind them (and these terminals are not assembly-line reproductions of one another). I think the fair use ratioanle might apply to the List of bus terminals in Moscow Oblast article as the purpose is still to illustrate the subject in question and the images are used only once. If the images can be transferred, then merge. If the images cannot be merged, then keep the articles as expandable stubs. If the fair use rationale will stand for including the images in List of bus terminals in Moscow Oblast, I will support a merge, redirect -- Black Falcon 21:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. To keep them separately, one should add some information and explain why each terminal is interesting and notable. Biophys 00:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per NE2's arguments differentiating bus terminals from bus stops. In the present condition the articles hardly merit separate pages, and the sourcing is non-existent (though I guess that the bus company's webpage of images will provide verification, so they do pass WP:V.) In any case, coverage of Moscow's transport system, including the bus terminals which are transportation hubs, is a valid endeavor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I expect them to be expanded soon. We already have Moscow rail terminals, why not bus terminals? Look also at Ryazan Central Bus Terminal and Moscow Central Bus Terminal.--Dojarca 12:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per NE2, these aren't just bus stops, but all are primary bus transit centers in cities. --Oakshade 03:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge all until there is something to say beyond the name ; these articles dont even give the exact location in the city. DGG 04:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but expand.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable, --Vsion 18:36, 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?) 13:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professor_Richard_J._Finlay[edit]

Professor_Richard_J._Finlay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I think this was a bad faith creation of an article that's also not really encyclopedic ( have a look at the page history to see the sillyness that the author intended.....Purples 10:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Definitely a bad faith creation. "Professor Finlay is rarely spotted without his red scarf; he often wears it indoors, and frequently wears it even when it is not that cold." 02:25, February 13, 2007. The creator / editor will most likely continue this attack page if its kept. While Finlay may be a published author, his works lack notability. Mkdwtalk 11:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think this is all rather unfortunate. It seems to me that the creator of this article started off with a serious if badly formed stub and that it has become a playground for childish behavour probably from the subject's students. See Finlay's University of Strathclyde page and here. There is stuff about his books here and here. As Professor, Head of Department and Head of a Research Centre, he might well be notable enough for an article, but this one would need a lot of cleaning to become a worthy article. I am unsure what to say. If it could be cleaned up and the vandals controlled, it should be kept. Otherwise it should be deleted and maybe later someone will write a decent article on him. --Bduke 12:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep • Vandalism really isn't a valid reason to delete an article, and I feel that after I cleaned it up it has potential to become something encyclopedic and useful. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 17:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails proposed policy WP:PROFTEST - no assertion of academic notability other than a list of published works. DWaterson 19:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't look notable to me. YechielMan 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to come down for Keep. It does need more sources that meet WP:PROFTEST, but the rank of Professor in the UK is much higher than that of Professor in the US. The appointment or promotion process for Professor in UK would expect publications that meet our requirements, so they just need finding. I think all UK Professors are notable, just as I think all US Professors with named or distinguished professorships are notable. --Bduke 22:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and Keep --Peta 02:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you mean move to Richard J. Finlay. Google shows there is another Richard Finlay. --Bduke 02:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 06:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable as head of dept and due to number of scholarly books. John Vandenberg 07:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Full professors at universities are notable, having already had their notability accessed by a much stricter test than WP can do--Heads of Departments all the more so. But for those who like to think that we know better how to judge than those in the action profession: This many books is considerably beyond the average academic. DGG 04:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this man has published 3 academic books, edited 4 others, and is head of a department! He is most certainly notable and the information in the article is verified. The article needs expansion, not deletion. -- Black Falcon 04:40, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 13:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Parking Lot is Full[edit]

The Parking Lot is Full (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Unreferenced. And very very few google hits. This started as a PROD but there was enough objection that I felt like it should be an AfD instead. WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Kamope·?·! Sign! 11:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as initial prodder (thanks for making this an AfD, good call!). The main objection raised on the article talk page was that many other webcomics are equally non notable (two of the examples given by the objector have since already been removed). This is sadly true, and many webcomics have alreday been deleted or are currently nominated. As long as no arguments are given why this webcomic is verifiably notable, I fail to see why it should be kept. Fram 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 14:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. - Francis Tyers · 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, not verifiable. Surely Comixpedia will take the rest of the text not yet interwikied.. MURGH disc. 17:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Notable, long-running webcomic in the late 1990s (an era when not everybody and their brother had webcomics). Numerous relevant Google hits, much more than many other webcomics with Wikipedia articles. Thunderbunny 02:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: have you any WP:RS sources, perhaps amongst those numerous relevant Google hits (I count 57 of them) [42], to show that this is indeed a notable webcomic? As for articles on other webcomics: many have already been deleted, probably some more will follow. Fram 06:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Fram Among the much more numerous hits for "The parking lot is full" + comic (~1000), there are is an interview[43] that gives a brief history of the comic, starting with a print origin in a student newspaper. As this review asserts[44], in spite of its lack of fame, it may have been one of the very first webcomics. It mostly seems to be reviewed in webzines[45], but I'm having no trouble finding a lot of webzine reviews. Some come from interesting sources that I would not have expected to review webcomics.[46] [47] I think the case can be made that this is one of those cases where a webcomic is notable without being popular or famous. Balancer 14:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources are reliable sources as far as I can see. The Humaniststudies.org one comes perhaps closest, but then again, it is not a review of the comic, just mentioning that they publish it along with others in their ezine (this link gives the staff of the magazine, making clear that it is not the kind of magazine we normally consider as reliable, having only one editor[48]). 1995, while certainly not late, is not exceptionally early for a webcomic (the review you cite talks about 1993, but then it was published in a student newspaper, not as a webcomic, giving an indication of the reliability of such reviews). As for groundbreaking... in what independently verified way? I know that deletion isn't a substitute for cleanup or sourcing, but then again, that wasn't my intention. I had seen the other reviews as well, but they are non notable or non reliable (mostly online) publications (webzines), so I don't see what they change to the deletion rationale. Fram 16:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About half of the ones I mentioned fail independence, which is why I didn't say "strong keep," and the rest are marginally "published" online; however, if I could find that many sources hovering near the borderline of the WP:RS standards in less than five minutes of looking, it seems a pretty sure bet that it passes WP:N standards overall. In retrospect, it's not surprising that there are only a couple thousand pages on the web that mention this comic, seeing as it ended five years ago. Balancer 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources which fail WP:RS does not mean that there are probably some sources meeting WP:RS as well. Let me point out that your previous posts, while perhaps not having that intention, at least convinced the next editor wrongly that the comic is "recognized as having historical significance", when no such thing is shown except in one user-supplied and mistaken review. As for the "couple thousand pages", all 5 pages you gave as a reference were included in my initial search of 57 distinct Google hits, indicating that a) it was a quite good and fair search for reviews of this comic and b) there isn't probably that much more you can find about it on the internet. So basically, we still have a webcomic with only about 50 websites referencing it in slightly more than a passing way (at least mentioning the author), and depending on your criteria, only one or none of these sources could pass WP:RS. Which rather conclusively means that for all we have been able to find, it still clearely fails WP:NOTE. Fram 20:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that before, from other sources. --Kizor 20:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since I don't start getting unrelated hits until the eighth page of search terms (results 71-80), and I keep finding relevant reviews of the comic hundreds of results down the list, your search definitely underrepresents the number of pages about TPIF, just as your searches have typically severely underrepresented comics. Those pages that I pulled out, several of which either come very close to meeting WP:RS, or could be argued to meet it, although typically not also the independence criterion for WP:N, are simply the first few reviews. Five years is a long time on the internet, and I have to say that I was shocked to find such a quantity of solid reviews online after all this time.
To emphasize how much you're missing through your inadequate searches, hit #463 was tantalizingly titled "Notable Webcomics" and dated from last summer. It did only contain a relatively brief user-posted review, of course, but it's gross misrepresentation to claim that it's only referenced on 50 websites.Balancer 23:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, "how much I am missing through my inadequate searches" which returned all your previously given links, are all not meeting WP:RS, just like I expected. So in what way, relevant to this discussion which is intended to see if this comic meets the Wikipedia guidelines, was my search inadequate? It was a search to look for multiple independent reviews (excluding trivial mentions) by reliable sources, of which your extended search didn't return any: this was to be expected, since it would be very unusual to have a thorough review in a serious magazine or newspaper that didn't even mention the author of the comic. Look, could you please provide the necessary reliable sources to support your keep !vote instead of attacking the methods used by the nominator? I appreciate the effort you have put in your search, but if it doesn't return anything further, just say so please.~ Fram 06:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To invoke the Search engine test in claiming that an article is not be notable because it has low hits is an entirely different matter from searching for reliable and independent sources with non-trivial mentions. When you emphasize the low hit count your search has received, you are invoking (wrongly) the notion that this is a completely obscure topic, web content that the web doesn't even talk about.
As matters stand, the fact that the webcomic was (a) published in print by a source that may or may not qualify under WP:RS (student newspapers vary widely in this regard) and (b) talked about by, as I've pointed out, numerous sources whose status under WP:RS is open to question either way was enough for me to suggest that the article be kept on the basis of that open question and the strong probability that additional sources whose status is less unclear would soon be discovered (see Kizor's comment for clear vindication of that estimation). Balancer 11:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Balancer - after deliberating, the comic has definite historical significance in the field and is recognized as such. Sources seem appropriate.
    A local computing magazine covered the comic as one of the very first webcomics, though that was in Finnish and only in a "links of the month" feature. I can still try to dig it up if it would make a difference. --Kizor 16:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it would. Balancer 11:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Absolutely notable due to longevity of comic, print publication, and historical precident of this comic to the early history of webcomics. Deleteing the article soley on the basis of "google hits" is totally inappropriate for a historical cornerstone of webcomics like this one. Timmccloud 23:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... But none of your claims is supported by WP:RS, making it basically a WP:ILIKEIT vote. Fram 06:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the point of view that this one-of-the-hundreds-of-webcomics-from-the-mid-90s is inherently "notable" is not supported by third-party reputable sources actually noting it. --Dragonfiend 04:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I realize I have been remiss in not reviewing WP:WEB more closely and instead focusing on WP:N. WP:WEB specifically states that online content may be considered notable if it distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Noting that this comic has also been distributed by a number of online magazines, I am changing my vote to a clear strong keep. Balancer 20:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which of those web zines do feel is "well known" and not nontrivial? --Dragonfiend
  • Keep per Balancer. One of the early influential online comics. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 20:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...except for the fact that it wasn't particularly early and wasn't particularly influential? Fram 21:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1993 qualifies as early in my book. And, yes, it was influential. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Parking Lot is Full began in 1993, but it didn't go online until 1995. However, in my book, while 1993 qualifies as amazingly early, 1995 still qualifies as very early indeed: we only have a couple of webcomics on all of Wikipedia that were around before 1995 (Doctor Fun from 1993 and Where the Buffalo Roam from 1991—neither of which have any more reliable sources than this page). The only other comics on Wikipedia that are from 1995 are Polymer City Chronicles (March), Argon Zark! (June), Sev Wide Web (July), and Kevin and Kell (September). So that makes The Parking Lot is Full one of the 3-7 oldest webcomics in existence that currently have Wikipedia articles. Just to put things in perspective a bit. -Silence 01:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure I understand the parameters of your list, but maybe you ought to add things like Rogues of Clwyd-Rhan from 1994 to your list? --Dragonfiend 04:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it had been on the web on 1993, I would have agreed. Since it was 1995, I think it was somewhat early, but not early enough to be truly notable for that aspect. As for influential... I would expect it to have reviews like this one for Argon Zark!, which is from 1995 as well but gets at least a lot more recognition[49]. It also discusses Dilbert, which went online in 1995 as well, and a bunch of other truly influential (but later) webcomics. It just indicates that 1995 was the start of the boom for webcomics: anything earlier is truly early, anything from then or later is no longer, in my view, notable for being early. Fram 09:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • For what it's worth, The Doonesbury web site also launched in 1995. Here's a little historical snapshot: A "a collection of regularly updated comics found in the WWW" started in 1995 and last updated June 17, 1996. It contains links to hundreds of comics, but is probably missing hundreds more (The Parking Lot is Full is not on the list). --Dragonfiend 10:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NOTE & WP:WEB, only one unremarkable member of the myriad of webcomics that emerged in the 1990s. Additionally its defunct status makes any notability gain unlikely.Freepsbane 18:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Fram, and Freepsbane. Fade to Black doesn't impress, and without that there's not sufficient material to make this suitable for inclusion. Hunting down appearances in Finnish computer zines won't help at all, and the idea that it would shows a serious misunderstanding of what WP:N was supposed to be about. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Disk space is cheap. Bryce 01:18, 19 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gull Dong[edit]

Gull Dong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lack of information and resources and referances Ensyc 12:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Searching for "gull dong" does yield some unique results for dog related information similar to that within the article. It's true that there doesn't seem to be much definitive information out there, but I can't tell if it's because gull dongs are some kind of unofficial mutt or if they're just rare. Leebo86 13:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 0 hits at www.ourdogs.co.uk. 0 hits on Amazon.com (no; street signs don't count as a reliable, verifiable reference for rare dog breeds). 0 hits at WorldCat. 0 hits in the two academic databases I checked (Academic Search Premier, Wilson Select Plus). I realize searching Google for '+"gull dong" -wikipedia' has hits ... but ... remember that anyone can put up a website about anything. Keesiewonder talk 23:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Keesie has proven in other discussions, that she doesn't know the difference between a Poodle and a Bulldog, so pls give her comments very lil weight. Headphonos 01:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - dog breed exists and citation provided by reputable non-commercial website. Headphonos 01:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have been unable to find any information on this breed that is reliable. Normally I won't get involved in deletion issues but it seems that this really does deserve it, or at least someone should make more of an effort to improve the article rather than just leaving it with one sentence, does the breed not even have a club website?? Blufawn
  • Redirect to Gull Terr. That came up as an alternate name when I searched, and gets many more hits. --UsaSatsui 19:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Gull Terr Ref is not a Gull Dong Ref at least read the articles before y'ah vote..huh ?? Headphonos 21:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which article? The one that says the breed is "primarily used for bear-baiting and dog fighting", or the one that says it's "used for baiting and dog fighting"? I found out later they were supposedly seperate breeds, which is why I made my next comment (or do you not bother reading all the comments before you reply?), but the first pages I found when I googled "Gull Dong" referred to them as different names for the same breed. My opinion still stands...if more than a sentence can't be written about this breed, it needs to be redirected to a more common name if there is one. --UsaSatsui 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come to think of it, both those breeds look like types of Indian Bull Terriers (which redirects to this article). Maybe redirect both of them there and someone who knows about dogs can write a real article about them? --UsaSatsui 19:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be some name confusion, but that might be why it's so hard to find good sources for the alternatives. I guess we need to determine the best name and merger/redirect to it, but I don't know what should be consulted as an "official" source for the name. Leebo86 19:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think both the Gull Terr and Bull Terr articles are just as bad. Perhaps they should all be nominated for deletion. At least if you group them all together its not quite so bad. Ensyc 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the Gull Terr infobox indicates that Gull Gul Dong and Bull Terr are alternative names for the same dog. If indeed all 3 names refer to the same breed, and Gul Dong and Gull Dong are same, we certainly don't need separate articles for all of these. That is what redirects are for. (The Dachshund article has this nicely figured out - Doxie, Dackel and Teckel all redirect to Dachshund.) One article on Gul(l) Dong/Bull Terr/Gull Terr is more than adequate, whichever name is the most popular, and assuming the implied content survives this AfD. Keesiewonder talk 20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we should redirect Bull Terr & Gull Terr to the Gull Dong article and then the Afd will affect all articles? Ensyc 23:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gull Dong shouldn't be confused with the smaller Pakistani Terrier breed, also known as the Gull Terr from which it developed through crosses with Indian Bullterriers and the Bully Kutta fighters.[50] Headphonos 00:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the Gull Dong should not be confused with the Gull Terr, even though your edit in the Gull Terr article on Wikipedia tells us that an alternative name for Gull Terr is Gul Dong. Please don't tell me we need an article on the Gul Dong, which is not the same as the Gull Dong ... ;-) --Keesiewonder talk 01:20, 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. -- RHaworth 13:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel madinga[edit]

Nigel madinga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's an obvious hoax. Prosfilaes 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 Speedy keep. Procedural nom following rejection of speedy. Original tagger (SatyrTN) has expressed a 'keep' opinion below and there are no other delete votes. WjBscribe 04:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apartment (burlesque orchestra)[edit]

Apartment (burlesque orchestra) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was listed for speedy deletion; I kinda felt it was borderline, but I didn't necessairily feel its good enough either. There area few sources which prove reviews, though I'm not sure about the level of the publications. Other claims are a bit unverified.

Basiciall, I thought it was better than the average speedy, but not sure enough to say whether or not its good enough - so opening it up to debate Robdurbar 13:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC) •[reply]

  • Speedy keep Woah steady on the page has only been up 5 hours and only One minute it got a speedy. As as you say borderline, give the initial editor at least a week to add some more information, or to prove notability. However a quick google search shows it has been wrapped up, but lets not jump the gun. Khukri 14:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep My bad - this one's actually turning into something. I was hasty in my SD tag. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, I agree. Lets assume good faith here, when it appears to be valid article and at first glance it checks out lets not be trying to delete it only seconds after it was created. Mathmo Talk 16:13, 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 07:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Papa H[edit]

Papa H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax. Request for references has been removed without comment. -- RHaworth 13:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom, nothing relevant on t'interweb. Khukri 14:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no references and my own attempt to find references failed. Must assume until we can see otherwise this is a hoax/rumour of little significance. Mathmo Talk 16:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kamope·?·! Sign! 12:33, 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. Without prejudice, meaning anyone can create an article here but it should be longer than one sentence and preferably reference a source or two. W.marsh 15:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London civil service, post office and municipal chess league[edit]

London civil service, post office and municipal chess league ([[Special:EditPage/London civil service, post office and municipal chess league

|edit]] | [[Talk:London civil service, post office and municipal chess league |talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/London civil service, post office and municipal chess league |history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/London civil service, post office and municipal chess league |protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/London civil service, post office and municipal chess league |delete]] | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Non-notable chess club. All external links are merely to the club pages. Has made no notable impact on chess, the London civil service, or the rest of society. MLA 13:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a league, rather than a club. It's one of the major chess leagues in London. A book is forthcoming (funded by an estate) on its history and contribution to UK chess and the civil service.--Nmcmurdo 22:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No attempt to assert notability. Speedy delete as empty. Vegaswikian 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 delete all. - Mailer Diablo 07:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devonshire Rovers[edit]

Devonshire Rovers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete. This, along with several other creations by Tranjj (talk · contribs), is an apparent hoax. Nothing shows up for an FC by this name, the only 'Devonshire Rovers' club detectable is a softball/baseball club in Sth Africa. There is no mention of a "Devonshire Rovers" in the Football Club History Database. None of the leagues/competitions the article claims this club has participated in mention it (eg supposed winners of Football League Trophy, 87 & 89). The article's creator is perhaps overreaching himself by appearing to claim 4 FA cup wins and 3 runners-up appearances, and the evidently fictional Llagered Cup is probably the best clue to the beer-goggled origins of this entry. cjllw | TALK 13:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages created by the same user purporting to be players of this club:

Nick Yoxall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ben Mactaggart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Idan Carl Pidgeon-Laad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (this latter already up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idan Carl Pidgeon-Laad)

--cjllw | TALK 13:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 14:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. The Welsh Football League official site shows no such team in Division 3, or any other division. Delete the nominated players as well. Scottmsg 14:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete load of rubbish. -- Mattythewhite 14:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious hoax. Football League First Division champions? FA Cup winners? I laugh derisively. --Steve Farrell 14:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - hoax, nonsense, even if such a club exists they are non-notable. Qwghlm 15:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all this is a blatant hoax, no such team exists and this team certainly did not win any of the honours claimed in the article ChrisTheDude 15:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all hoax, checked google and can find no notable team by this name. Asics talk 16:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for being utter rubbish. Bencherlite 01:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • update: it seems that since this AfD was nominated a couple of other club aficionados have come by to edit out the obvious hoax/prank claims to replace it with a much more modest account of this club's standing- ie an amateur club playing in the West Kirby (pop. 12321 [51]) Regional Division 1. However, despite this attempted recovery from the own goal of inflated/joke claims, given that this appears to be a rather minor minor league which does not itself rate an article, my delete vote above stands per notability guidelines (not to mention, the content is presumably all original research as there's still nothing remotely resembling an independent source). Same goes for the related players' articles.--cjllw | TALK 02:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My delete vote stands too. West Kirby FC play in, and currently lead, Division 1 of the West Cheshire Football League [52] and it is inherently unlikely that West Kirby itself has a different "Regional League", let alone one with more than one Division. No independent evidence of it, anyway. Bencherlite 02:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a Sunday League team, in which case it really really really isn't even the slightest bit notable. --Steve Farrell 03:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any evidence for the existence of this league, which, as noted above, is most likely to be a Sunday morning park league if it exists at all. I stand by my !vote to delete all related articles ChrisTheDude 07:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. The article Josh Tarbiat should probably also be added to the discussion. -- Merope 10:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, delete that one too as it is clearly rubbish ("place of birth: Wirral, Iran"?) ChrisTheDude 10:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite clearly hoax. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete all per WP:CSD#G1, patent nonsense. At best some kind of Fantasy football (soccer) team. AecisBrievenbus 13:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - if this isn't a hoax, it still falls way below the accepted notability criteria. - fchd 01:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Archibald99  16:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Do not delete: This team does exist though obviously the honours bit was incorrect as was the league etc though it has been edited now the person who created the page used a template from another football club's page rather than having to type out all the html code himself and now all the code has been fixed to the correct honours and league. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tranjj (talk • contribs) 11:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
.....which only serves to confirm (assuming any of it actually is true, which cannot be confirmed given the total lack of information about this club which Google turns up) that this club is wholly non-notable and does not pass any criterion for inclusion on WP. I once again stand by my !vote to delete this and all related articles ChrisTheDude 11:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The closest I can find to a source is this local results page which shows that a team called Devonshire Park (this club's supposed former name) plays in the Wirral Sunday League Division Four, which is, shall we say, ever so slightly below the threshold of notability..... ChrisTheDude 11:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. I've speedied Mark_Thorne as well. All the other player links lead to people who blatantly aren't Sunday footballers (some of them are dead - ho ho) EliminatorJR 22:40, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 14:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daigo Umehara[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Daigo Umehara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's been 6 months, and the article is still unsourced. (See AfDs from July 2006 and August 2006). Arguments raised in the past for keeping this include:

  • WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS --- no response necessary
  • "He's on jawiki" --- however, inclusion is not an indicator of notability, and the jawiki article doesn't cite any reliable sources either. Also note the jawiki article had an AfD in Feb 2006, but that was closed on the grounds of the article being a copyvio, and didn't get a full discussion. The article was later recreated, and no one's bothered to raise an AfD again since. (I'd do it myself, but I don't even have an account over there).
  • "He's notable in Japan, let's counter systematic bias" --- does not seem true, a search on 梅原 大吾 shows 1k GHits, but all blogs and forums. Don't see any WP:RS there either. Nor any non-trivial coverage. The only external link on the article itself is to someone's personal site.

Anyone have any new arguments as to why this should be kept, or know any reliable sources discussing him? cab 00:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm still a proponent of not having a Daigo article. Having one but not having an article on Shoryuken.com or Bang the Machine (a documentary about the fighting game scene in America featuring Daigo) sets a double standard as to the notability of fighting games. As it stands, the Wikipedia article is made up mainly of tournament results and quasi-legends. JuJube 00:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, your logic is flawed. The Governator is notable, but several of his earlier works are probably not so. McKay 08:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not even apples and oranges. That's apples and rocket fuel. Would you care to try an actual rebuttal this time? JuJube 00:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I myself don't find the logic of SRK being not notable to equal to Daigo being not notable. Daigo is in no way affiliated with SRK. His only relation to SRK is that he is a regular player for their main tournament (EVO), but he had also played in many other tournaments such as Tougeki.

Here's another example: there is a Wikipedia article for Ken Hoang, one of the best Super Smash Bros players in the world. But is there an article about Smashboards? Daigo and Ken are notable because they are one of the best in what they do, which is professional gaming. Are SRK and Smashboards considered one of the most notable websites, and is Bang the Machine considered a notable documentary? Are Daigo/Ken only well-known by members of SRK/Smashboards? Therefore I would say that is an insufficent reason to say Daigo not well-known enough. Afterdeath 10:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and JuJube. Edeans 03:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only references are trivial.-MsHyde 04:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For reasons above and because I think I favored deletion when he was mentioned on other AfD's. I don't have my reasons from then on hand though.--T. Anthony 04:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to fail WP:BIO.TellyaddictEditor review! 16:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JuJube. Even as an avid follower of the competitive fighting game community, I can't say Daigo's got enough coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 06:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Shame on all you. Why do we have so many deletionists‽ (see below) McKay 08:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According this page, Japanese arcade game magazines have several articles about him and interviews with him. According to this, a booklet and DVD package about Street Fighter II competition features a 'special interview' with him. I think he meets WP:BIO. --Kusunose 08:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See, this is how it should work. Kusunose did a trivial amount of legwork and found that there are good sources about him. If I had any semblance of how to cite japanese sources. I'd be all over this. Until then, I'm going to put in these articles as references.
    The DVD is barely skirting the edge of WP:RS; the production house, INH, consists of six people, and the only place it seems to be orderable from is their own website. Also I'm not too clear on the business relationship between INH and Capcom; if this is a product produced under licence or commission from Capcom, then it's not an independent source. Don't know what to say about Arcadia as I'm not closely familiar with Japanese video game magazines. cab 13:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some further research shows that Arcadia Magazine's publisher Enterbrain are also the organiser of the Tougeki tournament in which Umehara participated (see bottom of [53] or enwiki's page on the subject at Tougeki - Super Battle Opera), so again, I don't think Arcadia qualifies as an independent source in this matter, but rather as a promoter with an obvious self-interest in hyping a participant in their company's tournament. Has Umehara been mentioned in more mainstream publications? cab 01:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as per my rebuttals above) McKay 08:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What rebuttal? I just see beating on a straw man. JuJube 00:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per references mentioned above Neier 12:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting, debate continuing with new information Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and JuJube. MightyAtom 23:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, but I want to keep it. He seems notable enough, but I don't see any sources proving it (sources that say "I know a source" don't count). Find something outside of gaming websites as a sources, and that spins around to a keep. Has anyone checked gaming publications? --UsaSatsui 19:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources cited by Kusunose, even if in Japanese, suggest some level of notability as a tournament arcade game player. Remove any material which is not backed by reliable sources and see what happens. (jarbarf) 19:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please we can avoid systemic bias and make notes of the japanese articles here yuckfoo 01:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain exactly what systemic bias I am demonstrating here? Do you think my past contributions on Wikipedia demonstrate a systemic bias against Japan-related topics without English coverage (see my userpage, for example)? I read the articles and did some checking about the magazines in which they were published. My response was in my comment above: I don't think Arcadia qualifies as an independent source in this matter, but rather as a promoter with an obvious self-interest in hyping a participant in their company's tournament. If this guy is truly notable, he would have been noted by publications without a direct financial interest in those tournaments. This is true whether you're talking about American gamers or Japanese gamers. Third time questioning: can you provide such sources? cab 05:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with AfterDeath re: SRK.com notability. The main problem is the lack of sources. Also, WP:BASH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GizzleWizzle (talk • contribs) 07:30, 19 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. W.marsh 14:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Boys of Computer Science[edit]

Bad Boys of Computer Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article about a no lonoger published webcomic meets almost no standards. Their are no refrences even from the webcomic page. The text on the page is written poorly. A major cleanup is needed of all webcomics as I am sure their are more that need to be deleted than just this. The Placebo Effect 14:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 14:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references, no notability. - Francis Tyers · 16:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jefferson Anderson 22:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatant cruft. This fails to meet even the questionable standards which are plaguing other webcomic-related discussions. NetOracle 06:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that a webcomic is no longer published has no bearing on whether or not it meets notability standards, and an AFD is not a substitute for a cleanup tag. Balancer 14:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, my search at the library has turned up no sources, let alone any suggesting importance. That the webcomic is no longer published is worth noting as it is unlikely that a defunct webcomic is going to gain new coverage in multiple non-trivial reputable sources. -- Dragonfiend 16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that would still not be relevant to the basic question of notability. Speculation on whether or not the topic would become notable in the future doesn't answer the question of whether the webcomic has at some point before now met the standards for notability. That said, I'm going to tentatively say weak delete on the basis of lack of any evidence for notability (I haven't found any either), and ask the contributors to the article[54] if they can provide any non-trivial sources. I'm not of the opinion that a mention in a notable webcomic qualifies, but it seems polite to include them in this discussion. Balancer 17:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That the webcomic is no longer published is worth noting as it is unlikely that a defunct webcomic is going to gain new coverage in multiple non-trivial reputable sources. --Dragonfiend 18:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Repeating an invalid argument does not make it any more true. Please read WP:N again and see if you understand why I have told you that the fact that a comic is defunct is wholly irrelevant to the AFD process. If not, perhaps you should refrain from involvement in notability-based AFDs until you have remedied your understanding of WP:N. Balancer 18:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for sharing. That the webcomic is no longer published is worth noting as it is unlikely that a defunct webcomic is going to gain new coverage in multiple non-trivial reputable sources. --Dragonfiend 18:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • And repeating yourself again still doesn't turn your invalid argument valid. Speculation as to whether or not a topic may be written about in the future is not at all relevant to the question of whether or not the topic is notable. If you have any real argument to make to this effect - bearing in mind that a defunct comic can easily be notable, and that an active comic can easily be non-notable - I recommend you take it to user talk rather than further clutter up this AFD. Balancer 19:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you for sharing. Sometimes editors think it's a good idea to keep an article because, for example, it is tied to an event just around the corner which may lead to verifiable info from reputable sources. Whether or not you, in your self-appointed role as validator of AFD discussions, believe that to be an idea worth expresing, that type of "wait and see" idea probably isn't worth exploring here with "This article about a no longer published webcomic [which] meets almost no standards." In other words, that the webcomic is no longer published is worth noting as it is unlikely that a defunct webcomic is going to gain new verifiable coverage in the multiple non-trivial reputable sources which will allow us to cover this topic from a neutral point of view without delving into original research, or any of our other standards which this article currently doesn't meet. --Dragonfiend
  • Abstain I don't see any notablity here, but I do see some SERIOUS BIAS against webcomics when I see "A major cleanup is needed of all webcomics" given as a specific reason for this AFD. I think that the nominator of this AFD needs to do some serious explaining for this remark before the AFD is to continue. I also see that other wiki editors who have also been identified as biased towards webcomics notablitly have chimed in with deletes. Please read Wikipedia:Fancruft - cruft is not a reason for AFD in itself, just a contributing factor. Please show other reasons for AFD. Timmccloud 00:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I did not mean to make it sound like I hold a bias. My view is that too many webcomic authors make an article on their webcomic when it doesn't meet nobility standards. The Placebo Effect 00:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment The author didn't make the entry to my knowledge, it was made several years after he had quit. In it's day it was a popular comic, noted as 'groundbreaking' by Mac Hall as commented in a previous deletion-discussion, referenced often in many other notiable strips... I don't know if that meets the standards or not for notiability since I'm not sure if other webcomics count (I think they should, there wasn't much else around at the time to judge notiability) but it's not just some author tooting their own horn. 22:53, 14 February 2007
  • Keep This article has already been nominated for deletion once, and the end result of that attempt was keep. Given that the comic was determined to be notable shortly after the article was written, I think any argument that it is not notable should have more substance than "I did a search at the library and didn't find anything". A Google search of "bad boys of computer science" yields about 600 hits. Even a cursory examination of the results provides additional research leads, namely the web-comics Avalon and Sexy Losers. You may have to actually ask a member of the web-comics community to determine whether this comic was notable, if you are not a part of that community. Do the research to attempt to improve the article. If, despite your best efforts, you cannot find evidence of notability, document your search efforts on the talk page, then start the AFD process. Do not leap to that stage from the perspective that all webcomics suck, this article sucks even more than most webcomic articles, and Wikipedia should purge it as unworthy to be read. Deletion should not be the first option for someone who does not care to provide the effort to improve the article in any way; it should be the option of last resort for a topic that cannot meet standards, even when improved as much as humanly possible. 216.165.132.250 15:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Past performance doesn't guarantee future success. Look at the GNAA. It went through 18 AFD's before it was deleted. The reason I nominated this was because all the sources I found were other Webcomics, which I believe doesn't qualify as a good enough source for another webcomic. The only webcomic's that I believe that should be shown here are the ones that have published books are have had newspaper articles written about it (like Megatokyo). I don't believe all webcomics suck, but if it their are no reliable sources outside of webcomics, then I believe this has to go. The Placebo Effect 17:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that, as of 2007, print-based sources are better determinants of notability than either web-based sources or first-hand personal interviews. The major reason why Wikipedia is so successful is that there are no "gatekeepers" for information: anyone can add or edit the content. If you require that notability be documented in a restricted medium, you are just moving the gatekeeper around to the back door. Also, I don't think BBoCS is comparable to GNAA in regard to the AfD process. Perhaps you could find a more fair comparison than the article for a trolling organization that has a racial slur in its title. In my opinion, the best sources for determining the notability of a web-comic are the people that are involved in that community, and comic authors are de facto leaders. They network amongst one another as much as print comic authors. Do you recall Blondie and Dagwood's anniversary, wherein most of the comics in your local newspaper paid tribute to the long-running print comic by drawing crossover comics? 216.165.132.250 21:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Their are gate keepers on information. That is the reason why their is Speedy Deletion and AFD. And no one used the crossover to cite information in Wikipedia. Plus, that was covered in various newspaper articles, namely "multiple non-trivial sources". The Placebo Effect 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then the bone of contention here is whether other web-comics constitute a non-trivial source in regard to other web-comics. In my opinion, they are non-trivial. The people that read web-comics know which ones they like, and the authors, being drawn from the same pool of people, tend to like the same things. So in lieu of polling hundreds of readers (as may be seen from an archive from some sort of web-comics meta site, like Keen or BigPanda), a handful of webcomics authors may constitute a representative sample. Additionally, if you are too quick to label a newspaper as a non-trivial source, you may not be keeping your subscriptions current, as the presence of paid reporters and editors does not seem to be sufficient to keep pointless tripe and blatant political bias out of my local newspapers. There is good reason why print newspaper circulation is declining in the U.S., and that is because the "gatekeeper" model is no better at providing quality information than the free-for-all of blogs, boards, and wikis. The only advantage the media establishment currently holds over the internet mob is freer access to "newsmaker" people. They can get interviews with presidents and CEOs. But this is not an obstacle here. Many web-comics authors publish their e-mail addresses. If you want to prove non-notability (and in my opinion that burden of proof is on you, as this is an appeal to an earlier determination of notability), then ask some of these people if "Bad Boys of Computer Science" was notable way back in 2002. If you don't know who to ask, then perhaps you shouldn't be making judgements of notability at all. 216.165.132.250 22:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, the issue of whether the Blondie anniversary crossovers were used as references in Wikipedia is not relevant. If there were no other information available on Blondie whatsoever, the crossover comics alone would have been sufficient to establish its notability. I consider print-comics authors to have great credibility in regard to the importance of other print-comics. The same principle holds for web-comics. In contrast, there is no intrinsic measure of credibility in a fluff newspaper article whose author has never heard of a web-comic until his editor told him to write an article about them for the Sunday edition. But that reporter will still actually do enough research on the topic to fill a certain number of column-inches before flapping his jaw about it. 216.165.132.250 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NOTE & WP:WEB, does not meet WP:WAF and WP:RS. Additionally its defunct status makes any notability gain unlikely.Freepsbane 18:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This subject lacks sufficient independent sources to produce an article complying with NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and NOT a publisher of original thought. Con reports are teenage-blog-level unreliable, and the other material is trivial in the extreme. Tim McCloud is quite right about biases though. My bias against including material which can't be supported by reliable sources is very strong indeed, and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are similarly biased against made up stuff. This can't be attributed to anyone but the editors who created it and is indisputably WP:NOT material. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:54, 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 Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Zarnock[edit]

Michael Zarnock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable author, being a world record holder in an obscure hobby category is not encyclopedic notability, fails WP:BIO One Night In Hackney 14:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - article claims that his Hot Wheels collection has earned him "notoriety around the world" but there's no evidence for this. No evidence of major coverage by third-party sources to satisfy WP:BIO. Walton monarchist89 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "article claims that his Hot Wheels collection has earned him "notoriety around the world" but there's no evidence for this. No evidence of major coverage by third-party sources to satisfy"

Evidence of notoriety is on page 65 of the 2006 Guinness Book of World Records. Obscure is a matter of opinion where as there are 15,000,000 (15 million) Hot Wheels Collectors around the globe. Mr. Zarnock gets paid very well for his appearances across the US and Canada. --Krellman |15:59, 7 February 2007

  • Keep. Being in the Guinness Book of World Records demonstrates notability. --Eastmain 22:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you saying that anyone who has held a world record at any point is notable enough for an article? One Night In Hackney
  • Delete as per nom. Holding an obscure record in the GBWR is dubious grounds for encyclopedic notability. Further independent reliable sources needed to show encyclopedically notable reputation. Bwithh 00:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete- just because someone holds a world record does not make them noteable, Guiness have thousands and thousands of people who hold world records in obscure things, I have a friend who holds one, but we would never dream of putting them all on. I cant see how his toy car collection has "earnt him notoriety around the world", and quoting the location of the world record in question does not suddenly make this so. TSMonk 13:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to debate the relevance of Mr. Zarnock’s status in the world of Die Cast cars. His book sales and his standing as an Icon in that realm does that by itself. It’s not just his World Record nor his collection that has brought him fame or for us to post him here, it’s the overall picture of what he is about and what he has brought to the community of 15 million Hot Wheels collectors around the world. A simple Google search will show that. If the article needs to be deleted, then so be it. He will still be the authority that he already is and others may read about him elsewhere. Marty Krellman --Krellman |11:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 5 books published on a non-vanity (specialized) publisher, 3 minor movie roles and a minor mention in the GBWR. Individually I think each of those wouldn't be enough, but together I think it just edges over the bar. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to gain consensus. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per J.smith. Mathmo Talk 16:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Meh. The Guiness record by itself is not enough, the specialty market books by themselves and buying a lot of diecast toy cars is not enough. The movie roles are not enough. But together, they tip the scale towards notability. I am really surprised there are not a few newspaper articles to cite which would make the keep vote easier and quicker to arrive at. Inkpaduta 21:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But surely to have a number of individually unnotable acheivements in unrelated areas should not suddenly make one notable? In my mind notability is about one major/notable accomplishment, and multiple minor ones should not add up to this. Thats the way I see it anyhow. TSMonk 14:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are there even any reliable sources for his film roles? The IMDB entry was authored by the same person who wrote this article, Marty Krellman of The Krellman Group who are also the joint copyright holders on Michael Zarnocks's website. One Night In Hackney 14:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Indeed, looking at IMDB, Zarnock's entry is also edited by Krellman, and I cant find any third party sources to varify the film roles, and very little on the books mentioned. All we DO know is that this guy holds a GWR, everything else is incredibly fuzzy. TSMonk 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krellman 11:00, 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic socialism[edit]

Islamic socialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It has been over two years and this article still does not contain one reliable source or any useful content. It is still 100% Origional research and it is pretty clear that is not going to change. Sefringle 05:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources for this topic, and the article has never been tagged with {{unreferenced}} as far as I can tell. (Also, please don't use "original research" to mean "unreferenced". They are not the same thing at all.) Just for a start:[55][56][57][58][59][60][61] --Dhartung | Talk 00:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article appears to have some merit. It could also benefit from improvements. I have noted that the editors of this article have not received notice of the AfD. User:Jayden54Bot provides notice for article 4 weeks old or less. Of course, if anything articles of greater duration, with multiple editors deserve greater process. I will manually provide notice to all editors of this article with the following neutral notice: "You have edited the article Islamic socialism. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you." Edivorce 01:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - original research should not be confused with unverified information. This article is unverified, but not unverifiable. Accordingly, keep and cleanup. -- Black Falcon 01:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I concur with the sentiments expressed above. —Sesel 01:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article subject is worthy of an article, and it just needs work; it has potential. To delete it would mean a new article would likely be created later, which will put us further behind where we are now. Carl.bunderson 03:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is worthy. In all the sound and fury of "Islamism" and Right Wing being dominant on all sides of the civilizational conversational right now, there isn't much discussion of this concept. But in the '70s, it was the (stated) policy of some major hitters.--iFaqeer 04:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I became aware of the issue (as regards this AfD) on account of this: [62]. However, otherwise also the topic interests me. It is certainly not an original research though it may be unreferenced right now. For such pages, deletion is not the correct choice (in my opinion). The correct thing is to try to provide more references and references by way of further reading shall be still better. --Bhadani 07:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I concur as above, and would particularly agree with Carl.bunderson's comment. This is an important subject, and an ideology which has been promoted by several highly notable figures, as the article indicates. There are actually a couple of decent external references on there, though it does need more accurate referencing for its quotes. The fact that it's a scrappy article means that we should improve it, not delete it. -- TinaSparkle 09:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article being put up for deletion is fasinating and informative. I never knew anything about Islamic socialism before, but it does need more references in the near future. - Qasamaan 15:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. This article is in terrible shape, and I am not sure if such a topic is notbale engouh to have its own article. But I would like to give this a chance. If I don't see things change, however, I may myself put this article on an AfD later on.Bless sins 16:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I personally have reliable sources for that. Hopefully will add them whenever I get free. --Aminz 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be largely ignored now, but was a basis for many of the earlier movements within Islam. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 19:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed that "Islamic Fascism" does not have an article of its own. Shariah law is actually fascist, and by this merit alone, it's quite shocking that we have a topic "Islamic Socialism" but "Islamic Fascism" does not have its own page. However, since "fascism" has a bad reputation, it must be less painful for some to to downplay the truth and talk about ridiculous topics such as "Islamic Socialism" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ProtectWomen (talk • contribs) 09:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Your comment is irrelevant. This article is about Islamic socialism, not "Islamofascism". —Sesel 19:24, 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

São José E.C and E.C Taubaté Rivalry[edit]

São José E.C and E.C Taubaté Rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Should be added to other articles Rysin3 04:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is a traditional Brazilian football rivalry, and is the most important derby of the Vale do Paraíba region. This article also helps fight the current European bias in derby articles. --Carioca 05:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 21:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless some references can be provided that this is an actual rivalry. As it stands there is very little in the article to suggests it exists. Qwghlm 22:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added three more references and an external link. Please, check the article. --Carioca 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Portuguese is not my strong point, but having run those refs through Babelfish they seem to pass muster, so I'll change my vote to Keep, articles on well-known rivalries should be included. Qwghlm 11:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I !vote keep based partly on the references but mainly on the fact that the nominator has not actually outlined any reason why he/she thinks the article should be deleted! ChrisTheDude 12:15, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wife[edit]

Wife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Dictionary-style entry; WP:WINAD. Possibly WP:POINT, due to ongoing argument at Talk:Marriage as to whether marriages other than man-woman marriages exist or are valid. Content is very sparse, most content besides dictionary content is unsourced opinion from User:Flammingo. -- Joie de Vivre 23:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a complementary term:

Husband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Joie de Vivre 23:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and discussion[edit]

All new discussion threads should be created on a new line with a bullet. Add Keep, Delete, Comment, or similar, to begin.


Response:What does that have to do with whether this article meets basic criteria? Joie de Vivre 00:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then i don't see a problem keeping it, since it does. Do you have a list of desiderata? FlammingoParliament 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article "marriage" does not, and should not, explain the terms
The same reasons would apply to dowry and bride price, and not connected at all are wedding, bride and groom!FlammingoParliament 00:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: This is not a nomination to delete Husband (disambiguation). That disambiguation page takes care of all the concerns mentioned above. Joie de Vivre 00:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Deleting defamation] FlammingoParliament 00:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC) entries deleted by Joie de vivre: here, notes FlammingoParliament 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteWeak keep Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article doesn't even get the basic dictionary meaning right - it is not a word purely associated with marriage. The word simply comes from the German word "woman" (Old German Weib), and still has that sense today in words like midwife. I sense that this article was created to prove a political point about marriage.Trishm 05:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC) This article seems not to be quite the political football that I thought it was.Trishm 04:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for joining, how does your comment contradict the article's definition? And how could the opinion of giving information on "wife" and "husband" be political, please? FlammingoParliament 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much a contradiction as an indication of the purpose of the article. When the article has little more than a non-inclusive dictionary definition with an error in it (Old German Weib was not obsolete), it doesn't look like the article was created for the sake of the topic. It was very obvious that it was there purely to make a point, and not very well at that. What point? I'm not sure, but it seems to be part of the battle between advocates of SSM and right wing Christians. I note, though, that the article has changed quite a bit since it was nominated, and may be salvageable. -trishm-
i am neither right wing nor ssm or who else, just interested in history and literature, as you see. Question, though: it never said, "Weib was obsolete" (which doesnt make sense to me right now), "obsolete" meant "not in use today", which is true, "Weib" means "Ehefrau" in both colloquial and legal German. If that is what you meant? Thanks.FlammingoParliament 00:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we were talking at cross purposes, and you've won me over. I didn't mean to categorize you, it just seemed that the article was being used as a weapon in some idealogical war. "Weib" is archaic, for sure, but still survives a weiblich, so I reacted a bit to "obsolete"; and I'm sure your German is far superior to mine. Now I can see the potential in the article. Trishm 04:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentOther items marriage does not mention: husband (disambiguation), similar terms like housewife, the education for wives at wife.org, support (make necessary) a disambiguation. Also what about the question The article should describe the position of a wife/husband in the context of society and marriage, which Marriage does not doFlammingoParliament 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator says "Content is very sparse", but Wife doesn't look that way to me. Also merging into Marriage would be a bad idea due to the sheer length of the article. It is long past the stage where sections need to be split of. Lets not go backwards. Mathmo Talk 16:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very expandable. Could have better content someday. I think wife is sufficiently notable. Selket Talk 16:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very encyclopedic topic, including discussion in fields of demographics, history, sociology and religion (and many others). The article could/should be expanded to an enormous extent but as a starting article it's decently written and well-referenced. -Markeer 17:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. There is a world of custom, law, literature, and folklore for these articles that really does not belong in the marriage article. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - one of the things you would type into wikipedia and be shocked if it didn't have an article. If this is deleted, it will reappear and we start from scratch again. Cant believe this was AFD'd! {{gofixit}} THE KING 18:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both and Redirect to marriage, which is where "spouse" redirects. This is simply a dicdef, the wiktionary should suffice. Agent 86 19:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are very well sources for every single sentence, hell, for every single letter in those sentences. So, all are invited, rol up your sleeves, (have a coke...) and punch in a book or two! FlammingoParliament 20:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. There are many, many unsourced statements in Wife and also some in Husband. Joie de Vivre 20:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One after another, shall we? And yes, that's why more than one should contribute FlammingoParliament 20:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, even if i am not allowed to say who i am talking to, it would still be productive to post questions like whether novels count as a reference (edit: ie. what sources are acceptable in the context of wishing this article sourced) either here or somewhere it would be seen by more people. I am not saying this to anyone in particular. No threat intended. Keep it up, everyone, and there are tons of books on this topic, which would be nice to have here. FlammingoParliament 21:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. These articles were born out yet another WP:POINT from Talk:Marriage. If it is a good idea to start splitting the article for length purposes, the way it should be done is not to create dicdefs and fill them with historical anecdotes, but to simply create a (set of) timeline(s) of marriage practices in different regions. This would be much more encyclopedic, and an appropriate title for one of these might be Marriage practices in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for example. Filling up dicdefs with little historical tidbits is not the way to go about this. — coelacan talk — 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This cannot be WP:POINT for the reasons i stated above. I am not interested in the article marriage, but in the article wife. I do not really care what marriage says right now, and did not take sides in the discussion there (if there are sides, i dont know, but POINT says i'd illustrate my pov, which would mean i did take my opinion solely from there).FlammingoParliament 21:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yet when you changed these articles from redirects, the article intros said "A husband is the male participant in a marriage. Compare wife" and "A wife is the female spouse in a marriage. Compare husband", and your edit summaries said "As by Talk:Marriage#husbands and wives redux".[63] [64] Looks to be straight out of the edit disputes there. — coelacan talk — 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, i thought the discussion ABOUT the article marriage on that talk page. Sorry. Yes, there were two editors suggesting that might be worth having, too. i was not precise.FlammingoParliament 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, the purpose of this article is not length, but what i just said, and have kept saying. It does not repeat the kinds-of-marriage issue from marriage, either. It is also not limited to the time frame suggested ~ten lines above this comment.FlammingoParliament 21:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can see that it's not limited to that time frame, that's why I'm suggesting a set of such articles, divided by whatever historical segments are appropriate. There's very little to be gained in having these dicdefs and just filling them with a variety of historical anecdotes. If the coverage is too long for Marriage (and I'm not convinced that it is) then the way to do it is is by articles on those historical periods, not just dumping grounds for anything and everything from every time period. — coelacan talk — 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the too long coverage. FlammingoParliament 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you agree with me that the coverage there is not too long, then there's no reason for the content not to simply be back at marriage. — coelacan talk — 22:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me emphasize: It's not ABOUT the too long coverage.FlammingoParliament 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then why don't you explain what else it's "ABOUT". What you're putting in these pages are historical marriage practices, so they're really more appropriate for articles like Marriage practices in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and Marriage practices in the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries or whichever period-breakdown is most appropriate. — coelacan talk — 23:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't. It's on "wife", "wives". --FlammingoParliament 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like "marriage practices" to me. That's the content of the article. — coelacan talk — 00:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not on the marriage practice, if i'm understanding that term in your sentence correctly FlammingoParliament 00:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"And customs" then, because all the content relates to customs of marriage. If we're taking "practices" alone not to include the after-ceremony customs (not how I meant it but I guess it could be interpreted that way). — coelacan talk — 00:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with Coelacan's observation. Joie de Vivre 22:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That if it is about the long coverage it should still go back.....?????--FlammingoParliament 22:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original bulleted comment. Joie de Vivre 22:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it's way more than dict now. And contains non-me sources.FlammingoParliament 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a dicdef full of historical anecdotes from various time periods, which is exactly what my original bulleted comment said. — coelacan talk — 01:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Great, eh? (expl. see below) Though I would not say it that way, obviously.FlammingoParliament 01:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Har, har, har.  :-P Joie de Vivre 22:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wife is not just a term but a position that has existed in society for millenia. There's plenty of room for expansion in terms of the history of usage, religious and cultural views, etc. Joshdboz 22:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's about history, then wouldn't it make sense to merge the content of both wife and husband and split off as approriate from marriage and make a series of historical articles like I've proposed above? — coelacan talk — 23:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That merge would put two different perspectives on a topic together, necessarily losing one of them.--FlammingoParliament 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? — coelacan talk — 00:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
indeed.FlammingoParliament 00:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cute. Please explain what you're talking about. — coelacan talk — 00:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ;) My pleasure. wife would be on relation to kids and village/town/legal protection especially throughout history (maybe including today) husband would be the same, necessarily different.FlammingoParliament 01:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously different, but very much related, so it makes sense to merge them into articles on the history itself. Nothing would be lost. That's what sections are for. — coelacan talk — 01:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, these are obvious expandable subarticles of marriage, which is a serious hodge-podge of pointers out to other articles already. --Dhartung | Talk 00:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term "wife" has enough of its own historical connotations to make a valid encyclopedia article out of it. JuJube 00:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I just want to say that I really agree with Coelacan's idea about separating content about the role of women in marriage by time period (or perhaps also by geography) rather than just one grand umbrella term for "Wife". I agree that it's much more encyclopedic, the way Coelacan is suggesting it. Joie de Vivre 22:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You really must be kidding - nominating this article for deletion? --Ozgod 03:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—really surprising nomination, because even if you exclude a basic dicdef, you're left with a huge amount of cultural and historical information to write about. Everyking 07:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please really this is surprising there is so much that can be said about the wife yuckfoo 01:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Like what? Joie de Vivre 18:02, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 18:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of unsuccessful major-party United States presidential candidates' military service[edit]

List of unsuccessful major-party United States presidential candidates' military service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - arbitrarily broken-out list of information that should be included in the articles for the candidates. Not every detail of this sort needs to be broken out into a list.Otto4711 14:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, whs. Recury 15:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I have no problem merging this and other lists into larger articles as needed, but that is for someone who wants to take that action to implement. A lot of attention is paid to the biographical history of candidates in the US including unsuccessful ones. This list is well maintained and of specific scope and likely to be desired by those interested in Presidential candidates. So we should keep it and the other related lists. NoSeptember 16:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete While not a reason per se for deletion, I would be amazed if anyone ever typed this as a search term. This list is essentially trivia and is a rather indiscriminate collection of information with a bare-bones premise for having these facts gathered in one place. Agent 86 19:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per NoSeptember's comments, although I'd prefer to see it combined with successful candidates' military service. Although it's unlikely anyone would have this as a search term, adequate linking could bring plenty of readers to it. It's an interesting historical subject, possibly useful for some researchers, and it's very likely to have plenty of readers over the years. Noroton 19:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only indiscriminate lists about American Presidents, but now about failed American Polititians!? No ta. Jcuk 22:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because they failed to become U.S. President doesn't make them failed politicians. A failure wouldn't be nomintated. Jjmillerhistorian 12:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep,per NoSeptember. Mathmo Talk 00:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NoSeptember. Consider somehow merging to the list for successful candidates--however, this is a topic for the talk page not AfD. -- Black Falcon 01:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What th...Delete this entirely trivial, indiscriminate list. If the info isn't already in the candidate's article, that's a huge oversight as it is. --UsaSatsui 19:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the vote be this close if the article was List of unsuccessful major-party Tajikistan presidential candidates' military service? I'm just saying. Recury 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I've seen the word "indiscriminate" used here and elsewhere as a reason to delete a list. I thought "indiscriminate" meant the list could go on and on and on without a reasonable end because the criteria for being on it was too broad. By this definition, this list can't be indiscriminate. There are a limited number of major-party presidential candidates. Maybe I'm wrong; if so, someone please point me to the Wikipedia guideline on indiscriminate lists. Noroton 19:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and just to clarify: This is a list of major-party nominees not just any candidate. That narrows the list considerably. We've had less than 100 major-party nominees in all of U.S. history and fewer than 60 who lost (some later won) and the list will only grow by a maximum of one every four years.Noroton 19:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC) (edited to correct a couple of errors)[reply]
I believe you are right as to what "indiscriminate" refers to in WP:NOT (which I'm guessing is why the nom didn't use that word). Certainly the list has an end and is maintainable. I just think that the criteria are kind of arbitrary and that the info here is better left in the articles about the candidates. If you have this, why not have List of successful major-party United States presidential candidates' military service? And it's only a short notability jump to List of unsuccessful third-party United States presidential candidates' military service or my Tajikistan example above. This information belongs in Wikipedia, but if you start including it in every format imaginable, it starts to become a database and not an encyclopedia. Recury 20:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I think we can use our judgment as to what topics are serious and important enough -- no rules will ever be enough to cover all contingencies anyway. I'd give a lot of leeway to lists of presidents or major-party candidates because scholars and voters have a serious interest in past precedents and behavior. I think it's a very big jump to third-party candidates because it's easier to be a third-party candidate and so we have so many more of them, and their impact on politics is so much less, so I don't see a slippery slope there. I'm not bothered by lists of presidents from other countries because this isn't your father's paper encyclopedia. If there's no TajikiWiki to handle the Tajiki list, then I'd accept one on the English Wikipedia. Incidentally, you say the information should be included on individual pages, but anyone interested in the topic is going to have a much easier time with it on one page with links to those pages for details. I think that's the only practical way to cover the subject for scholars and voters interested in it, and it's a serious subject.
Let me take about three steps back: We all know this electronic encyclopedia can cover far more topics than paper ever could. When we're thinking about how far that should go, it seems to me serious topics such as U.S. presidents need to be a priority, where we should be especially inclusive. In a big, powerful democracy like the U.S. or U.K., information on candidates and political history has enormous value to enormous numbers of people (inside and outside those nations) and anything that can (reasonably) help voters should be included. So topics that commonly come up in campaigns are valubable. For the same reason, I'd be inclusive about similar topics in other nations -- because it's important in those nations and, especially if they're poorer, Wikipedia can be an important resource to them. Perhaps, the standard should be a little harder (but not much) to meet for smaller nations and harder still for non-English-speaking nations with Wikipedias that serve them in their own languages. But a Wikipedia that limits itself this much on such a serious topic while a tsunami of trivial books, movies, television characters and video games flood the place becomes just the trivial hodgepodge you're arguing against. Noroton 21:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The criteria seem arbitrary. It only looks at the U.S. presidential election, only major-party nominees, and only those nominees who were never (before or after) president. That seems like an odd restriction. It would be less arbitrary to list all the major-party nominees, and I might not have thought twice about it. But then, why look at military service in particular? Why not their former political service? Or their non-political career? Or any other facet that can be listed? This led me to wonder: Has any external reliable source produced a similar list specifically about the former military service of presidential nominees? If not, then there would need to be a good reason to compile such a list on WP first. Someone could make a list of the presidential nominees and the hair color of their spouses, but if nobody else has published such a list, then I would argue that shows such an intersection of information is not notable -- even if every individual entry could be cited to a reliable source. On the other hand, if a list of nominees and former military service has been published elsewhere, then it is probably a notable intersection of information worth a spot in an encyclopedia. Gimmetrow 21:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with List of United States Presidents by military rank. This is great for comparison. Like comparing candidates by hieght, researchers can see how military affiliation may have affected election results. The article appears to be limited, but deserves recognition. Besides, the list is filled with notable people who did a notable thing. Jjmillerhistorian 22:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with successful--I do not see the point of such a specialized list or of dividingthem.DGG 04:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Usedup 16:59, 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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:37Z

Straphanger[edit]

Straphanger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

previously tagged as a candidate for deletion for unencyclopedic content; I feel this is a decently reasonable article for inclusion but before removing that tag I though I would bring it to wider discussion. There has been some discussion already on its talk page. I feel this is a keep, but in need of cleanup Cornell Rockey 15:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, the nominator themselves believes it should be kept.... !! I suggest withdrawing the nomination and then you can close it yourself if there are only keep votes. Mathmo Talk 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I first heard this term in the context of the Straphangers Campaign, a group that advocates the improvement of the NYC Subway system, which is mentioned in this article. --Eastmain 19:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see the nom has opted for "keep", but I'd be more than happy to step into the shoes of the nominator and nominate it myself. This article is essentially a dicdef, a slang term for commuter. The balance of the article is clearly a dicdef, given the heading "other definitions". The alternatives to deletion are to redirect to commuting or to transwiki into the wiktionary. Agent 86 19:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or transwiki. Looks like a classic dicdef. If it can be expanded beyond that, keep. --- RockMFR 20:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The fact that there is a film by the same name already demonstrates that this is not just a dicdef. It does, however, need to be improved and expanded. -- Black Falcon 01:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If the film is a topic worthy of an encyclopedia entry, then we can have an article on the film. However, just because a movie has the same title as a word in the dictionary doesn't make that word worthy of an encyclopedia article. Looking at the IMDB entry for this movie, there is no indication of what it is about, how the term is used, or the context in which the title applies. If the "Straphangers Campaign" is encyclopedic, we can have an article on the "Straphangers Campaign" (and we do). There are movies, companies, charities, etc., with the word "united" in their title, but we don't have or need an article on the dicdef "united" ("united", by the way, is simply a disambig page, no article or definition). Agent 86 02:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Straphanger says keep. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, given that there was even a film created by the same name. (jarbarf) 20:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a glorified dicdef. Showing that word has been used many places just proves it's a real word, not that it's anything more than a dictionary definition. Vicarious 00:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A real and encyclopedic topic. More important in places with crowded subway trains like New York. --Oakshade 04:47, 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 with no prejudice against the suggestion to create the article Amazing Race 10 contestants and then merge it there. If you need the deleted content for such an article, ask me or another administator to provide it. —Doug Bell talk 13:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Conley, Jr.[edit]

David Conley, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable reality television (Amazing Race) contestants. Competing on All-Stars doesn't make them notable.

I just wish to add that there is currently a conflict between myself and the article creater Evrik (see [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]) which has led to Evrik falsely accusing me of Wikistalking (I "stalk" my watchlist but nothing else). Please note that I made it fairly clear with this edit that if s/he was going to create those two articles they would be put up for deletion on the grounds of notability.

Also up for nomination: Mary Conley‎ -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 01:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I WISH TO REGISTER MY EXTREME ANGER AT EVRIK MESSING UP MY NOMINATION. I have just discovered that Evrik has messed with the nominations I created David Conley and one other group nom for TAR contestants. He has also messed up the Articles for Deletion page by creating a subheading for "Amazing Race contestants". Let it be known that I am reverting all these edits and putting things back to their original state, as I feel that I, as nom, have a right to do. If other editors disagree with this decision of mine they are welcome to take it up with me on my talk page and I will be more than willing to discuss it. I believe this is part of a pattern of harassment of me by Evrik which is detailed here. Please also note that I will soon be creating a Request for Comment page in regards to Evrik’s actions in the past few days. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 20:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In light of this, Evrik is advised to use a lighter hand with the activities of PageantUpdater and engage other editors and administrators in policing what is seen as needing same. It is very unnecessary to brign personal disputes into AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 00:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--evrik (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks. I am not wikistalking you, as I made clear here, people are not notable merely because they have appeared on reality television. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 02:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alerting people to the fact that this article was nominated becauise of your haraasment is not a personal attack. --evrik (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that four articles about Amazing Race winners were nominated for deletion for the same reason yesterday: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Branaman -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 02:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge both together. Neither is notable with out the other, but together they are notable, as they appeared not only on TAR 10, but also on TAR All:Stars, and they also managed to get a free house from the view.. EnsRedShirt 02:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into list of TAR contestants. Contestant on reality television are not inherently notable. As for evrik I would be more careful throwing around accusations. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to an appropriate article if such exists. No secondary sources are cited to show that this person is in himself a notable subject, any reasons behind the nomination aside. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 04:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable TAR contestant both in and outside of the race. Simply appearing on a TV program does not ensure notability. --Madchester 04:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 06:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, is notable and there appears to be something else going on here... breaking WP:POINT perhaps? Or something. Mathmo Talk 16:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect David and Mary into a single article David and Mary Conley. Appearances on TAR 10 plus TAR All-Stars plus all the appearances on Regis and The View are sufficient to establish notability. Note discussion at WP:FICT and WP:BIO talk pages regarding articles for reality show contestants. I would also suggest that calling other editors "stalkers" is not civil. Otto4711 16:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, once again Otto4711 has come up with a good idea. Merging together would be a good idea, because they are famous as a couple and thus having two articles would mean a lot of duplicated information (though I'm fine with two, just a single article seems like a better idea). Mathmo Talk 17:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. The article on the two of them together was already made 3 months ago, I prod'd it, and another editor made it a simple redirect to the TAR10 article, which it's sat at, uncontested for the 3 months since then. The fact that now, 3 months later, the individual articles on these two contain no information that wasn't already in the tiny stub article on them as a couple (aside from the line "will appear in TAR All-stars") tells me that these are definitely non-notable people right now, and don't need their own article. --Maelwys 17:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lack of editor attention does not in and of itself mean that the subject is not notable. Otto4711 17:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • True, but I was referring more to the fact that even three months later there's almost nothing for you to add to the article to bring it "up to date". It's still a tiny stub with little chance of growing. By the end of TAR All-Star, it'll have one more line of "David and Mary finished in nth place". If they win, then they might become notable and the article worthy of recreation. But until we see the result of the new season (which hasn't even started yet), I don't think there's enough notability here to justify the article. --Maelwys 17:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable reality show contestants, the article is a perma-stub unless they win All-Stars. But simply appearing on it doesn't mean they need an article. --Maelwys 17:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had not realized that David and Mary Conley already existed. It wasn't linked. --19:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • David and Mary Conley had been previously created and then redirected to The Amazing Race 10. For purposes of this discussion I undirected it so that there would be a logical target if the decision here was to redirect. If David and Mary are deemed not notable enough to sustain either individual or joint articles, I will redirect the joint article back to TAR 10. Otto4711 19:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, into article containing info about contestents per season or to the other article that was suggested. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:10, 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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:38Z

Politics of Northwest Territories[edit]

Politics of Northwest Territories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Stub since August. No one has even made the slightest effort to improve this article. Can be re-created when there's some real content, more than a sentence. Delete GreenJoe 15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Northwest Territories for now. 23skidoo 15:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic. Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. Resolute 18:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Resolute pretty much said it all. Agent 86 19:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per 23skidoo Soltak | Talk 20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't quite understand what the article is supposed to be about. The NWT certainly has a unique political structure but right now the article just lists political issues very generally. --JGGardiner 21:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - that's why I'm suggesting a redirect. At the moment the article offers nothing that isn't already covered in the main article. 23skidoo 21:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have expanded the article. It still isn't great, but it shows that the topic is capable of expansion into a proper article. Agent 86 23:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the expansion Agent 86. It's nice to see that even a Canadian nationalist can make valuable contributions at times. =) Yes, I'd definitely keep the article as it is now. This morning it was a little different, with only one vague sentence. A bit like looking at a hanfull of seeds, not knowing what you'd get if you planted them. Though it is a funny thing because we don't seem to have these articles for other jurisdictions. Should there be a Politics of Alberta or Politics of Toronto article as well? --JGGardiner 05:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as reasonable stub (now expanded.) Spacepotato 23:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as it has now been expanded, the rationale for deletion is no longer applicable (although it was questionable from the beginning--being a stub is no reason to delete). -- Black Falcon 01:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep expanded version; clearly notable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and keep expanding where possible. The "real content" required in the nomination is well and truly there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no deletion rationelle. --Qyd 05:05, 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) 2007-02-18 08:38Z

Jank[edit]

Jank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neologism made up in school one day. Even the Urban Dictionary gives a different definition. Prod tag removed by anon. ... discospinster talk 15:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - "a group of friends" is not a reliable source; and, as mentioned above, the Urban Dictionary gives a different definition (with no mention of the term's history). ◄Zahakiel► 15:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Khukri 16:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. I've been away from wikipedia for a while, not sure what category of speedy this is if any but it definitely should be. Neologism? THE KING 16:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Is made up, and attempting to look it up gives us conflicting evidence. Mathmo Talk 16:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete per nom. Unencyclopedic. IrishGuy talk 16:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unreferenced neologism, and no obvious reason to expect that references can be found. WMMartin 17:18, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 19:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IKEA in popular culture[edit]

IKEA in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - a thoroughly indiscriminate list seeking to capture every instance of not only when someone happens to mention IKEA in a movie, TV show or magazine without any regard to the actual importance of the mention within the context of the program, but every mention of anything that sounds like IKEA or resembles IKEA or in some other way reminds whatever random editor who spots it of IKEA, again with no information explaining why the inclusion of this IKEA-like thing has any significance either in the fictional world from which it's drawn or in the real world. Otto4711 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This actually touches on a problem inherent in these articles. The information generally starts out in the parent article then gets offloaded to a separate "...in popular culture" article. Then if the pop-cult article gets AfDed the outcome is often merge. Which uts the information back into the main article until it bloats enough so that someone separates it again, and around and around. Otto4711 16:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was getting too big for IKEA, and that's why I splitted it. bogdan 13:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unreferenced Let me start by saying that WP:NOT#IINFO does not cover trivia and "in pop-culture" articles; that section of policy is very specific on what it covers. However, that being said, this article appears to be virtually unreferenced. Unless references are provided for verifiability and notability purposes, the article should be deleted (note that unreferenced material should not be remerged with the main article but should simply be deleted and only recreated when references are added.)Dugwiki 20:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree with your conclusion, I must still disagree with your assertion that WP:NOT#IINFO can't be cited. Consensus may not have been reached on the issue but that does not mean that the items for which consensus has been reached are exhaustive. There is some discussion on the WP:NOT talk page which I encourage any interested parties to view. However, even absent WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR forbids "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." I would assert that a collection of one-liners from a couple of dozen sources would qualify for deletion under WP:NOT#DIR as well. Otto4711 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm more willing to buy an argument using WP:NOT#DIR for a list of loosely associated trivial facts. Just as a general aside, though, there has been a tendency to misuse the WP:NOT#IINFO section as a sort of catch-all "I don't like it" reference in these afd debates. Some editors seem to refer to it whenever an article deals with something they feel is "trivial" or "unimportant", for example. Anyway, as both Otto and I mentioned, there's a broader discussion about this on the WP:NOT talk page, so I won't go into it here other than to advise that unless an article actually falls under one of the specific consensus sections of WP:NOT#IINFO you probably should not refer to it as it somewhat invalidates that portion of your argument. Find a more appropriate section of policy that directly talks about what you are dealing with (such as maybe using WP:NOT#DIR for lists of "random" facts). Dugwiki 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Petition accepted with No merge. - Francis Tyers · 13:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not merge. Do not allow a new version in IKEA. Kill for good. This sort of list is easy to write, but thoroughly unencyclopedic. It is a set of rough notes at best that lacks the objectivity of a proper article. Cloachland 03:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with the comments expressed by Otto4711 that if the resolution of the AfD is either a delete or a trim/merge, it will likely cause significant other information be regurgitated into the main article and then being split out again in a viscous cycle. There is no foreseeable way to stop this, so I instead would strongly suggest that the content is reviewed and is made more encyclopaedic where possible, and un-encyclopaedic content is removed. thewinchester 12:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've also just gone through the article in question and done a massive formatting clean-up. Relevant fact tags have been added and references correctly formatted. Hopefully this can encourage someone else to come along and see if we can't get it up to standard. thewinchester 13:05, 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. - Daniel.Bryant 23:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McCullough[edit]

Andrew McCullough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable CEO of minor company. -- Longhair\talk 16:05, 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 07:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of political epithets[edit]

This is an article whose encyclopedic value is questionable. It includes almost each and every political affiliation, converted to an epithet on the basis of mostly minority viewpoints that consider them such. A POV magnet of the worst kind. The main problem is that by including a certain term as an epithet, we are asserting it that as a fact, without the possibility of presenting competing viewpoints about the use of these terms. NPOV is not possible, regardless of the availability of sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD of December 2005, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political epithets

  • Strong keep and improve The article is awfully useful. I found just what I was looking for, contrary to expectations, along with plausible derivation information. Maybe an article like this really belongs in Wiktionary, but this seems like a reasonable place for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harry Feldman (talk • contribs) 08:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt the earth. The article is abused in the worst kind of way with some terms included and some denied based on some editors political views rather than Wikipedia policy. // Liftarn
  • Comment - this article has survived a previous AFD. THE KING 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is already explained in the nomination ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. The article and its discussion page are indeed rife with special pleading, but it isn't intrinsically worthless. Controversial additions such as "Islamophobia," "India Basher," and "Anti-Semite" need to be well-sourced, of course, and at least one of the three now is. Consensus should be possible with good-faith editing and – if need be – mediation. For the rest, the main problem isn't POV-pushing but non-notable trivia and pop curiosities. With attentive, good-faith editing, this could be a decent page.--G-Dett 16:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 180 degrees opposite to Jossi, I feel that by calling it an epithet we are denying that it is a fact but rather asserting the necessity of competing viewpoints. It serves as a live index into Wikipedia:List of controversial issues. --Uncle Ed 21:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article has proved to be almost solely a place where POV-pushers attempt to insert unsourced nonsense. This is inevitable, given its nature. Jayjg (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no limit to such a list. "Liar" or "thief" also rightfully belong here. Beit Or 21:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article has a long and troubled history as a magnet for POV pushers, and its contents necessarily require a degree of OR and the use of poor sources, given that the New York Times and the Encyclopaedia Britannica have been strangely silent on the issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV showcase for the latest and greatest OR. —Viriditas | Talk 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reference. I like that it doesn't name names in the article, but it needs to have references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've been watching the recent controversy over including "anti-semite" as a political epithet from a distance and I kept thinking that this is really listcruft. There's no notability criteria, so this could, and in some ways already has, devolve into a list of all the mean things people have said about other people's politics. This is unmaintainable and, as the article itself says, never going to be comprehensive. People have been both extraordinarily clever and mindbogglingly obnoxious in inventing terms for their political enemies over the millenia, but there is no question that the human race has been exuberant in this area. To demonstrate, before reading the next sentence, stop to see how many different ways you can call someone a Nazi in 60 seconds. Here's what I came up with: Nazi, facist, gestapo tactics, stormtrooper, hitlerian, hitlerist, hitlerism, national socialist, brown shirt. Ten epithets on one topic in 60 seconds, I timed myself. I'm sure wikipedians could come up with 50 more, just in English. And none of those 50 will be any less notable than some of the gems. The whole list is useless because you have to wade through a zillion insignificant neologisms ("Bushit, DUmmy,etc.) to find something thats of any encyclopedic value. Not to mention that some of these are really not political at all. "Newsbabe". If someone wants to do a list of historically significant political epithets (say, political epithets that have entered the general lexicon, "carpetbagger" or "quisling" for example) that's encyclopedic, but the current list is just drek.GabrielF 22:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Every single entry would surely be fought over endlessly, and without any satisfactory resolution. It is completely impractical to have articles that will always be battlegrounds. --65.192.167.194 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the list has become a free-for-all opportunity for spewing epithets, rather than providing encyclopedic information. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Elizmr 23:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The Prince 23:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a constant battleground with no encyclopedic value. Noon 00:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - well said, Noon. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - most of the terms in the article are well-sourced. Just because there is continuing controversy about some is no reason to get rid of the whole thing. The principle of the nomination is based on a misunderstanding. Calling something an epithet is not the same as calling it a fact: an epithet is, among other things, "A term used to characterize a person or thing" and "An abusive or contemptuous word or phrase." (from Wiktionary). Moreover, just because something is a target for POV-pushers and vandalism is no reason to delete it. Otherwise we'd have to delete every FA that was put on the main page. -- Black Falcon 01:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your second point is flawed. Yes, highly visible featured articles are also vandalism magnets. However, those articles are really good and they have lots of committed editors who have already demonstrated that they can keep the garbage out. This is a completely different situation. GabrielF 02:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Make it go away. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Will be a poisoned POV-pit-extraordinaire. --tickle me 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a niche article bordering on OR and a big POV fork. I almost don't want to delete it because then the people who diligently prune this article will spread their interesting viewpoints to other places. Guy Montag 07:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article hasn't been worth the trouble. While the terms may be sourceable, the explanations/definitions are mostly unsourced OR. Important terms already have articles of their own. -Will Beback · † · 07:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, GabrielF, Will B. and others. Article unnecessarily multiplies the opportunities for POV/edit-warring, of which we are already blessed with a surplus. 6SJ7 10:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As others have noted, the article is a POV battlefield that is prone to OR. But suppose it were renamed 'list of terms that have been described at least once (in reliable sources) as a political epithet,' and suppose the content were edited to match. Would it solve the problems? It might solve some problems - OR, perhaps - but there would still be a fundamental NPOV problem in that the emphasis is on one particular view of one issue. This is not unlike a POV fork of an article. I think it is better to discuss issues at length in their own articles, without emphasis on any particular viewpoint. Jakew 10:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete almost by definition, categorization as a "political epithet" is a matter of POV. Gzuckier 14:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A platform for POV and little used neologisms. It hasn't improved and very much doubt it will. Marskell 18:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, TewfikTalk 18:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Vision Thing -- 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needs improvement, but keep it. There's loads of really interesting information in the list. With significant referencing i think it would be fine. Ian F. 09:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR, WP:WING, and unencyclopædic to boot. Avi 17:43, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 17:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of commercial seduction teachers[edit]

List of commercial seduction teachers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is this article really necessary? It seems with the nomination of the template 'notable members of the seduction community' and deletion of Real Social Dynamics and Badboy Lifestyle that this is the next step. It seems like little work is being done to improve the page, looks like its probably been sitting idle for a fair while. And it seems redundant with the category notable members of the seduction community anyway. Thoughts? THE KING 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. It meets WP:LIST. Mathmo Talk 16:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categories don't replace lists and lists don't replace categories. If only for visibility of editing (changes in lists are detected by watchlist). Mathmo Talk 00:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. This is clearly a directory entry, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. WP:LIST is not a content policy, it is a guideline, and largely a style-guide at that, and cannot trump policy. Agent 86 19:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with the non-notable characters linked to. Jefferson Anderson 22:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Made redundant by Template:Notable_Members_of_The_Seduction_Community. --SecondSight 07:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This debate should probably be paused until [70] is resolved first. --Amit 12:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no reason to hold off on this debate. Regardless of the results of the discussion on the template, and even if seduction teacher were an article, neither of those factors cures the fact that this is simply a directory and contrary to WP:NOT. Agent 86 17:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Agent 86 and delete the template too. Cloachland 03:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree that this seems like a directory. Gimmetrow 20:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Usedup 16:58, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doraemon:The Dark Knight[edit]

Doraemon:The Dark Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
D.A.R.K.5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jetameto Hayami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are no sources given, and a Google search produces precisely one result, which contains no information. In short, unverifiable. A previous version was speedy deleted as Doraemon: The Dark Knight, but this may be improved and so may not qualify for speedy deletion as a repost. Prodded, prod removed by author without improvement or comment. I also nominate D.A.R.K.5 and Jetameto Hayami, which seem to be this fictional anime's organization of bad guys and hreo, respectively. Again, no Google hits, no sources. Huon 16:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is this real? You'd think a new Doraemon anime would get more Google hits. JuJube 00:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, after reading the cast list, it's clear this is a hoax, so Delete this hoaxalicious trash. JuJube 00:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jujube; apparently a hoax by a serial hoaxer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:26, 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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:40Z

Kevin Beary[edit]

Kevin Beary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unnotable local law enforcement person from Florida. FGT2 17:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete borderline speedy does not assert notability. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. --Denoir 11:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur with above users. --Ozgod 01:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, prominent local government official in a major metropolitan county, which includes the Orlando area. --TommyBoy 22:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. --Bookworm857158367 03:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Heads a department with 1,217 sworn officers, a large enough force to qualify its chief for inclusion in Wikipedia in my opinion (I would consider any police chief who heads a force of several hundred or more to be notable). Perhaps those who have chosen to simply state "non-notable" would care to expand on their reasons for doing so? I have seen no good reasons put forward for deletion except unsupported assertions of non-notability. -- Necrothesp 03:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets the special cases criteria for notability as, "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." Google search shows lots of local media coverage, especially in relation to accusations of corruption. - Mocko13 04:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- It's obviously a stub, so the full notability of this guy isn't in the article. But the top cop for a city that size is easily notable. I did a google search too, of "Kevin Beary"+"Orange County" and came up with 10,800 hits. Turns out he's quite controversial in them parts: Sheriff of the year, ethical allegations against him, questions over homeland security spending through his department, taser issues, etc., etc. Sites seem to range from CNN to angry blogs. Even if he wasn't controversial, he holds an office that has a profound influence in a large community and I'm sure whoever his predecessor was got plenty of media attention as well. Bobanny 05:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is the Sheriff of Orange County, FL, which includes much of the Orlando metropolitan area. The subject is notable enough for an article, altough it should probably be expanded. Even without all of the stuff that Bobanny mentions, I think that being the sheriff of such a large and important county is notable in and of itself. M412k 05:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The head of a department that size is certainly notable.EMT1871 14:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge into the orange county article in a section about the sherif's department, OR into a seperate article on the sherif department of orange county if one does exist. SGGH 15:04, 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 on United States Sports Academy, keep on Amos Alonzo Stagg Award, delete the rest. —Doug Bell talk 13:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Sports Academy[edit]

United States Sports Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be an insufficiently notable trade school, and someone (Lucidagtha (talk · contribs)) has been heavily spamming on its behalf by inserting references to "honorary degrees" that there was no evidence that the "recipients" were aware of or accepted the "honorary degrees," suggesting that it is, in fact, non-notable. Weak delete on the school itself, strong delete on its associated "awards" and other vanity/spam pages. Nlu (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be notable that every single current news reference to it (see [71]) either came from the school itself or is a reference to it giving an award or a degree. Absolutely no indication that this "school" provides any real education. --Nlu (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another note: see the U.S. News college page for it ([72]). Note how much of the information is "not available." --Nlu (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

** Amos Alonzo Stagg Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (withdrawn by Nlu (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It can be hard to find articles about the school itself, and not the awards given out, but I think that's partly because they give out so many awards. The fact that the awards seem to be taken seriously and the fact that they get a decent deal of press coverage from sponsoring the directors cup standings pushes them toward notability. US News probably does not have information on them because it is such a non-traditional program that they don't rate the school. The school claims a handful of notable alumni.
Weak Keep / Merge on the other awards articles, though if kept, most of them need massive cleanup and sources that do not originate from the school or the awardee.
Mishatx *разговор* 22:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update -- I am withdrawing the nomination on Amos Alonzo Stagg Award. The nomination remains on all of the others. --Nlu (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On balance, appears to be a real school with real accreditation. I'd like better references, but I suspect they can be found. Keep, and tag for someone to provide better references. No opinion on the others, as no time to review: perhaps some sort of merge would help ? WMMartin 17:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the main article because it is notable (it gets occasional press coverage--see [76]) and verifiable--one source notes, for instance, that the president of East Timor received an honorary degree from the academy. I will incorporate some of these (and if possible other) sources into the article. As for the rest, keep by default due to the bundled nomination. If consensus exists here, I think most should be merged into the main USSA article unless sources can be found to establish WP:Notability for each. If no consensus for a merge develops here, I will propose a merge on the article pages and, if no objections arise within 5 or so days, will go forward and perform the merge. -- Black Falcon 18:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I noted, there's no evidence that the "recipients" of these honorary degrees actually accepted them. The fact that an institution may announce that it was conferring honorary degrees doesn't mean that the institution itself is notable. It should further be noted that the editor who appeared to be working on behalf of publicizing the institution misleadingly inserted these "honorary degree" references into the education background parts of articles with misleading edit summaries. For an example, see [77]. --Nlu (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The information on conferrals is taken from here. You have a point about conferral vs. acceptance. I have incorporated into the article a source that confirms that at least one notable person has accepted--the President of East Timor. I think this should satisfy concerns that the institution's honorary degrees are ignored--I will try to find more sources for other conferrals. -- Black Falcon 21:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. It should be noted that one of the two alumni that the article claims who have articles here -- Greg McDermott and Mike Leach -- does not state in his biographical page that he graduated or went there. See [78] (McDermott). Leach's biography does mention the institution. [79]. --Nlu (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although that is strange, I think the fact that Leach's biography does mention the school is more relevant toward establishing that it's an actual school. Perhaps the reason it's not mentioned in McDermott's page is because it is less detailed. If you have reason to suspect that McDermott is a USSA graduate, please remove any reference to him from the article. -- Black Falcon 21:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue is not whether it exists -- it certainly does. The question is whether it is sufficiently notable. I am considering removing McDermott from the article, but that doesn't affect the issue. Existence is not the standard for notability. --Nlu (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADDITIONAL COMMENT

    • The United States Sports Academy is certainly a real university. It has been accredited by NASPE and NASM, and has bachelor's, master's, and doctorate degress in sport specific studies. In fact, it is the only sport specific institution in the nation.

We recently had a mention in U.S. News and World Reports (http://record.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/8575.html) citing our Directors Cup.

Also, if you are checking the validity of our honorees, please look up the Abbot Shi Yongxin, the leader of Chinese Chan Bhuddism. His presence was noted at our Academy by both the Mobile Register and the New York Times.

We have also worked with Soprt for Peace to create positive international relations through sport.

Please let me know how I can help to verify any additional data that you may need.

Thanks very much,

Amanda Lucidagtha 21:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment. If you are affiliated with the institution, it is a conflict of interest for you to be promoting the institution on Wikipedia. --Nlu (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but there is really no promotion in the article and, furthermore, I see nothing wrong with offering to provide independent, reliable sources about which one is knowledgeable. WP:COI discourages editing of articles by those who may have a conflict of interest, but not contributing/assisting others to edit. Finally, WP:COI should be used within reasonable bounds. If an editor is contributing information that conforms to WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V, I see no reason why they should not edit an article about themselves or an organization with which they are affiliated. -- Black Falcon 06:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree that Lucidagtha had no conflict of interest and was not promoting the institution. Take a look at her edit history -- particularly the edit summaries. --Nlu (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, she only created articles about awards and persons related to the USSA. That is not necessarily promotion. Other may create a series of articles about economics books--that doesn't mean they get royalties from the sale of these books. People create articles about topics with which they are familiar or interested. In any case, the content created is more important than the identity of its creator. -- Black Falcon 17:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I added data about the persons and awards that I was talking about that was true. I never said anything subjective, I merely mentioned that such awards, educational institutions, etc. existed. I feel that, in a list of honors and awards that an artist like Leroy Neiman has received, for example, it is important to update his entry to include his most recent, the 2007 Sport Artist of the year, for completeness and to keep his article current.

I did not add additional data because that would have been stepping outside of what I know.

I have added a quantity of information recently, this is true, because I only recently found out that there was no information on this subject on Wikipedia, and, as this institution has been in place for decades, I thought to remedy this gap.

As I said, please let me know if there is any way that I can help you to verify the data. I apologize for this inconvenience.

Thanks, Lucidagtha 14:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for your offer. I think the concern raised by User:Nlu is the notability of the institution and the awards. I think that of the institution has been sufficiently established (Nlu, please correct me here if you disagree), but that of the awards is still up for grabs. The primary criterion for notability is being "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Do you perhaps know of sources (independent of the USSA) that note the awards included in this AfD? Otherwise, I think most qualify for deletion or merging. Thank you, Black Falcon 17:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for the institution. The others should be relisted in homogenous groups, unless they are merged instead. Trying to delete an article for a real institution and all of the related articles at the same time indicates an overhasty procedure. I wouldn't mind considering all the awards together--I would probably say to delete them all. But the other miscellaneous articles should be proposed for deletion one at a time. Trying to do it this way risks unfairness. DGG 04:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT

THE AWARDS I do not think that they should be deleted outright, as they are historically of importance, as they have been given to Olympic heroes, political leaders, etc. Also, they are mentioned in places outside of the institution, such as:

http://www.sanantoniosports.org/sidelines/index.html http://uhcougars.cstv.com/school-bio/hou-school-bio-maggard.html http://www.mccarthysports.com/cbi_staff.html http://record.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/8575.html http://www.jimthorpeassoc.org/Awards/JTAPastWinners/RogersCarlos.html http://www.sportssafety.org/founder/ http://www.usatriathlon.org/upload/pdfs/history_miscellaneous_awards.pdf http://www.mackieshilstone.com/media/nr10.html http://www.nola.com/health/index.ssf?/health/bio.html http://www.wnba.com/mystics/news/SPORTS_EXECUTIVE_JOHNSON_EARNS-209196-230.html (There are many, many others, these are just examples. Note also that USATODAY.com and MSN.com have a link for our athlete of the year awards and for the Director's Cup. ) http://www.pgatour.com/story/9841871/

IN ADDITION, THE PEOPLE Thomas P. Rosandich, Oppie Otterstad, and Christobal Gabbaron should not be deleted because they are national/international leaders in the sport and art community. I've also included a list of links related to them: http://www.carriagehousecenter.org/html/background.html http://www.gabarron.com/ http://www.fundacioncasapintada.com/ http://www.limelightagency.com/Opie_Otterstad/Press_eng/chicago_sun_times.html http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/gallery/opies_art/ http://www.opieart.com/main.html http://www.usolympicteam.com/teamusanet/49499.htm http://www.specialolympics.org/Special+Olympics+Public+Website/English/Press_Room/Global_News_Archive/2004+Global+News+Archive/Sargent+Shriver+Award.htm http://www.pgatour.com/story/9841871/

I think that this is about everything/one who was in question. Please let me know who/what else I should present information on, and I will be happy to provide it. Also, if this data is not complete or is not what you are looking for, please advise.

Again, thanks for helping me to get this right.

Amanda Lucidagtha 14:08, 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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:42Z

Stefan David Andrew Roberts, Viscount St Pierre[edit]

Stefan David Andrew Roberts, Viscount St Pierre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax. This person (if he exists) is not a courtesy Viscount, nor does the Earldom he is supposedly the heir to still exist. Similar things have been done involving this name in the past (see the history of Earl of Jersey, for instance), so clearly someone with some kind of strange obsession. Proteus (Talk) 17:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted you via your talkpage. Martine Duparte 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Stefan Roberts, in its incarnation of 2005, gave the same biographical description (name, age, school) but claimed grandson of the Duke of Marlborough; its February 2006 version was same details claiming son of Earl of Shaftesbury. I am quite bemused by whoever's behind this, though I have to admire their determination.
Note also that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Martin Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts seems to tie into this... Shimgray | talk | 15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as persistent hoax. It would seem that Stefan Roberts has claimed to be the heir to, inter alios, the Fürsts of Schwarzenberg, the Marquess of Cholmondeley, the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Earl of Jersey and Viscount Villiers. talkGiler S 17:50, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:41Z

Andrew Martin Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts[edit]

Andrew Martin Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax. See Stefan David Andrew Roberts, Viscount St Pierre above. Proteus (Talk) 17:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete, per Wikipedia:Don't create hoaxes ~~ Phoe talk 19:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]
  • Delete. An Earldom created in 2006 is clearly a hoax; other than the Royal family there have been none created since 1984. Sam Blacketer 21:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 00:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete longtime hoaxer. Choess 01:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax Alci12 11:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as persistent hoax. It would seem that Stefan Roberts has falsely claimed to be the heir to, inter alios, the Fürsts of Schwarzenberg, the Marquess of Cholmondeley, the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Earl of Jersey and Viscount Villiers. talkGiler S 17:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Viscount St Pierre (as mentioned in the other alleged hoax) redirects to Earl Roberts, which I think could be significant. Hut 8.5 14:39, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 19:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Albrecht Jr.[edit]

John Albrecht Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable author. His books are published by "Crooked River Press" which is the subjects own "press" [80]. The books are actually published by Lulu.com which is a self-publisher. The article was written by Johnalbrechtjr which appears to be a conflict of interest. IrishGuy talk 18:13, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 19:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of the month[edit]

First of the month (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an unsourced article. I have never heard of this phrase and can't see how much this can be expanded. The Placebo Effect 18:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete perhaps speedy - article gives no sources and is not prone to expansion. Other than templates and formatting, the article is the same as when the original author created it. Johntex\talk 21:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jefferson Anderson 22:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per nom  Smcafirst | Chit-Chat  posted at 03:09, 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, I would have normally relisted this, but it's rather obvious. Jaranda wat's sup 19:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MC Madden '94[edit]

MC Madden '94 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable music artist who appeared to write the article himself (parts are in first person). A Google search for "MC Madden '94" returns 22 results, mostly from Wikipedia and the subject's personal music site. WP:AB, WP:MUSIC, WP:N. J Morgan(talk) 18:21, 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) 2007-02-18 08:44Z

Ithkuil[edit]

Ithkuil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable constructed language with no speakers. Has already been deleted once. Luvcraft 18:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote - A language having no speakers should not count towards deletion. As it was reposted after deletion, I suggest researching from the article creator or language inventor as to notability. --J Morgan(talk) 18:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the language creator from elsewhere on the internet--I'll try to get ahold of him. --Miskwito 18:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I sent him a message. But I'm not sure if that's actually an appropriate thing to do...? --Miskwito 19:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has been translated into six other languages already, has a lot of Russian links (and featured in a magazine there I believe, see the external links) and also isn't supposed to have any speakers. Other IALs can be deleted for this reason as they are created to be easy to learn, but this one isn't an IAL. Mithridates 18:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with Mithridates. Roadmr (t|c) 18:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now, per Mithridates. Ithkuil is certainly well-known in the conlanger community...but the article could certainly use additional citations and demonstration of that. --Miskwito 19:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Appears to lack multiple independent coverages in independent and reliable sources. Gets a few thousand Google hits, but I would like to see several articles in refereed scientific or more speficically linguistic journals. Are "conlangers" hobbyists or linguistic scholars? Not intrinsically opposed to an article about a made up language with too many phonemes to be speakable, but the article has to have reliable sources to show it is notable and goes beyond things made up inside or outside school one day. Inkpaduta 21:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - lack of speakers is not really a reason for deletion as long as the language is notable (and the 67,000 unique ghits attest to its notability). -- Black Falcon 20:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - same reasons as everybody else. Sahmeditor 02:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for the same reasons - and because of the interest in this page that I've observed in the Real World Cranialsodomy 06:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I just noticed that there's a LOT more information about Ithkuil in other languages' Wikipedias, particularly German and Russian. If someone could translate some of that text, it would make this article significantly more weighty. Luvcraft 15:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This is quite a famous constructed language. I agree that a line must be drawn beyond which "private conlangs" have to be removed, but Ithkuil certainly does not belong there. — N-true (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as copyvio of [81]. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Fruzzetti[edit]

Lina Fruzzetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No apparent notability per WP:BIO, no third-party coverage cited. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Zeller for a related case. Sandstein 18:28, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:44Z

List of people that mastered Calculus at an early age[edit]

List of people that mastered Calculus at an early age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unconcise (why specifically "high school teacher", etc.), hard to maintain, useful? Icemuon 18:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete What, are we supposed to go back in time and give calculus tests? There is very likely already a List of notable math prodigies or some such thing, anyways. --Brianyoumans 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The correct location is in fact the List of child prodigies, which has a section for mathematicians. If there is any useful material in the article, it could be moved there. --Brianyoumans 02:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is really, really silly. What is an "early age"? What is the definition of "mastered"? What is the definition of "Calculus"? Does it include analysis? What about vector calculus? Do non-mathematicians or non-scientists qualify if they mastered calculus at an "early age"? Unverifiable. No thanks. --N Shar 20:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unreferenced original research The article appears to be unreferenced original research and uses a somewhat subjective and arbitrary method for inclusion. So appears to probably violate WP:V and WP:OR. I should note, though, that it doesn't violate WP:NOT#IINFO since that section of policy is quite specific about the types of information it covers and "trivia" isn't one of those items. Dugwiki 20:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with clever math pun of your choice - Unverifiable, POV-ridden. If god forbid this is kept it should be moved to List of people who mastered calculus at an early age for correct capitalization and because people are who and not that. But seriously, destroy the aticle. Otto4711 20:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, how about - "This antiderivative list takes us to the limit and shouldn't be integrated into Wikipedia?" :) Dugwiki 23:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR, impossible to maintain. 23skidoo 21:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above arguments. Jefferson Anderson 22:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is an "early age"? Also, what counts as "no teacher"? If you had someone who gave you some help with the books but no formal education does that count? How much help can you get? I cannot see that the conditions for inclusion on this list are well-defined. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above arguments. teb728 08:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indiscriminate information of no substantial value. And now a brief bout of egomania: I started calculus at 12, had the basic principles clearly under my belt by 13, and was also studying Taylor series by age 15, so I should be on the list. Not only that, but so were at least half my friends, so they should all be on the list too. And by 16 everyone in my maths class was doing Taylor series: not difficult. ( Sorry for that, just had to get it off my chest ! )WMMartin 17:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, that's probably the reason for the mysterious exclusion of people who were taught by a high school teacher but not a university professor. --teb728 22:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everyone pretty much said everything. Glitterglue 03:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unverified and inherently fails NPOV policies - "mastered" and "early age" are relative terms. QmunkE 12:35, 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 Redirect to Chastity belt. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:48Z

Forced chastity[edit]

Forced chastity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely anecdotal, no reliable sources for either the concept or the term. WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NEO apply. Sandstein 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, anecdotal, and the only verifiable aspect of it is already dealt with in detail in the erotic sexual denial article. Delete -- The Anome 18:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same thing is adequately covered in other articles such as Chastity belt. This article is redundant and lacks multiple independent and reliable sources. Inkpaduta 21:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chastity belt. --UsaSatsui 19:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree I agree with this redirect. --Ozgod 23:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it's WP:OR and just a plain neologism hence violates WP:NEO too. The things they think off. IZAK 05:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Inkpaduta Avi 07:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with erotic sexual denial this group of articles are a mess; the terms mean a whole range of things, and the articles are apparently written by the use of guesswork and partial personal knowledge. (But Chastity belt is a real article on its own, and is a rather large topic if everything available was included, since it has a substantial historical literature.) I would not really object to putting this into erotic sexual denial, and rewriting it. In case not all of it is really included, so i've userfied the text. DGG 05:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)DGG 05:44, 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. If anyone thinks WikiSource actually wants this, let me know and I'll give you the content so you can transwiki. W.marsh 15:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man in the Arena[edit]

Man in the Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clearly original source material that should transwiki to wikisource. Obina 18:50, 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. W.marsh 15:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tragic villain[edit]

Tragic villain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced dicdef and list that is purely original research. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless some effort is put in to save it - It has potential, but is not worth keeping as is. Artw 19:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It could be merged into the "tragic hero" article? Failing that then, keep as there probably should be an article on this archetype and, as you said, it has potential. The list should definitely be abridged or removed entirely. --Bisected8 20:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save Which examples from the list should be kept? I think only about 10 examples, and preferably a balance of traditional villains, comic book villains, and other interesting twists. I'm in favor of keeping Lex Luthor, as he ties into the only reference this page has, the Penguin of Batman Returns, The Phantom of the Opera, and Darth Vader as they are all clear example from different sources.
    • Where are those sources, then? The current reference does not define what a "tragic villain" is, so using it as the support for the entire article is poor form. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 23:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A new reference has been added which is far more scholary. ZimmerBarnes 07:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some student's self-hosted essay is not "scholary" nor is it a reliable source. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 13:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was able to find a bunch of sources in a few minutes. I added the first 4 I found. It seems to be a classic literary concept, and there's tons of stuff on the web about it. I agree that the list should only have TVils that are referenced, and right now, it does. - Peregrine Fisher 23:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per addition of references and WP:NOT#PAPER. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does Not Paper have to do with anything? ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 00:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do not argue with me. Glad we settled that. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I assume you have no solid reasoning, nor explanation, for your vote, then. The purpose of AfD is discussion. If you're not willing to discuss or even explain your opinion, then please don't vote. ' 13:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wait.. you say vote.. then you say discussion.. but then you say it's a vote again? Well sorry to burst your bubble but it isn't a vote in the slightest. I've provided solid reasoning (something which you've failed to do) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, God forbid I stick to simple terms that actually mean what I'm talking about. Would you prefer I used halfassed terms like "input" instead of "vote"? Regardless, the exact words that I use is quite irrelevant. Solid reasoning? I asked you to explain your reasoning and I got this irrelevant "DONT ARGUE WIT ME!" message. I know you guys like to play the "I'm rubber and you're glue" shtick, but could you please actually respond to my criticism instead of applying my criticism to me? ' 15:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not an archetype, that's original research. Delete and redirect to Villain, the list is arbirary and not particularly useful. >Radiant< 13:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles quite small now, perhaps it should just be merged into Villain or Tragic Hero?--Bisected8 15:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Richard III and Shylock (WP deletionists ::wink::) are Shakespearean examples that could be added. Smmurphy(Talk) 04:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Killerman2 09:51, 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 delete. No evidence of sources actually existing, despite claims. If anyone wants this content for a merge or to further work on the article in your userspace, let me know. W.marsh 14:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ball lock[edit]

Ball lock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't doubt that there's nothing people won't do to their genitals, but in this case, we have no reliable independent sources for it. The article fails WP:V and WP:NOR. Sandstein 19:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and add approprate tags to request sources. HalJor 19:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:V, it is up to you to provide sources if you want the article to be kept. You have the five days this AfD will run, after all. Sandstein 19:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and here's a site that promotes this sort of thing: Locknkeep. And a variety of ball locks can apparently be purchased at: Extreme Restraints. I'm unclear why this article is being nominated for deletion. Is it because of the doubted existence of the ball locks or their doubted use? Zotdragon 20:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because of neither. It's because every Wikipedia article must be based on reliable sources, and this article does not have any. The links to the sex toy stores you provide do not substantiate the article's content, and the website that is now being linked to from the article merely references the term. These websites are also not reliable sources. Sandstein 20:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article lacks multiple independent and reliable sources to show the notability of the sexual fetish. Inkpaduta 20:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There are obviously sources for these and similar devices in the appropriate places. But every time something relating to non-standard sex comes up for discussion, there are usually claims that it is not notable. Perhaps that is a way of saying Too Notable .DGG 05:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one source is not convincing of inclusion. FGT2 00:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • looking for links and it seems there are a number of other devices with the same name; I think there are more, so I didn't do a disam page quite yet, or start on the articles. But this makes it very difficult to search for the meaning wanted here. Does anyone happen to know of any appearances in porn, etc? DGG 04:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consolidate Are we not talking about just one sexual bondage technique? Do we need an article for every single type? Wloveral 19:40, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Colno Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Stories Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodstock 2007

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flunstellas[edit]

Flunstellas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Ideogram 19:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per WP:V: No indendent sources, the two current references do not add credibility and a Google search [82] shows little room for improvement.--Tikiwont 15:51, 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 Nomination withdrawn PeaceNT 05:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish language names for the Falkland Islands[edit]

List of Spanish language names for the Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is not about English but about Spanish names and therefore should not be here on the English wikipedia. Ity is also very POV. The Falklands are a British terrirtory with British names and to give the Argentinian names is unnecessary POV, see List of settlements in the Falkland Islands, SqueakBox 19:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Perfectly encyclopedical: Cross reference to Spanish names for better understanding articles from different sources. This articles are not about a language but about the denominations of certain things. I would also add the French denominations whenever possible. There are several articles about things in other languages, such as List of Spanish words of Germanic origin. --Mariano(t/c) 20:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mariano. The Spanish names should also be set to redirect to the appropriate articles. --Selket Talk 22:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - your unequivocal statement that "The Falklands are a British terrirtory with British names" is itself partly POV. The Falklands are regarded by many as disputed territory. Perhaps a merge to Falkland Islands might be warranted, but that should be brought up on the talk page. -- Black Falcon 02:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What's that about a thumping? I hope that is not a threat? Please remian civil, SqueakBox 02:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No that is not a threat. I am not Argentinean and do not particularly care about the Falkland (or Malvinian) Islands one way or another. My comment was intended to convey the fact that the statement "The Falklands are a British terrirtory" is disputed by many Argentineans (and some others), and the nom's justification for deleting this article based on POV may itself constitute POV. It was essentially a spin (and apparently an unsuccessful one) on the phrase: "that and $3 will get you a cup of coffee". However, as my meaning apparently did not go through, I have changed the text so it is clearer. -- Black Falcon 02:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - obviously, I created it. The main reason for my creating this article is that most Spanish names are NOT translated from the English or vice versa. In fact, some of them are confusing, particularly 'Gran Malvina' which is used for the second biggest island.
Yes, I am aware that the English have controlled the islands for a long while, but not without controversy, and some maps include both English and Spanish nomenclature, notably those in China (rendered into Chinese of course!)--MacRusgail 15:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - these are not all 'Argentine' names, in fact some are used in Chile, and beyond. They are also used in English occasionally by those who support Argentina's claim. There's also some Spanish names used in English, e.g. Dos Lomos, Rincon Grande etc. It is very common to see the name 'Falkland-Malvinas' used in English. I also include a disclaimer at the top. --MacRusgail 15:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well I am happy to see this afd closed given the consensus, SqueakBox 15:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry! In my comment above, I made a reference to the nominator thinking it was SkierRMH and not recognizing it was you. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Cheers, Black Falcon 18:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Come on, guys, the Falkland Islands weren't worth fighting about 25 years ago, and they're not now. I like the article, but I really think the article could have a PoV issue. Why not rewrite it as a list comparing the English and Spanish names instead of a list naming the Spanish ones, and rename it something along those lines? --UsaSatsui 19:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well we already have List of settlements in the Falkland Islands, perhaps the 2 articles should be deleted. If the Falklands arent worth shedding blood for then nor is any other political conflict, and the failure of diplomacy and the shedding of blood in these islands still resounds throught the years, affecting wikipedia amongst iots other effects, SqueakBox 20:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tongue was in cheek during my comment, BTW. In any event, I would suggest merging the articles rather than deleting both of them.--UsaSatsui 02:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: rename - perhaps a more appropriate title for the page would be List of Falkland Islands placenames given that both English and Spanish language names are provided. -- Black Falcon 22:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article talk page is the place for this discussion. I a, going to remove the afd, can someone close this afd? SqueakBox 22:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the only way it's done is to try to get the attention of an admin: AFD WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR. Hopefully something will come of this.  ;-) Black Falcon 22:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well actually I know non admins can but I dont know how, SqueakBox 23:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've left a note for an Admin to help, so hopefully they can. --UsaSatsui 02:10, 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 non-notable corporation. —Doug Bell talk 13:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic Perspective Entertainment[edit]

Artistic Perspective Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Notability not asserted. The company was founded in 2004 by a couple of film students, and has gone on to make (by my count) four music videos, a few documentaries and a short film. Wow. Delete, for the love of $DEITY. Josh Parris 03:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The fact that a couple of FORMER film students started the company in 2004 is irrelevant. What's relevant is, that as of 2007, the Company is, and has done notable work. A.P.E. also shows (by my count) 10 music videos at their official company website (www.apefilms.com) & 16 videos and a DVD trailer at their official company myspace website(www.myspace.com/apefilms). It is the face of two up and coming directors crediting themselves as "APE FILMS". The Company is credited on two just released DVD's (Coco's 2007 Erotics Calendar DVD & Coco's 2007 Black Men Magazine DVD) and a music video (Grandmaster Mele Mel - "M3 - The New Message"). Grandmaster Mele Mel (also spelled Melle Mel) becomes the first rapper (as leader of The Furious Five) to ever be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame on March 12, 2007. A.P.E.'s "M3 - The New Message" music video is notable because it is being used to promote the first ever solo album by Mele Mel. It is also a sequel to the original Grand Master Flash & Furious Five song & music video "The Message" (one of most important songs in Hip Hop history) "The Message" was also written & performed by Melle Mel. Grandmaster Mele Mel is featuring the A.P.E. "M3 - The New Message" music video at his official website (www.melemel.net). Company is clearly credited at end of video. Grandmaster Mele Mel also has 2 more A.P.E. Company videos ("Portal In The Park" & "M3 - Making The Video") showing at his official Myspace website (use link from www.melemel.net). Company is clearly on end credits of those videos as well. A.P.E. is also credited on the Grandmaster Mele Mel's "Muscles" CD, world release January 2007. Company is listed in credits of MTV2 Fight Klub (this show airs in North America, Europe & Asia). Company is listed as #1 friend at MTV2 Fight Klub Host International P official myspace site (www.myspace.com/ipfk). There is much aditional evidence to be found at the two official Company websites. Playserious 19:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a list of credits can verify information, but doesn't really fit the bill for reliable sources for establishing notability. -- Whpq 14:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - true, but TV News reports, Magazine articles & the distribution & airing of the Company's works to a multi-national audience does. It's not the credits that are notible, but the company & the works themselves that they create. For instance, they created a video that was used as part of a U.S. national Fire Prevention Campaign & another that was used as a sequel to a very historic video by a equally historic Rock & Roll Hall of Fame inductee (Grandmaster Mele Mel - "M3 - The New Message"). Playserious 18:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some info on company found by Googling "A.P.E. Films" & "apefilms.com", rather than Artist Perspective Entertainment - Also found NBC-TV News video coverage of their "Take It Outside" music video by Googling the video title (Google video). I crossed referenced this with both company websites, & found much additional evidence showing that this company did in fact produce this & other nationally/internationally released works. Other company videos were found with Google video by Googling the titles of each work. Additionally, there are two full page articles found in U.S. national publications - The Ave Magazine (FALL '05 ISSUE p42) and Velvet Addiction Magazine (LIFESTYLES, MAY '06 ISSUE), - Keep Bh1967 21:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as far as I can see the focus of the material is on CS Vernon rather than APE. I'd say that goes more for establishing the notability of Vernon, and would be suitable for an article about her. -- Whpq 14:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there is more verifiable info credited to her, but the videos they do are produced by both under the company name "A.P.E.". Jimmy Lee individualy is credited as director (along with A.P.E.) on the Mele Mel "M3 - The New Message" music video. The two individuals & the company are credited on the two Coco DVD's. C.S. Vernon & Jimmy Lee share director credit on the national "Take It Outside" music video. The company has a production credit. They also share director credit on the "Broke Celebrity" TV pilot produced for celebrity stylist/fashion designer Indashio (Indashio.com & myspace.com/indashio). Jimmy Lee is the videographer/editor for MTV2 Fight Klub, although the credit goes to A.P.E.Playserious 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-asserting my AFD contribution - removed by Bh1967. -- Whpq 03:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unable to find any reliable sources through googling. -- Whpq 16:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Whpq comment had been briefly deleted after some reliable sources (NBC-TV, ect...) were found by Googling "A.P.E. Films", "apefilms.com" & the individual video titles, rather than simply Googling "Artistic Perspective Entertainment". This members comment is again now as it initially was. Bh1967 13:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Note that you should not alter other people's comments. You are free to provide your own comments and replies, but you should not simply delete other edittors' entries. It could be deemed as vandalism. -- Whpq 14:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - That's why I left a note explaining the reason it was briefly deleted. It is restored. That is also noted :) Bh1967 02:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found additional info on A.P.E. co-owner Candice Vernon (also known as C.S. Vernon) at Internet Movie Data Base (imdb.com). Credits include Across the Universe (2007) (completed) (extras casting assistant), Take The Lead (2006) (movie extras casting), "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" TV Series (extras casting), Actress / Script Supervisor The Grasslands (2007) (film in pre-production)Playserious 18:32, 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, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note to other editors reviewing this AFD. User:Bh1967 is the creator of the article in question, and both User:Bh1967, and User:Playserious appear to be single purpose accounts with edits realted only to this article. -- Whpq 20:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - APE Films' association with a handful of notable people does not adequately establish its own notablity. This AfD seems analogous to the AfDs I've seen for indie music journalists who interview every notable indie rock band as they come into town; sure, they can name-drop impressively, but that doesn't say anything about their own importance. There also appear to be serious problems here with WP:COI. The bottom line is that this is not an article which will attract a group of knowledgeable, disinterested editors - which is the real purpose of having notability standards. --Hyperbole 21:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The fact that I created the article should not be used as an excuse to dismiss the facts I have stated & the sources I have listed. It is not the company's association with notible people that makes the company notible (although that too can be a factor in making something notible), but rather the work the company is doing that makes them notible. The Company performs video & editing work for MTV2 Fight Klub (the industry's #1 source of producing this generations top MC's with dozens that have signed to Major Record Labels), and the fact that company is also producing video for Legendary Grandmaster Mele Mel, Hip Hop's 1st ever "MC" is notible. They are not interviewing notible artists "when they come into town" about the artists work. The company is gaining respect as an emerging company BASED ON THE COMPANY'S WORK. The company IS the artist. They are being hired by notible people & companies to create new, original works. There is a BIG difference. This article is a work that will attract a group of knowledgeable, disinterested editors as the company continues to produce work in the public eye and more people become familiar with it. Bh1967 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP. The only non-MySpace, non-COI source I could find was an interview with Vernon[83] that briefly mentions the company. May well be notable within months, may well not. --Dhartung | Talk 04:48, 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 as non-notable student organization. Despite the few people that contributed to this discussion, the arguments to delete are sufficient. —Doug Bell talk 13:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Productions[edit]

Carolina Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Article subject is not referenced by independent sources. Adam 19:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This is an umbrella organization that overseas various student groups at the university. If you want notability, very few campuses continue to sponser film programs in the face of student access to DVDs. Not to mention, the ability of younger users to access information like this at wikipedia will increase the likelihood they will continue to use wikipedia and hopefully contribute to it, especially when they enter college themselves. RoyBatty42 18:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. WP:COI as well. Zadeez 23:59, 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 delete, WP:CSD#A7. Sandstein 20:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C-men fc[edit]

C-men fc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Just some person's online fantasy soccer team. Djsasso 19:42, 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) 2007-02-18 08:49Z

Vesica Piscis (band)[edit]

Vesica Piscis (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD that was taken to DRV and restored. This article is about a band whose releases are mostly limited to downloads from their website. There is no indication of notability per WP:MUSIC, and search engine tests give either irrelevant sites or sites about an album that also happens to be called Vesica Piscis that is not by this band. Coredesat 19:46, 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Vulliez (3rd nomination)[edit]

Shawn Vulliez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Flash artist with no real notability of his own aside from the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny flash, no notable google hits aside from an extremely fleeting mention on wsj.com. Article consists entirely of OR, mostly added by Vulliez himself, who also narrated a spoken word version of his own article. Article has only gotten worse with the OR since the previous AfDs, which hinged more on the notability of the "Ultimate Showdown" flash rather than the notability of the author himself. Krimpet 19:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Using his real name to measure google hits is probably not the best way to do so. Perhaps his online aliases would be more effective, given the context of the matter at hand. Starghost (talk | contribs) 20:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a notable artist. Central to the eBaum's World controversy; and The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny is one of the most notable examples of independent flash animation. Vulliez is probably one of the top ten best-known independent flash animators, right up there with The Brothers Chaps and Jonti Picking. If there are OR problems in the article, let's let the editorial process deal with them; this person is notable. --Hyperbole 20:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Brothers Chaps have plenty of articles in reputable news sources underlining their notability, and Picking's work has regularly aired on cable television. (I also disagree that searching for his real name is ineffective, since a reliable source would at least mention his name once.) On the other hand, there does not appear to be any concrete evidence of Vulliez's notability outside of his "Ultimate Showdown" flash, which itself is only really notable due to the associated song, not by him, charting on Dr. Demento's countdown. And his anti-eBaum's World flash doesn't appear to be notable outside of the Something Awful community. Krimpet 02:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless it can be shown that he has been the subject of multiple non-trivial works by reliable, independent sources.--Drat (Talk) 02:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication that he meets the notability guideline. He's an internet guy, so there should be good sources online if he were notable. I looked, but I couldn't find any non trivial mentions.--Kubigula (talk) 02:00, 19 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. —Doug Bell talk 13:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film Score Metal[edit]

Film Score Metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a musical genre, and even if it is, it is not notable since apparently only Rhapsody of Fire is generally considered film score metal.

Yes, the term exists, as it gets 10900 GHits. However, if you were to do a search that excludes "rhapsody", you would only get 288 GHits.

If each band in the world was to invent their own metal subgenre and we were to do an article per subgenre, we are going to have a lot of trouble listing all of those! A musical genre is not a genre if it only includes two or three bands!

Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • O)))) 19:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Rhapsody of Fire, since this term is used only to describe them. --Hyperbole 20:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly redirect per above. A genre according to the supposed pioneers themselves, Rhapsody (of Fire), but not according to any reliable sources. As a term, it does not meet WP:V or WP:N, as it lacks non-trivial coverage. Prolog 20:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redicert to Rhapsody of Fire--Neo139 23:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perhaps could be redirected to Rhapsody of Fire, or even symphonic power metal, which links to the subheading of it under symphonic metal; not sure about policy with redirects, so perhaps just to Rhapsody (of Fire). I agree with the nominator, as said genre isn't a genre. I think of the term as in "metal, used in a film score" not "metal that sounds like a film score". As the examples given on the page, it makes the word genre entirely useless, as there is hardly any cohesion between examples listed, other than they seem like they are. --Dane ~nya 02:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Dane Spearhead 22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above, but also there is more than a hint of original research about this, per "Other artists have produced works that are potentially 'Film Score Metal'" [emphasis added], and the give-away "Perhaps in practical use..." before that. Also the sources are 1. an essay; 2. a (respected) genre-specific encyclopaedia which merely says "The genre description says “Film Score Metal” and why not?" [emphasis added], intimating that, in fact, it is not a recognised sub-genre. Other sources cited are LastFM, where anyone can tag anything as any genre they feel fit, whether it's right or not. And all references do, indeed, trail back to the one band. No, it doesn't convince me. Bubba hotep 22:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and by the way, once the OR and supposition has been removed, there won't be much left to merge and redirecting would actually be tantamount (I stole that word from the article) to recognising it as a genre. Bubba hotep 22:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't appear to be a real genre. Perhaps there could be a category that has a similar name, that certain songs can be put in if they appeared in a film. I know this wasn't what the article was about, but could have something like that. Asics talk 20:30, 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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mouhammad Faye[edit]

Subject's claim to notability is being a redshirt freshman for the GIT basketball team. Additionally, it is worth noting that the article appears to be written by the subject. Kuzaar-T-C- 16:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable. The JPStalk to me 17:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete userfy? Xyrael T 19:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, does that mean the first time the GIT basketball team beam down to an unknown planet, Faye is the one who will get killed. Man, even given the privilege of working on a spaceship, that's a hard way to earn a college scholarship. -- GWO
It's a harsh fate, and there's no guarantee that even if he makes it past the first season, he'll be promoted to a speaking role. :( --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(also, I'm not very in-the-loop on sports terminology, and didn't know that redshirt was what it meant.) --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "...(T)he article appears to be written by the subject" is an absolutely false and libelous claim. Additionally, the reference to "promoted to a speaking role" and the admission that "I'm not very in-the-loop on sports terminology," are clear indications that this editor, Kuzaar, despite having very quietly snuck in this five-day only proposal to delete this well-documented "Mouhammad Faye" article, after following it's lengthy history, including numberous, legitimate edits, is TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED to edit this category of article. Wikidpedia might be wise to BAN SUCH IMPOSTERS FROM EDITING SPORTS ARTICLES, as they deem appropriate. KEEP MOUHAMMAD FAYE; BAN THE IMPOSTERS. --Possepartner 21:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has less than 50 edits, all to my userpage or regarding this article. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "User has less than 50 edits, all 'to my userpage' or......" - Another delusional falsehood of misinformation to the unwary public! Why would anyone edit something of no value to readers? Why would Wikipedia allow editors with limited integrity suggest an "AfD" that is obviously outside the scope of the editor's knowledge? Fini! --Possepartner 9:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: This is a perfectly good point to make. The closing administrator is entitled to discount recommendations from very new users or from single-purpose accounts. It is not a falsehood, nor misinformation. Finally, your suggestion that User:Kuzaar is "of limited integrity" is a personal attack, which is forbidden. Please refrain from making them. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I resemble that remark, i.e., the specific statement that this user edited someones userpage. A total falsehood, sir. I am only suggesting that making such accusations lacks professional integrity sufficient to Wikipedia edit standards. Let the edit-Gods decide! --Possepartner 10:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's to show that you have a record of personal attacks against other editors, and a history of making edits in bad faith. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your above references cunningly are selectively presented to conveniently show my obvious tongue-in-check edits to a prior article (and not to your userpage) and not show your ORIGINAL attacking edits of a prior article, wherein you dissed both the subject and Mr. Chuck Norris. And, please, sir, support this falsedood that this editor has made "...personal attacks against other editors"...other than than humorous comments direct back to yourself, for being so inappropriate in your original, scathing edit. AND, The closing administrator is entitled to discount recommendations from very old editors/users, particularly those with such published philosophies of, "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Doesn't that just "say it all?"--Possepartner 11:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please, remember that we at Wikipedia are trying to create an encyclopedia. I appreciate your sense of humor, but remember that there are standards and guidelines to what should or should not be in the encyclopedia, and that these are laid out as the community has declared its consensus. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If Kuzaar doesn't know sports terminology who is he to delete sports articles?!?! Perhaps someone else should be put on that job. As a Georgia Tech fan I am offended. Muhammad Faye is real, as many of these legends about him do exist... considering Kuzaar knows nothing about any of this, it would be wise to reject his suggestion that this be deleted. Let the sports fans edit the sports articles, and let the Georiga Tech fans have thier heroes on wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.169.54 (talk • contribs)
User's first (one of two) edit. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Faye is likely to play a key role next season for the Tech Basketball team with extrememly positive comments from All-American Thaddeus Young and other news outlets. Therefore I think information should be given to the public so they can understand more about this outstanding young man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.67.1 (talk • contribs)
User's first and only edit. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's second edit. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Basketball players are very notable personas in American culture and in Faye's case, Senegal's culture. His family has become quite well known in Senegal for basketball prowess. I believe that he deserves a spot in Wikipedia."--Excaliburhorn
  • Weak delete. I'm aware that WP:CSB could be called into question here, but the sock flood tends to persuade me that it's not meeting WP:BIO. Relevant section: "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles." Stifle (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article should stay. This article finds excellent information on a potentially great college player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.88.140 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment: The words "potentially great" exactly indicate why this article should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Potentially great...'college player'...i.e., in these U.S....., who has already been a great national figure and basketball player for his Sengalese National Team. Uninformed Wikipedia editors, who seem insenstive to such, have significantly detracted from the original Article of Mouhammad Faye, by deleting such previously included pieces of information. Again, if you don't know college basketball, why are you editing articles on college basketball players?....Is it good content or just good grammar you want? Or, are we simply being lowered to the lowest denominator. --Possepartner 11:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What we're looking for is encyclopedic material to include in an encyclopedia. Read the biographical standards for inclusion before assuming what AFD is about. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a valid article about a real student-athlete who plays basketball at the highest level of American collegiate athletics. There should be no grounds for deletion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.113.1.240 (talk • contribs)
    • User's fifth edit, out of 5 edits. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please comment on the content, Kuzaar, not on the poster. Pmr 16:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm bringing the fact that the user could be a sockpuppet to the closing admin's attention. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am bringing to the closing admin's attention, this url: http://www.georgia-tech-basketball.blogspot.com/ , where the accurate accumulation of facts in the Mouhammad Faye article will be disseminated (via websearches) to possibly millions of fans of the highest level of U.S. college basketball throughout the world, including Faye's proud homeland of Senegal, and the entire Africa continent. The impact of communicating this accurate knowledge, particularly as the subject's fame increases, is worth another strong, empassioned plea to "Keep" this article in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Thank you for your consideration. --Possepartner 17:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Listen, I know that you want this included, but it just doesn't meet the standards. Right now, the subject is a little under the threshold of notability required by Wikipedia. But I'm sure that given a few years, Faye will become more and more well known and notable in his achievements, and when that day comes, it will be appropriate for him to have an article. I try to be openminded, but when an AFD dispute like this comes along and attracts dozens of sockpuppet votes, I have to be firm in my resolve to stick to Wikipedia policy. I wish you luck in the future. --Kuzaar-T-C- 22:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to userpage and Delete redirect. Non-notable topic. Being on a basketball team in college is nothing special.--SomeStranger (T | C) 18:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The information in the article is true, and is of value to anyone that has an interest in college basketball, Georgia Tech especially. Also, there have been numerous online gathering points where the "legend" of Faye was extolled, brought on by a LACK of information about this basketball player from Senegal. Removing information about him, will no doubt again lead to the interested looking for information, and then having to make it up as it will not be widely available. I see no reason why the article should be deleted, except that some have "dug in" to their positions. Is is also, IMO, weak on the part of the editor to infer that the article was written by the subject, as this is an allegation that should have at least the aspect of merit, rather than accusing someone of doing this without any cause. Just because the editor is wrong, he should be willing to leave the page alone to atone for his mistake.

Keep the Faye-th!!! and no, i am no sockpuppet! 70.155.125.155 22:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)BuzzCzar[reply]

    • User's edits are almost exclusively to this VFD. --Kuzaar-T-C- 03:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI said this before and I will say it again, if you people know nothing about sports, please don't talk and please don't decide what should be on here. Faye is a celebrity in Senegal, and actually took part in their NBA camp, and scored very well. If people like Kuzaar are going to sit in front of their computer and discourage people from having profiles on here because they are popular in another country, they have the wrong intentions. Further, there are MANY ncaa athletes on here. A basketball player is a star, and a noteworthy addition to Wikipedia...especially a basketball player at a school that was in the FIANL FOUR two years ago, and holds a lot of sway nationwide. One more thing, to say Kuzaar isn't qualified isn't a personal attack, it just happens to be true that as a non sports fan he's opinion shouldn't be taken as seriously here...this just isn't his realm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.133.128 (talk • contribs)
    • User's edits consist only of this AFD and vandalizing my userpage. --Kuzaar-T-C- 03:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My edit's are only on this AFD because I'm not a big wikipedia user...this just happens to be something I'm passionate about. I would fight the same fight if you deleted a page for another athlete I adored. Why can't you understand there are fans of this guy out there, and let his article be put up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.133.128 (talk • contribs)
        • Listen, like I said to the anon above; It's fine if this user has a page somewhere else on the internet, but right now he doesn't meet the standards for biographical inclusion in the Wikipedia. I'm sure he has a bright future ahead of him, but making a ruckus on the wikipedia isn't going to influence his notability. --Kuzaar-T-C- 03:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per sockflood and general non-notability. Naconkantari 03:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per the fact that this young man IS notable and even has a fan base, and not so much one person "sockpuppeting". Check my edits, k? I've been around for a while, not just for this page. This is legit. The User Kuzaar is trying to raise his Wikipedia status by deleting pages. Well, he went too far this time. Keep per non-notability and unqualified proposal by Kuzaar. Techfan 05:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has less than 30 edits, including vandalism to my userpage. --Kuzaar-T-C- 11:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or delete, as per nom. Isopropyl 12:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Army (band)[edit]

The Red Army (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sources include the BBC website, reliable source. It wasn't originally listed when I added the deletion notice Rysin3 20:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this articl;e should remain. I will continue to improve it, there are more references to cite, and the ones I have given are good (in my opinion). The BBC website is a good example of this. It is my belief that this tag should be removed.--The Red Army Band 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.This article now has plenty of worthy citations, is well written and relates to other wikipedia pages (Cornish Music, Dalla).--The Red Army Band 21:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Keep. With the release of only two singles so far, this band does not meet notability criteria for music, not to mention it probably fails Conflict of interest and Autobiography. The references are mostly self-published and what aren't are trivial. I would suggest the article be written later after the band is more fully established and more notable. Cricket02 21:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I change my vote to Keep as more reliable references have come to light. I did clean up and removed any links that were self-published/spam/adverts/blogs that are not considered reliable sources, but there are still plenty of reliable sources to consider this group to be influential in the local area and culture. Also, the author argues that although the article is within the scope of an Autobiography, it does not fail Neutral point of view, and I agree. Cricket02 02:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.*I would argue that it is written from a neutral viewpoint, and therefore not a conflict of interest. Also, the discography remains incomplete, as an album was released in 2005 (One Way Ticket). There are articles from the BBC, Radio Cornwall, and independent websites cited already, and the state of the artist is a large influence in the local area and culture, as can be seen from the wikipedia articles that already link to the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Red Army Band (talk • contribs) 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC).--The Red Army Band 21:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the band appears to fail WP:MUSIC at this time. When notability requirements are met the article may be recreated. --Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main point I believe them not to have failed WP: Music is "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city". They are the most prominant and wellknown anti-folk band in Cornwall, and lead the movement with bands on the local scene. They also have toured in England "at least a medium sized country", and therefore I argue do not fail this criteria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Red Army Band (talk • contribs) 22:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC).--The Red Army Band 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nn. Come back in a year. `'mikka 22:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the comment "come back in a year" frustrating. The artist in question have been around since 2004 (that's three years now) and the references I have cited list from a range of times. True, the impending release of their new album in the summwe will elevate their notability, but the article can just be edited then surely?--The Red Army Band 22:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Strongly referenced, including an interview by BBC. Article needs to be cleaned up, but should stay. LastChanceToBe 22:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article's got good references, is better written than many articles and pertains to a band who are somewhat more significant than certain others with Wikipedia articles. It'll likely be improved further soon, as will the band's real-world profile (inevitable after recent developments) and therefore should be kept. Benphillips 23:03, 13 February 2007 (GMT)
  • Keep - Good job on cleaning it up :-) Rysin3 16:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also see Philip Burley Just a heads up, guys, there is also a new stub article someone created about Philip Burley, one of the members of the band. Obviously the results of this afd should also probably be applied to that article. I'd recommend adding it to this afd nomination. (Note: Even if the band article is kept, as it currently appears might happen, the Philip Burley article might still be a good candidate for merger into the band's article.) Dugwiki 23:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article that has been added so far on Philip Burley appears to me to be biographical and fairly irrelevent to that of the bands page. I suggest it is not merged therefore, unless subsequent editing deams it similar to the bands page.--The Red Army Band 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep multiple verifiable sources Catchpole 09:22, 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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:51Z

List of Disney Channel actors[edit]

List of Disney Channel actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of Disney Channel Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Delete - This article was nominated not too long ago under the name "List of Disney Channel Stars" and was moved to this name as the outcome. I would not normally re-nominate an article this quickly after an AFD but in this instance I don't believe that an important issue was given due consideration. Much of the AFD focused on the utility of categories vs lists. I feel like overlooked in that was the discussion on whether listing actors by the network where their program aired is a good idea. I don't think that it is. There is some measure of precedent for deletion here. There are also a number of categories up for deletion of a similar theme and while the CFDs are still open sentiment is running in favor of deleting performer by network as a category scheme. It's no more proper as a listing scheme. Credits for an actor should be listed in the actor's article, and cast lists should be present and linked in the article for the shows themselves. Otto4711 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In reply to Otto above, I just wanted to post a reminder that categories and lists do not have identical guidelines and policies for Wikipedia inclusion. In general categories have stricter guidelines than lists for what is or isn't acceptable on Wikipedia. That's because an inappropriate list pretty much only affects that list itself, but the effects of a bad category can be broader based and harder to deal with or correct. So there are times when something is inappropriate as a category, but can be acceptable as a list. In particular, while there is good consensus against performer-by-studio categories, I'm not off-hand sure whether or not there is like consensus one way or another for lists by studio. Personally, I'm going to defer judgement on this list for now, but I will say that I wouldn't be comfortable deleting a list simply because a similar category was deleted. Dugwiki 21:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Categories vs lists" is not under discussion here. The first AFD nom was about the categories vs lists issue. As I said, overlooked in that discussion was the question as to whether lists of actors by the network they happen to have a show on is appropriate. This nomination is regarding that question. Otto4711 22:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Before I state a position, I'd like some clarification on exactly what makes the list not a "good idea." I see the precedent cited by the nominator, and it seemed to be a unanimous consensus to delete that one. I could go either way here, but would like a more clear reason for deletion. ◄Zahakiel► 21:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an indiscriminate list and directory, bringing together people who may have nothing else in common than they happened to have a show on a particular network that someone else did. It would be like listing Desi Arnaz with Neil Patrick Harris as "CBS actors" despite their having nothing else in common and their shows appearing on CBS almost 50 years apart. There is no substantive connection. Even disregarding that, it's a poor organizational choice for an encyclopedia. A list of Disney Channel shows with links to the show, with cast lists in each show with links to the actors' articles, is the superior organizational scheme. Otto4711 22:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, you linked the wrong policy section of WP:NOT. The portion that deals with "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" is WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Dugwiki 23:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too large to properly maintain In reviewing the afd Otto mentions as "precedent", it appears there is only one valid reason posited for deletion, namely that maintaining an entire channel's list of actors is likely to be unmaintainable due to its overwhelming size. The other comments consisted of "delete per nom" (which doesn't really say anything) and "listcruft" (any phrase using "cruft" is never a valid term or reason for deletion).
So I'm recommending deletion based on the likelihood this would be virtually impossible to properly handle. However, I do want to point out that I don't consider the List of Nickelodeon actors a very strong case for afd precedent, since it had very limited discussion and was mainly a handful of editors saying "I agree with the nom". Depending on the outcome of this Disney Channel afd, I think this afd will make a better case to check for future similar discussions. Dugwiki 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Point taken... shows on a network can have a high degree of variability, so I don't think the members would make a list of elements with enough in common. ◄Zahakiel► 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too widespread a topic, and could set a bad precedent for other articles such as List of NBC actors, etc. to be created. 23skidoo 06:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cloachland 03:37, 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) 2007-02-18 08:53Z

Sex Ant Toys[edit]

Sex Ant Toys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Naked Bodies Under A Naked Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Intergalactik Hotel for Morbid Souls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Heavenade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Adrian Boyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
File:Adrian boyd 2007 wiki.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Sat heavenade 01.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Sat heavenade 02.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Sat heavenade 03.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Sex ant toys heavenade cover.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Minor band. 21 Google hits. Article does not assert nobility. References given are mostly (all?) to self-published sites such as blogs. No reliable sources are provided. Johntex\talk 20:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:BAND. Doesn't assert notability. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 20:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC, does not cite reliable sources. Dan, the CowMan 21:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:MUSIC in general, WP:BAND in particular. 20 google hits is fairly evident. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails an awful lot of things, I smell WP:COI, not a lot of Google hits at all, and more. x42bn6 Talk 00:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the so-called references are the bands' own materials. SubSeven 04:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article can not be deleted under Wikipedian Common Law. Arguments regarding the use of Google as a mean of determining how well known an article is should never be the only criteria for deletion. The information found in this article about the band Sex Ant Toys speaks the truth under good faith and can be verified through reliable published sources including, but not limted to Apple iTunes Music Store, Recording Industry Association of America, Magazines/Publications, Miss Mabry (a sublabel of Vuela Music with registered trademark in the US Patent & Trademark Office) and the official website of Sex Ant Toys. This article contains useful and resouceful information in regards to Sex Ant Toys as the market approaches the release date of their first upcoming album through major digital download stores like iTunes, Naptser, Sony Connect, Rhapsody, Zune, and Musicnet among others across the world. Sex Ant Toys is a new act signed by a major music download distribution channel under the label of Miss Mabry. I urge Wikipedia to take action in regards to this matter on behalf of the new music community that promotes the use of new mediums of communication and the new music revolution. This article for deletion should debated under all given circumstances before it is deleted. We are now taking full responsability regarding this matter: editing the information and sourcing its content with reliable references. Thanks Void Sat News 08:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the contributors stating that the Sex Ant Toys page has no credibility, like David Fuchs Dåvid Fuchs, [[84]] have been condemned, banned and charged before by Wikipedia for abuse, libel, and block/ban evasion. The use of abusive sock puppets on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited and illegal within the Wikipedia Editors Community. We are here not to act as Police in search of who's who in doing and trying to delete our material. We have also confirmed through other sources other than Wikipedia, that the band Sex Ant Toys has been in an A&R pursuit from entities in the music industry. People are trying to vandalize their content in Wikipedia. Action for KEEPING THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE TAKEN. The Sex Ant Toys page must be approved under the common laws of Wikipedia.Void Sat News 08:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC) — Void Sat News (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Actually, that was a vandalized version of his userpage. David Fuchs is an established Wikipedian. You also have yet to provide evidence of any reliable sources that I requested. For future reference, there are no laws on Wikipedia. We have guidelines and policies, but we mostly run on consensus, and the consensus so far is to deleted. ShadowHalo 10:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm afraid you're mistaken there. An anonymous IP vandalised David Fuchs' userpage by adding the appropriate templates (the same anonymous IP did the same to Jimbo Wales' page minutes later[85]). Any editor can use the templates, but their use doesn't automatically mean the targeted user is guilty of any wrongdoing. And please don't resort to ad hominem attacks to try and make your point. An article should be kept or deleted on its strength, relevance, notability, verifiability and so on, not on who has contributed to or commented about it. ~Matticus TC 10:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record: Yes, my page was vandalized, and yes, I've also been blocked twice, I think, due to IP vandalism (when I'm editing on school comps or my little bro is annoying). You're right, google hits shouldn't be the method for requiring stuff, but they are often telling: for instance if all the links are to the bands myspace page, lack of third-party etc. is apparently a concern. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 17:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article should not be deleted. John Black MA 09:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC) — John Black MA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    It's generally helpful if you provide a reason why you believe an article should be kept or deleted. ShadowHalo 10:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources, fails WP:V as well as WP:MUSIC. One Night In Hackney 10:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the verifiability policy, due to the lack of independent sources. Does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC criteria, either. -- The Anome 11:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am only interested in keeping this article alive, not the who's who of wikipdia, we are currently updating the content with new sources under good faith. Allow us no more than 2 business days to complete with reliable sources and references. BEST REGARDS, Void Sat News 12:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggest you "userfy" the page by moving the relevant copy with to your userpage. This wasy you will have a copy in case the article gets deleted while you are looking for references. Later, if reliable sources can be found, it will be easier for you to make a new article. Johntex\talk 22:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Tomer T 13:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I know, I know, I am currently working on the new page with real sources through my user page. Everything will be edited to perfection with reliable sources by tomorrow. We are speeding the process through All Music Guide... We have to do this as we approach to RELEASE DATE. The Miss Mabry brand was registered today as a trademark through US PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE. Its officially a LABEL not a SUB-LABEL under Vuela Music. Regards and thanks a lot for your help and tips. Its really been of great knowledge for us and fun too.Pia Watson 17:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If "we" refers to the people who are creating and editing the article and you are also working with or in the band, it falls under WP:COI, and this is highly discouraged. Also note that patenting doesn't make a band notable. x42bn6 Talk 17:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "We" as on behalf because I've been an avid follower of their work. Thanks for stating your remarks. It really is helping me understand the whole philosophy and information flow under Wikipedia. Can I encourage other people to do so? Pia Watson 18:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why AM I getting italics? Pia Watson 18:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Italics were caused by using two single quotes '' instead of a double quote ". I fixed it for you. Johntex\talk 18:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since this is likely to be deleted, you would neet to take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review before reposting the page. This process works, for instance see Talk:Cancer_Bats under "Article Milestones". Dan, the CowMan 18:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: When contemplating Notability, note that "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." (See "Note 2") Dan, the CowMan 07:42, 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) 2007-02-18 09:06Z

Scott Chasteen[edit]

Scott Chasteen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Googling around indicates the contents of this article is a hoax and that the person named would not pass WP:BIO. No sources given to verify any of the article. i kan reed 20:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Hoaxes are explicitly ineligible for speedy deletion. --Hyperbole 21:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe I was mistaken? I thought that extremely obvious hoaxes, like one that uses a photo of Tupac Shakur and identifies the subject as socializing with dead people, were speediable under {db-nonsense}. If I was wrong... well, I still think it should be deleted, just more slowly. -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSD says that "nonsense" does "not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes." (emphasis mine). --Hyperbole 02:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources, no references, no verifiability Alf photoman 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious hoax. --Hyperbole 02:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete but the rationale for not doing it as speedy is that for even the most unlikely things, someone may recognize it on wider exposure. There have been one or two times when I have almost prod'ed something as a hoax only to check again -- and just escaped making of fool of myself. DGG
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-02-18 09:06Z

Vortaloptics[edit]

Vortaloptics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable software company. Gives two links to independent sources (which is why I brought it here from speedyland), but they look like PR more than anything else. No explanation in the article of why the company is notable. NawlinWiki 21:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:CORP. -Selket Talk 22:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think the references stand up, and I don't see a clear support for any notability claim. Allow option of re-creation if better references can be provided, but right now the article looks more like PR than a seed for future growth. WMMartin 17:45, 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 03:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RC Quarterly[edit]

RC Quarterly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minor publication with circulation limited to alumni of a school. Does not meet the basic criteria of Wikipedia:Notability. Eight hits on Google, of which four are from the English website of the college, one is from the Turkish website of the college, one is from Wikipedia, and one is the curriculam vitae of an alumnus. This article does not provide any more information than is in Robert College#Publications. Donald Albury 21:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not even faintly notable - it's an alumni magazine for goodness' sake - and entirely without independent references to support any claim to notability. WMMartin 17:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the creator of the article, I think Wikipedia should have one on the the RC Quarterly. Just because there aren't enough links on the web doesn't make it right to delete an article. RC Quarterly is cited on mainstream media (in Turkey) as I have seen a lot of times. It is a new magazine and that is why there isn't much information online, but shouldn't Wikipedia be a source of information itself? Doesn't the fact that there isn't much information online about this publication make it vital to be included in the encyclopedia, where people could learn more about it? It is true that Robert College article provides the same information on RC Quarterly; however, if you have noticed that, you should have also noticed that this article is a stub. I think, this article should be kept and improved. Maestro 18:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's generally much more helpful to provide a reason why you think an article should be kept or deleted; keep in mind that AfD is not a vote. ShadowHalo 03:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Almost all of the edits by Maestroka (talk · contribs) concern Robert College and related articles, such as this one. -- Donald Albury 02:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I wonder why it is so important for you that I contribute to Wikipedia on issues/articles that I have substantial knowledge on. Could you cite a Wikipedia guideline for the necessity of your last comment? Or could we consider this a personal attack? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maestroka (talk • contribs) 14:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of any third-party coverage. ShadowHalo 03:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it does not meet the notability guidelines and is adequately covered in the college article. Maestro, I appreciate your passion, but it is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia that it should not be the original source for information- see WP:NOR--Kubigula (talk) 01:34, 19 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 Advanced Access Content System. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 09:07Z

Arnezami[edit]

Arnezami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

will this ever be anything but a stub? Misterdiscreet 21:47, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 18:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pubs and social clubs in Epsom[edit]

List of pubs and social clubs in Epsom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No more than a list of bars and such in the town of Epsom. None of the listed places seem notable (the ones linked are either links to something unrelated or chains.) Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom. Veinor (talk to me) 22:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:42, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 18:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon rocket[edit]

Balloon rocket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is really more of a "how to" than an encyclopaedic article. It has almost no links inwards, no cited sources and is not written in a formal manner. It fails tests of notability, although Google can find many, relatively trivial, instances. Fiddle Faddle 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, easily cited through reputable sources. Article should state that this is a notable teaching tool, but I don't see any reason not to include it.--Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable teaching tool. Has now also non trival sources. --Tikiwont 13:44, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 18:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Christophe Avard[edit]

Jean-Christophe Avard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable bio, and a possible hoax. Prod was removed without explanation. May be speediable, but I am being careful not to be too trigger happy. Delete. J Milburn 22:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't seem to be notable. --DanielCD 22:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it's my first post, this article ain't no hoax.
  • Comment: Then let it be a non notable vanity article. It is not a good idea to write your first article about yourself- I am guessing this IS you, judging by your username. Please see this- Wikipedia generally discourages writing about yourself at all. J Milburn 22:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any independent sources that would help this pass WP:BIO. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:34, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 18:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping Spree (variety show)[edit]

Shopping Spree (variety show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a hoax article about a TV show on the fictional TV network UBS. Bradycardia 22:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the only one of Kevanbd's UBS hoaxes still on Wikipedia. The hoax actually went though five days with a prod tag (full disclosure: I prodded the article) but an anon account removed the tag with no explanation. I restored the tag, which I shouldn't have done. Instead, we properly have this AfD. By the way, the anon account which removed the tag has been warned repeatedly about removing prod tags without explanation or justification. Casey Abell 23:04, 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 18:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science Made Fun[edit]

Science Made Fun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable website. Although there seem to be a lot of google hits, I don't think any of them could be counted as reliable, third party, non trivial, published sources. I may be wrong- delete unless notability is established. J Milburn 22:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I'm not finding anything that would help this site pass WP:WEB, but if I'm missing something, I'd be glad to see a source. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This article conforms to the section of the WP:WEB that states "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites of similar reliability to published works, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations" Science Made Fun has been featured in the Planet Science newsletter, this is run by NESTA, a highly respected organisation for innovation (once the back issues are updated, I will provide a link to back up this claim). It has also been a featured podcast of Podbean.com and the 'Dinosaurs' podcast was a weekly pick. Colin stuart 10:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If we can have some links, that would be great. I couldn't find any... J Milburn 10:35, 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 no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 18:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leprechauns in popular culture[edit]

Leprechauns in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A page of WP:TRIVIA about Leprechauns. Nothing worth merging back to Leprechaun in my opinion. As it stands this is an indiscriminate collection of random facts (in violation of WP:NOT), and is furthermore completely unsourced. Articles like this are a bad idea; delete. Mangojuicetalk 22:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as there's already a popular culture section in the main Leprechaun article where notable and sources stuff like this could be. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Laddie, no, don't burn the house down! Trivia sections and articles are indiscriminate; this has a topic, namely, a notable myth in the media. It can be merged, but that doesn't need deletion. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A notable myth in the media? I'm not following you. Leprechauns are a notable myth, but this isn't about the myth in the media, or even about writings about Leprechauns, it's just Leprechaun trivia. Mangojuicetalk 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Popular culture "literally: "the culture of the people") consists of widespread cultural elements in any given society.........It can include any number of practices, including those pertaining to .........mass media and the many facets of entertainment such as sports and literature." CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I honestly still don't understand your argument here. Every trivia section or article has a topic, it's just full of unimportant information, as is this one. Mangojuicetalk 03:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Trivia sections have no one topic. They're just random collections of things someone finds interesting. I've seen them include, all at once, movie casting info, hidden jokes and comparisons of the growl of a villain in one movie with a villain in another (that was my all-time favourite- blatant OR). That's why they say trivia sections can be partially integrated into the main text- you may get enough info for a whole casting section, or a video game section, or a cultural impact section (or in this case, daughter article)- but again, I'd shed no tears if it were simply redirected, whatever editors see fit. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but expand, source, etc. Viable topic for this format. And to reply to something Mangojuice states above, per WP:OSTRICH it could be argued that every single article on Wikipedia is going to be unimportant to somebody. 23skidoo 06:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think WP:OSTRICH applies at all here. Obviously, we've all heard of Leprechauns, and we all know they appear in popular culture. If you want this expanded, what do you see the article, in a good state, looking like? And are you volunteering to do the work? Mangojuicetalk 14:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Delete and No merge the information does not belong in the main article. And this article is useful to keep it that way. On the other hand the information probably shouldn't be in Wikipedia, we aren't a repository of useless information afterall. - Francis Tyers · 16:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a meaningless list of trivia, not an actual article about Leprechauns in popular culture. Don't let the name fool you. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 17:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this article sucks. Aaronbrick 18:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid reasoning to delete Jaranda wat's sup 18:58, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Puerto Project[edit]

San_Puerto_Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

The two references are both broken links. The four externally linked sites seem to have been designed by the author of the the wiki page. Also, the article is written in first person and somewhat incoherent. I just don't think it's all that notable, and should be deleted until the author(s) can come up with some solid (non-broken and non-self-authored) sources. Hojimachongtalkcon 07:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - the sources are sufficient to verify that it exists, and it makes claims of notability; however, more independent non-trivial sources are needed, as the nominator says. Delete unless improved by end of this AfD. Walton monarchist89 17:46, 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) 22:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only reason I thought this might be real & notable is because of the book Caribbean Cultural Identities--but it is in Google Books, and the term is not found in the book--though I dont have enough experience with G.B. to know its accuracy for this use.

DGG 05:51, 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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 09:12Z

Geyzer Blade Zero[edit]

Geyzer Blade Zero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Tsubasa copy.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
G.B.Z. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
File:Geyzer Blade Zero.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
M.O.N.O. Fighter X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
File:M.O.N.O. Fighter X .jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:M.O.N.O. Fighter X copy.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:.0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,02003081514000NMCBMNC4.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
M.O.N.O. Fighter X Zeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
File:M.O.N.O. Fighter X Zeon.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:M.O.N.O. Fighter X Zeon 2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)


I believe this is just a story. WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a free web host, or, if not, this story/character is non-notable, with not a single google hit. The prod was removed. J Milburn 22:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; I can't find anything about it on the series of tubes. Veinor (talk to me) 22:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable fiction. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This belongs on a blog (or in the trash), not WP. Non-notable fiction. --J Morgan(talk) 23:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Drivel/made up in school/OR/unreferenced - take your pick. WMMartin 17:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unreferenced or bordering on patent nonsense. ._-zro 21:15, 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! in popular culture[edit]

Jeopardy! in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Collection of random trivia about Jeopardy!. The Jeopardy! article has an abbreviated "popular culture" section; this was probably forked out to allow room for all the cruft we now see here. "In popular culture" articles are not a good idea; see also WP:TRIV and WP:TRIVIA. The list is very indiscriminate and unsourced (except for one item). Delete. Mangojuicetalk 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fan cruft thrown in a bag, shaken up, and dumped out on the floor. --Selket Talk 22:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information WP:NOT --J Morgan(talk) 23:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "In popular culture" is another way to try to spin off trivia sections, which are usually pretty suspect. Booshakla 00:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything notable with the main article. I disagree with the statement made by the nominator regarding "in popular culture" articles as there are topics that are viable under this format. This shouldn't be used as criteria for deletion unless Wikipedia institutes a "No 'In Popular Culture' Articles" policy. The nominator is welcome to propose such a ban through the proper channels, of course. 23skidoo 06:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per 23skidoo. Jeopardy is such a big and popular game show that some mentionings of its influence in other programs and literature is warranted although maybe not to the extent we have here. It is better to preserve the history beneath a redirect so that people can work on it, than to delete everything. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Whatever the result, it should absolutely NOT be merge. First of all, no one has volunteered to work on a merge, and the amount of work involved is enormous: far too much for the closing admin. No one has even given guidelines as to what should be merged vs. thrown out. Second, trivia detracts from serious articles. It's important to recognize that, because the merge will likely leave the main article worse, and that article is more important to preserve than the trivia. Third, the Jeopardy article already has an abbreviated "in popular culture" section which is selective, including only three items; in a sense, the important stuff has already been merged. Mangojuicetalk 14:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Obviously cannot be merged, perhaps cut down a bit. Above is an essay, not a policy. Pop culture articles can be useful to some, but appearantly not you. Have you been nominating other pop culture articles for AFD, too? If it is to be deleted, then I may make a 'subpage article,' which I believe are allowed. Reywas92Talk 15:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If by a subpage, you mean something like Jeopardy!/Trivia, then, no, that kind of page is no longer used. Mangojuicetalk 16:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, like User:Xyz/Jeopardy Pop culture. I have seen other users have subpages not relating to the user, but more article-like. This may not be liked, but legal. Simply, I am Keep. Reywas92Talk 16:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah. Yes, user subpages are okay, but article subpages aren't. And BTW, although there is an essay in my argument, WP:NOT is a policy, and WP:AVTRIV is an official guideline and part of the manual of style, and they both apply here. Mangojuicetalk 16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:AVTRIV and article length policy contradict each other. The material collected in this article is relevant to demonstrating the cultural impact of Jeopardy!, but was split off of the Jeopardy! article because that article would have been overwhelmed by it. Additionally, some of the material on the page is not trivia in the sense that it is not just interesting but is also notable. If this article is deleted, all the material would eventually return, but in the Jeopardy! article, added by new users who never saw the spun-off article. I don't understand why we want to revert to that state of affairs again. I would also point out that the Jeopardy! set evolution article has survived a deletion debate that was proposed under similar circumstances and for identical reasons. Robert K S 17:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please don't use the argument that the "set evolution" page is a reason to keep the article. I looked at the AFD for that, and it should have been a no consensus, not keep, and it should be removed too anyway. Half the votes were "this is interesting" keep votes, while the other half were valid delete/merge votes. As with that article, this should go too, pure garbage of interest to no one. Booshakla 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. The article's interest to more people than "no one" is its raison d'être. It's easy to call something "fancruft" or "an indiscriminate collection of information" and toss it away, but such responses ignore the reality of the contributions made to the article and its history. Dozens of different users contributed to the article before it was forked, and dozens more contributed later. While I cannot endorse the article on other merits (it is poorly sourced, not many other pages link to it, etc.), articles like this are what make Wikipedia so useful and interesting, and set Wikipedia apart from drier encyclopedias. These sorts of lists are the neurons that send out dendrite feelers to so many other neurons. In the future, we're going to appreciate articles that collect information such as this, not indiscriminately, but discriminately, and most interestingly. Consider the following cycle. A future user sees a photograph somewhere of Vicki Lawrence in a white wig on the Jeopardy! set and wonders, "Were characters from Mama's Family ever on Jeopardy!?" The user goes to Wikipedia for the answer, but it is not there. Having done research to determine that such a thing did indeed happen, the user adds the information to the Jeopardy! article. Other users do the same, and the article bloats with useful and valid information. A split is proposed and executed. The split article is deemed in violation of Wikipedia policy and deleted. A future user sees a photograph somewhere of Rosie Perez in street getup on the Jeopardy! set and wonders... What is the appropriate response on Wikipedia to end such vicious circles? IMHO, it is to let such lists exist when they are appropriate and link to many other valid articles. Robert K S 04:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The appropriate response is to remove that kind of irrelevant information. Yes, the information may pop up again and again, but it should be removed, again and again. Giving it a safe haven like this article may have been a necessary if problematic step when Wikipedia was smaller; now, there are enough dedicated editors to keep this kind of stuff out of articles. Mangojuicetalk 13:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking as an editor who does far more deleting of fluff than adding of new information, especially to the Jeopardy! article, I assert that you are incorrect on this point. Despite an HTML comment warning in the Jeopardy! article not to contribute additional references (which are encyclopedic inasmuch as they testify to the show's cultural pervasiveness)--a comment which I added--editors are constantly tempted to contribute (valid) cultural references to the article, bloating it. I don't want to think about how much worse this problem will become when there is no forked article and no warning comment on the main page. Robert K S 17:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivia. The Jeopardy article already has a suitable popular culture section which would not be improved by any merger. -- Whpq 17:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, but clean up because in my opinion, it was a necessary article fork to prevent the Jeopardy article from becoming too too unwieldy. Yes, it does require some paring of the completely indiscriminate information, but were we not always instructed here on Wikipedia to create subpages of articles that were getting too big? Andy Saunders 13:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly the point. If this material is unwanted, it should be removed, not moved into an article that becomes an unpatrolled trash heap. Mangojuicetalk 15:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the point I was making was that the topic is encyclopedic based on being spun off of the main Jeopardy! article, but that there is excess fluff that should be removed from the article. Andy Saunders 16:35, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knifers[edit]

Knifers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced. It reads as a how-to guide to smoke marijuana, including ways to make your hit better and to save money on it. Google comes up with 45,000 hits for knifers, but the vast majority of those refer to using a combat knife in games like Battlefield 2 or Counterstrike, or an abbreviation of the town of Yellowknife to Y'knifers. The entire article reads like a bunch of stoners started putting together nicknames for various types of "knifer" hits, and stuff, but I find no reliable sourcing to indicate the term is anything in general use. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 22:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Merge anything relevant into another of the many cannabis articles and delete, SqueakBox 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely unsourced, fails WP:V. janejellyroll 22:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be a type of Vaporizer, so a basic definition could be merged there.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware Christian School[edit]

Delaware Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I prodded this because it fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS. Prod tag was removed by an anon user so I'm bringing it to AfD. It's a non-notable high school and a fairly lackluster article. Soltak | Talk 22:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I couldn't find anything on google that would verify notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability neither claimed nor evidenced. WMMartin 17:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have tidied it up and added references for verifiability to meet WP:V. There is no requirement for 'notability' (though, in fact, its educational standards are notable) only for the article to meet WP policies which it does. I'm all for being strict on vanity articles or those pages made as commercial adverts. However, when you have a high school that will be significant in its local community, and about which readers may come here to find out about, then reasonable articles should be kept. Yes, it needs expansion, but that is what stubs are all about - providing a framework for growth. TerriersFan 00:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you have modified the article to meet WP:V, though the point could still be argued. However, you have done nothing to either assert or prove notability. Your assertion that there is no notability requirement is fundamentally flawed: WP:N is a WP policy. It's general notability criteria is that a topic have been the subject of "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other." Two of your references are directly linked the school (its own website and a city website) and the other two fail WP:RS. Notability guidelines are not met. Soltak | Talk 00:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any facts and figures for a school are bound to be linked with either the school or city - only they have them and the sources are perfectly good enough for non-controversial facts; ABC is not going to count how many kids are non-hispanic! WP:N states "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia" - it is not policy. Having said that, the educational achievements are plainly notable. TerriersFan 00:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing a very important fact: The words "policy" and "guideline" are used interchangeably. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. In addition, ABC wouldn't count the number of non-Hispanic students at a middle school because that information is not notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is neither a directory nor an indiscriminate collection of information.; see WP:NOT. Soltak | Talk 00:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep High schools have sufficient notability. There are over 750 articles about high schools in Ohio, and there is no reason to single this one out for deletion. The school deletionists lost a very long time ago and are just going to have to live with the fact that high school articles are kept. Cloachland 03:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable — MrDolomite • Talk 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one does seem particularly small and unremarkable... and maybe the deletionist cause is not yet lost. Brianyoumans 19:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This school is notable for its punishment policy, and that part is adequately sourced, though indirectly. Follow the link given, #4, and it will be clear what an extremely small number of US schools this applies to. A Notable bad example. DGG 05:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please notable due to some of the policies and can be expanded greater too yuckfoo 01:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above comments, ample reliable sources about an arguably notable subject. RFerreira 07:11, 19 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) 2007-02-18 09:15Z

Eclipse engine[edit]

Eclipse engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Frog5.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Frog.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Image-Crusade Divison Of Time 1 by Barony.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:EmeraldGladeCaverns.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
Eclipse game engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Touch of death productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

You have to scroll right to the bottom of this article discover that it is a "game engine" which, I believe, means a piece of software. Noatbility not established. Probable advert. -- RHaworth 22:43, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 19:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Berger[edit]

Adrian Berger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Beneath all the school in-jokes, all the article effectively says is "this person is a school teacher". However good he is, and however much his students (dis)like him, that is not enough - see WP:BIO. I cannot find any external references to the "numerous historical works" he is said to have published. Google entries that refer to him are, on the whole, copies of this article. (There are a couple of quotations in newspaper articles, but not enough to justify his inclusion as an educational commentator). The one book mentioned in the article ("A Berger: Memoirs" - Adrian Berger, Defton Press 2006 ISBN 0-441-59445) is not to be found through Google or Amazon and may well be a hoax. If it were simply that the article is poorly written and contains lots of material that is unashamedly said to be "unlikely to be true, and ... difficult to verify", I would have a go at cleaning up the article. But there would be nothing worth saving afterwards - hence my AfD nomination. Bencherlite 22:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it's even worse than that: when you remove from a Google search pages that refer to the murder of someone of the same name , you're down to only 2 newspaper quotes that undoubtedly refer to him that aren't WP sites or mirrors i.e. [86], [87]. Bencherlite 00:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BIO. This gentleman is probably great, but he's not notable. --J Morgan(talk) 23:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability claims, could probably be speedied. -Elmer Clark 23:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A mildly entertaining secondary school teacher with a tutoring gig on the side. No evidence to support the claim of notability: I can't find the cited memoirs, and the book he's allegedly writing doesn't count towards the notability claim as "we're not a crystal ball". Off he goes. WMMartin 17:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even though I'm an ex-student of his, because, simply he fails BIO – DBD 19:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some of it, delete the rest Adrian Berger is someone I know reasonably well. I have to disagree with some of these points that you all have stated. Yes, there seems to be some very unbelievable "facts," which he himself has informed me of, but let me just explain that there are some things that are 100% true in this article, and it would be a shame to delete them:

1) Adrian Berger has told me that he does have a FIFTY-FIRST STATE CAMPAIGN. He is planning to make England a fifty-first state of America. His slogans are - "You can go further with Berger," and "You'll have no beef with Berger," just as the article states. 2) Adrian Berger is planning to write a book, called "Hays for Defence," which he says will take him several years to write. It will be a sort of biography on Arthur Garfield Hays, a well-known lawyer in the 20th Century. 3) He does have an eccentric teaching style, integrating into his lessons "Berger" minutes, an improvised time length, and incorporating signs into the sessions, such as the DOUBLE V, a typical American victory symbol, something that he explained personally to me.

Do not delete all of this article. There is some truth in it, but not all of it is correct. Keep in the elements of the text that I have confirmed as factual information, please, because Adrian Berger is the most enthuastic and knowledgable historian that I have ever met, with a most interesting background, directly linked to WWII. Do you not think that his life deserves to be recorded? Oliverholib 10:00pm February 13th 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.25.43 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Although the above comment was apparently written by an IP user, it is more likely to be from Oliverelholiby who left the same comments on the article talk page, which I suggested would be better here. (I have left a message on his talk page suggesting he uses ~~~~ to sign messages.) I remain unmoved, sorry. Bencherlite 22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Oliver, the fact is that this encyclopaedia is not a free-for-all. There are rules and regulations about what goes on here. And, no matter how fantastic Mr Berger is (and I concur heartily, having engaged in many a witty repartée with him in my day), if he fails the Notability criteria, then little else matters. I know you may respect Mr Berger very highly, enjoy his lessons thoroughly, and admire him greatly for being such an eccentric figure, but he doesn't belong here. Besides, are not Messrs Worrall, Burcher, Bryant, Johnson, Tillett, Perrott, Bish etc etc not just as worthy? Would you also create encyclopaedic entries on all of these great men? If you really want to document KEGS teachers, then a KEGS wiki would be a place to do that (let me know if you are hell-bent on doing so - I could lend an expert hand!) Yours, DBD 22:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given "some truth in it" how can we possibly know what part is verified? As there is no accessible source, the book has an invalid ISBN & even the publisher isnt findable on Google, fails V. thoroughly. DGG 06:03, 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. W.marsh 15:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meridian Medicine[edit]

Meridian Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sorry, I am being idle on this one. Massively oversize article. Possibly entirely a copyvio. Has some references but are they independent? -- RHaworth 23:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi I am the author of the book and the article. One of my goal is to bring this research to wikipedia which I have tremondous respect for. I have done 18 years research on this article and want to keep building this information. I work as a Medical Doctor and these meridian theories helps me understand the disease process better. The original scripture for this book is Keiraku which is the ancient text on Meridian Medicine. Master Jiro Murai in Japan studied this art for almost all his lifetime and passed this again as oral teaching to Mary Burmeister who started Jin Shin Jyutsu in USA. Mary wrote her book which took her 22 years to put together. My backgrond in Medicine, Acupuncture, Acupressure makes this easier for me plus being trained in both western and eastern Medicine makes this effortless for me. If you still want to delete this article I respect your opinion. I can tell you a story "I had a patient with Ovarian cancer. She was only 39 yrs old and had a 3 yr old son. Just one week before she died she had terrible pain in her gums and died unable to speak. I learnt through Meridian medicine - that her ovarian cancer caused obstruction of large intestinal meridian which flows and ends at the gums. I learnt to respect this medicine which explains the location of pain in the body."

My medical website is http://VasuBrown.Com

Regards Vasu Brown, MD

  • Dr. Brown: Instead of pasting a wall of text from your book on wikipedia, why don't you try writing about the topic in encyclopedic form? There are many references available to you for guidance, but for starters you can see the Your first article and Manual of style pages. Be careful not to include original research in your article, as that is against WP policy. --J Morgan(talk) 17:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Morgan Thanks for your suggestion. I will do this for the future. It is little bit of a learning curve and since I did not have lots of time I wanted a quick update on what Meridian Medicine is about. I guess if this page does get deleted I will be doing the topic as you suggested in future. Cheers Vasu Brown

  • Delete Some content could be merged into Meridian (Chinese medicine) or Acupuncture. Much of what is written here is also in those two articles and there is no need to duplicate. Some terms in the article Keiraku, Ki-Eki, Tai-Eki don't seam to have coverage under those names here, but they do seem to exist in google, they might be translations of articles for which we do have articles, possible Qi or Ki. If any content is merged it does need good referencing, unfortunatly the lulu book does not count being a self-published source. Jin Shin Jyutsu may well deserve an article as it seems to have practioners worldwide. --Salix alba (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On the author's own admission, it is his original research.--Holdenhurst 13:33, 19 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. –Llama man 01:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antoinette Fox[edit]

Antoinette Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This person appears to have been awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia, "for service to the community through the Guilford Young Grove Retirement Village" [88]. Does being a recipient of such an award make one eligible for inclusion? The article looks to be a complete cut and paste from the external link above, so may fall foul of the policy on Copyright violations. -- Longhair\talk 23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete According to that site, "thousands" have received this honor. Nothing she has done seems notable in its own right, and unless this honor is much more prestigious than it seems, this should definitely go. -Elmer Clark 23:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that it is legitimate to reproduce the full text of a citation for an award of this kind, particularly when the citation is so short. I cleaned the article up a bit. I think that being a recipient of this medal is enough to make someone notable, although I wasn't able to find any other independent references to her. --Eastmain 23:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any evidence that this person has been written about by multiple nontrivial sources. -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think that being the recipient of a government honour like this one should automatically confer notability, in the same way that being elected to a national or state legislature does. --Eastmain 00:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am sure that she is a worthwhile person who has made a valuable contribution to the her local community. However, I doubt that there are verifiable sources indicating a wider level of notability. For the record, I have an aunt and uncle who have received these awards for contributions to their local community but neither would meet WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 01:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the Medal alone cannot confer notability (15000 recipients to date). Being in one of the higher levels of the order (Companion, Officer, Member) is more notable, but then you have to be more notable to get there anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 04:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Peta 23:06, 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, and also speedy delete other similar articles by this user; see User talk:DepressedPer26. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 09:18Z

Top Ten "Out of This World" Videos[edit]

Top Ten "Out of This World" Videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Top Ten "Out Of This World" VIdeos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Top Ten "Out of This World" VIdeos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Top 50 Guilty Pleasures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
MuchMusic's 100 Best Videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
20 Songs Parents Hated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Top Ten "Cool Cameo" Videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
MuchTopTens: Top Ten "Cool Cameo" Videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
MuchMusic Countdown number-one videos of 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Top Ten "My Life As A Celebrity" VIdeos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)


Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information Evan Reyes 23:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete What is this? Is this someone's personal list? If so it's clearly POV, and really I can't imagine any way this would be worth keeping either way. -Elmer Clark 23:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This appears to be a point-in-time copy of the lists on http://www.muchmusic.com/tv/toptens/. Copyvio, non-notable, POV, pointless. --J Morgan(talk) 23:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like User:DepressedPer26 has created pages for several muchmusic.com top ten lists. They could probably all be speedied as copyright violations. —Celithemis 00:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this and all similar MuchTopTens list articles. MuchTopTens is the article for the show, and externally links to the site where the nn lists were copied from. Pomte 05:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Katherine Tredwell 01:48, 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) 2007-02-18 09:37Z

Tottenham Hotspur Food Poisoning Scandal 2005/06[edit]

Tottenham Hotspur Food Poisoning Scandal 2005/06 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lack of relevance, niche article, irrelevant title, doesn't read easily and contains bias

In case anyone is wondering what's been going on with this nomination, the AfD nomination was by JamieLei but the process then continued on the article talk page, not here - so I've moved it. Hope I've done so correctly. Bencherlite 23:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article topic is sufficiently covered by a couple of sentences in the main page about the club (end of section 1.3 of Tottenham Hotspur F.C.) and that's all it deserves. Bencherlite 23:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunate event, but not notable in its own right, and a huge stretch to call it a "scandal." -Elmer Clark 23:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 01:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should have a brief mention in the Tottenham Hotspur F.C. and FA Premier League 2005-06 articles, not an article by itself. Scottmsg 01:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a sports news service. We generally don't have articles about individual matches, and an article about an event in a particular match is far too detailed. If this really is worth mentioning at all it should be in the FA Premier League 2005-06 article as Scottmag suggests. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV and misleading title, reeks of conspiracy theory. Qwghlm 08:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very minor incident not worthy of its own article and, as noted above, not actually a "scandal" ChrisTheDude 09:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wiki is not a fanzine doktorb wordsdeeds 09:21, 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) 2007-02-18 09:38Z

Life after Seinfeld[edit]

Life after Seinfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A large, overblown "where are they now" section that is not encyclopedic enough for its own page, and is full of OR. Any pertinent info can be found on pages for the actors and main show article. Booshakla 23:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I suppose it could be referenced, but in its current form, yes, too much OR and crap. I haven't checked the cast pages, but I assume it could be put there, if any info is actually worth keeping. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not an encyclopedia article, it's a People magazine inset. JuJube 00:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all relevant information would better be put on the pages of the respective actors. Thunderbunny 03:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as needless duplication of information that should already be on the actor's pages, and it's also a POV fork in that it makes a judgement call that somehow the actors involved are in some sort of new existence. 23skidoo 06:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while I did find the article interesting to read, its lack of citations and encyclopedic value made it more like a tabloid than anything else. Mkdwtalk 08:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Madhava 1947 (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 09:55, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The House Jacks (2nd nomination)[edit]

The House Jacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable a cappella group (WP:MUSIC). Makes claims to be the "first", "origional", "pioneer", etc.—none of which can be cited to published sources. Was kept before in a confused, multi-article nomination which was marred by an abnormally large amount of anons and new accounts. Savidan 23:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sources for the information provided, no apparent non-trivial third-party coverage, fails WP:MUSIC. ShadowHalo 03:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. --Nlu (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability and no reliable sources. Nuttah68 12:00, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_13&oldid=1081099199"