Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 24

< February 23	February 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Trebor 12:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films about possessed or sentient inanimate objects[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indiscriminate information; this list makes no distinction between sentient objects and things that are possessed by spirits or demons. They are two entirely different concepts. For example, the list draws a comparison between the haunted hotel in The Shining, the super intelligent computers in various science fiction movies, and the cartoon characters in The Brave Little Toaster. Croxley 00:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of only names with no data. Make a category if possible. No real association anyway.--Dacium 01:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft and indiscriminate per nom. Distinguishing and making a category would be better.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft. JuJube 03:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft and Indiscrimination. Daniel5127 | Talk 05:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost impossible to maintain. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize Listcruft is not a valid argument. Cat per WilliamThweatt. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2!} 07:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Catergorise per Dacium. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 13:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- midly interesting Astrotrain 15:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize into three different categories. Koweja 15:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which categories? -- saberwyn 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic list. The topic will never be the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. A Train ^{take the} 16:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not categorize. Otto4711 16:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, do not categorise, its an incomplete list and its fails WP:NOT#LIST.Telly addict 18:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Agree with User:Tellyaddict. Fails WP:NOT#IINFO
Delete per nom Bucketsofg 21:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, interesting. – Alensha ^talk 22:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:INTERESTING-K@ngi e ^meep! 23:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. List of movies about an object, only useful to a few editors. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 23:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is incomplete, but it's not listcruft and it's not even close to indiscriminate. As for the charge that the list imparts no information -- it clearly does. And haunted hotels and talking toasters are in different parts of the list for that exact reason. Items that are possessed or sentient are not two incompatible concepts. The point with both is that they are "animated inanimate objects."--JayHenry 22:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I've seen entire books on this concept (for example "Possessed Possessions" by Ed Okonowicz) and it is a recurrent major theme in horror fiction and film. Why would this be listcruft? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This article is a Wikipedia classic. Macarenaman 08:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmaintainable list --Hobit 22:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Mermaid. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 08:06Z

List of documentary films about foreign adoption of Chinese children[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable and highly specific topic. Not surprisingly, the list appears to have stalled at the second item. Croxley 00:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Categorise the one film if you want. Far to specific.--Dacium 01:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Waaay too specific. When the title is longer than the content, this might be a hint that it's not really needed. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 02:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost comically narrow and specific. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pigman--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before we get junk like List of steampunk role playing games using the Active Time Battle system. JuJube 03:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overly specific. Each list member can be linked to the other through a "see also" section if appropriate. Otto4711 16:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could be WP:SPEEDY under Empty. Mkdw ^talk 17:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too specific to be notableAl-Bargit 17:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Al-Bargit, it could warrant a speedy deleton.Telly addict 18:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overly specific/narrow. I don't knot if it's really speedy-able, as there is some content. -- Black Falcon 20:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 21:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there an article on foreign adoption of Chinese children this list (with added context and sources) could be added to? -- saberwyn 22:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps One-child policy. The topics are directly related and I'm sure there are studies on it. Pomte 08:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would weak support the addition of a paragraph on the existence of the documentar(y/ies) to the Abandoned or orphaned children and adoption section of the One-child Policy article. -- saberwyn 09:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too specific list. S .D. ¿п? § 00:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to some article about the foreign adoption of Chinese children. I'm sure there must be some somewhere. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone Usedup

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 08:05Z

Terry/Kane Orlando[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:CORP criteria Samw 00:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see notibility for WP:CORP standards.--Dacium 01:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reeks of self-promotion, too. The Flash website is just strange. - Richardcavell 01:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete Self-promotion, fails CORP. Daniel5127 | Talk 05:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, comments above. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 05:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 12:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Fails WP:CORP. Mkdw ^talk 17:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much info, just lists, it does fail WP:CORP and it generally not relevant.Telly addict 18:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Gets hits on Yahoo searches but article reads like an advert and does not establish notability as per WP:CORP. Ronbo76 21:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 21:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 08:04Z

List of American cities with personal names[edit]

An arbitrary collection of facts, it seems to be in opposition to WP:NOT. Corvus cornix 00:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:NOT. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT, no meaningful association between cities.--Dacium 01:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A useless list. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delet per nom and WP:NOT. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 02:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Means violates What wikipedia is not. Daniel5127 | Talk 06:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Dacium's observation that there is no real relationship between the entries on the list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - directory counter to WP:NOT as has been noted. Otto4711 16:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Original research. Mkdw ^talk 17:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#DIRECTORY - its a total failure of this!Telly addict 18:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. -- Black Falcon 20:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails Wikipedia:Attribution#No original research. Ronbo76 21:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 21:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above, and also - since it is possible for anyone to be christened after their place of birth or after any "nice sounding name", any city could have a personal name. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shlomke 00:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Censorship in Iran, which I already did. (There were more keep votes, but the mergists were more convincing, plus AfD is not a vote) --Wizardman 19:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films banned in Iran[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article appears to be little more than a cut and paste of an IMDb search (which isn't a particularly reliable source). It doesn't say if these are the only films ever banned in Iran, or if they are merely a few titles out of thousands of banned films. I've tried using these titles as a starting point to find references, but all I get are Wikipedia mirrors. Croxley 01:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting info. --Paukrus 01:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Censorship in Iran which is overly focused on Internet censorship and not enough on other forms of censorship. FrozenPurpleCube 01:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all verifiable info into Censorship in Iran, per FrozenPurpleCube. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content and delete article. Some interesting and possibly relevant information (depending on the reliability of the source) but not suitable material for a stand-alone article. Verify and merge into Censorship in Iran, then delete this article.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an option to merge and delete, as the GFDL requires a record be kept of the edits, thus if a merge is made, this must be kept, even if redirected. FrozenPurpleCube 03:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have done a merging from this list to Censorship in Iran. Please see. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-defined list that just needs some expansion and more sources.Perhaps also explain why it was banned for each instance. --Nehrams2020 06:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect following the merge by Dwaipayan (which was slightly premature due to this thing being on AFD, but never mind). Media and censorship policies in Iran are just as valid topics as equivalent laws in other countries. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. An interesting topic, but length means it can easily go into Censorship in Iran. A keep would be justified if there were some context about each film with reliable sources. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- important to know what the barbaric regime in Iran is banning Astrotrain 15:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now that the list was merged. Koweja 15:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic. I don't think a merge is necessary. Surely there have been more than 11 films banned in Iran? This list can probably be expanded, and explanations added as to why they were banned. --Aude (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for now. I think the topic is well worth having a list for, but the lack of references is a deal-breaker. We must always insist on sources. I think this is a notable, encyclopedic topic, and if references appear by the end of this AfD then I'll happily change my vote. A Train ^{take the} 16:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect as the likelihood of someone searching for the specific search string List of films banned in Iran is very low. Otto4711 16:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why not List of films banned in Somalia? Al-Bargit 17:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, why not? That isn't a good reason to delete. Koweja 18:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and "List of films band in Somalia" would be a great idea too. Worthy concept. Sounds perfectly encyclopedic as a subject, but any expansion of the list or more in-depth treatment would be even better. Noroton 18:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Censorship in Iran per User:FrozenPurpleCube. It's notable information, but does not warrant it's own article whilst the general topic of censorship in Iran is available. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 18:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where are the non-IMDB sources discussing the films which have been banned in Iran? I don't deny their existence, but it would be nice to see them first before we assert the particular films that have been banned. GassyGuy 21:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' to Censorship in Iran If and Only If reliable, third-party, fact-checked sources can be found for Wikipedia:Attribution purposes. Failing that, delete outright. -- saberwyn 22:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is exactly the sort of article that prevents a blanket "no list" rule. If ever Wikipedia were going to keep a notable, encyclopedic, list, this would be it. Especially because this is not merely a list on Wikipedia, but an actual "real world" list determined by the government of Iran. -- Richard Daly 01:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's lovely, but it would be nice if somebody could show us where the government of Iran had documented this. I would be the first to support this is we had some sort of evidence that these films really have been banned. Isn't this the sort of thing somewhere outside of IMDB should be cataloguing? I can't imagine that's how the Iranian government has disseminated its banning info. GassyGuy 05:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator; Just to clarify - my reason for nominating this list is the lack of verifiability of the titles on the list. Merging with Censorship in Iran as FrozenPurpleCube suggested is a good idea, but the information must still be verifiable. I've reverted the cut and paste merge that Dwaipayanc carried out, not only because this AfD discussion is still ongoing, but most importantly the titles are still unverified. Moving them to another article doesn't solve that. Croxley 05:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page title can be adjusted, and individual items verified But the topic is N, and a list is appropriate.DGG 07:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question still is, how does one verify individual items? GassyGuy 09:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- News articles, press releases, statements from the Iranian government... anything that can be reliably WP:Attributed stating "Film X has been banned (or equevilant terminology) from showing in Iran" would be the way to go. -- saberwyn 09:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I certainly agree with this. I guess my question was, does anyone have any such sources so that the work could be done? GassyGuy 10:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable subject. Needs sources, but not deletion. Rename to media banned, though. - Peregrine Fisher 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. WP:NOT#PAPER. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Censorship in Iran per all the reasons that have already been given. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add references or trim; also it would help NPOV if each entry explained the cultural or political reasons involved in each ban and the period of the ban, where sources can justify that. John Vandenberg 12:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and interesting subject. Article should be improved with sources added. Shlomke 00:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful information. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lunchtime soccer[edit]

Clearly violates WP:NFT and notabllity guidlines. Soccer is notable, but there is no significant verifiable source that I know of for Lunchtime soccer. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 01:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page lunchtime soccer should not be deleted. It is a good place for people to reference when they are in dispute of the rules which they play by. Particularly at my school the players are very passionate. They have even become violent because they are not clear on the rules. This page is a reference to stop these things happening. It is also a log of luchtime soccer/football communities around the world. There are many other wikipedians i know who have found this page a good reference. Therefore it should not be deleted because it doesn't breach any of the wikipedia rules and it only ever helps people. The verifiable source is other wikipedians. And the millions of people across the world who play the beautiful game, the world game. A reaonable person would know how popular soccer/football across the world is. More people play unofficial soccer than any other sport. - jensen 198 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-24 01:43:42
- Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "...reference to stop these things happening...", as you have said. More people playing unofficial soccer does not make it more notable than soccer, a notable sport. And yes, it does break a notability criteria guideline, WP:NFT, and even WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and WP:NN, contrary to what you have said in your comment. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 02:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, This is for the minors. To share their experiences on a minor scale. Why should Frank lampard or Ronaldinho get their own page but not us? They are not special and nor are they more importatnt than us. At our school (the Friends' School) it is great fun and very passionate. Sometimes weve even stayed fifteen minutes after were supposed to be in class! What you say about our school and its competitions is dirtying our legacy. We want people to know just how important, soccer(thats not even on a major scale) is to the people in a small city in Australia. There is nothing wrong with this page, anymore than there is something wrong with Harry Kewell's page, it is merely us sharing our views off soccee andwhat is wrong with that? Tell me please. - Sam v1.0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samv1.0 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-24 01:50:37
- Frank Lampard and Ronaldinho both have won awards for their expertise and performance in soccer and Harry Kewell has had media coverage from multiple, verifiable sources- just look at the articles! Importance does not put one in Wikipedia, notability does. Also remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a group of proses. I find nothing offensive or wrong with your article- morality does not govern whether an article stays or not. But verifiability and notability through multiple sources keeps an article in Wikipedia. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 02:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A verifiable source doesn't nescessarily have to be on the internet, tv or in newspapers. It can be a person who has not published their information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-24 02:45:55
    - Wrong. If it's not published, it doesn't get into Wikipedia. Please read our Wikipedia:Attribution policy. Uncle G 02:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - But how do you prove what is published is actually true

- - - Before refuting my arguments, please look at the Wikipedia guidelines I have shown, if not more. Thank you. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 02:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain exactly which section of these links it has breached — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-24 02:47:53

Delete per the two comments above. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Informal soccer competition at an individual school. Doesn't meet our notability guidelines. Capitalistroadster 02:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not something thought up in one school day, or by one school or one town or one country even. I have visited countless schools arcorss the Asis-pacific region and everyone plays soccer during there breaks. And, in effect, they all have similar if not the same rules. It is clear that this page is verifiable and needed by many people - jensen 198 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-24 02:32:54
Delete There's nothing wrong with it, it just shouldn't be on Wikipedia. If you want a page on this subject, by all means go ahead somewhere else. Geocities hosts free webpages. - Richfife 02:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't breach any wiki rules though -jensen 198 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-24 02:41:43

Comment- How is notability criteria guideline not Wikipedia rules? Again, you contradict your argument by saying "...everyone plays soccer during there breaks. And, in effect, they all have similar if not the same rules..." Why don't they just read the Soccer page for info? If you want to keep the article here, you need to present multiple, verifiable sources by the media (newspapers such as the New York Times, news channels such as CNN, or even an independent report). You need to read the guidelines I presented a little more carefully. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 03:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me exactly which rules they breach. not the links or the over all thing. tell me exactly. i've gone over them and i don't see the problem. i'll give in if you say exactly what

Delete non-encyclopedic violation of WP:V and WP:NFT--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT, specifically violates clause "Wikipedia content is required to be verifiable." which requires, "that articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Also note that, "Wikipedia is not a free wiki host for you to use for your own purposes." This would be better placed on a freely hosted website. - Mocko13 03:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not for my own use its for the use of the milllions across the world. Where else can people want to find the rules of a sport and the variations of those rules, they go to an encyclopedia. I will publish my information then it will be verifiable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs).

Comment- Rules breached-
WP:A#Key principles
WP:NOT#OR
WP:NFT#Resist the temptation
WP:NOTE#The primary notability criterion
WP:RS#Aspects of reliability

I play golf, table tennis, played basketball, mind you. Feel free to publish your info! Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 03:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Your sarcasm and comments on an irrelevent subject is not encouraged. Also, please sign your comments. Thank you. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 03:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non verifiable information that violates WP:NN and WP:MADEUP. Article seems to be original research and therefore prohibited in Wikipedia, WP:OR. As many people pointed out, unless its published from a independent source, it isn't considered notable.--K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 03:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is useful for millions it shouldn't be deleted. whether it breaches rules or not it is encyclopediac content and many people would agree —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs).

Comment-As long as it breaches Wikipedian policies, it shouldn't be included. If you feel so strongly about this, I suggest you put it in another website, or find enough sources to make the article notable. --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 03:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Jensen 198's consensus vote and comments should be disregarded, as his basis of argument is contradictory of Wikipedia's guidelines. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 03:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting sources i already have one there are more coming— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs)

Delete as not being remotely encyclopedic and thought up at school one day (or over the course of several days). What was that AfD in about September last year about another high-school lunchtime game that turned into a farce? I can't find it in my contribs anymore. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not original research it is simply a collaboration of information gathered from different sources, rather like an encyclopedia.

- Would you be able to cite these sources? Either here or in the article, it doesn't matter. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources: AIS Singapore, Roselea Public School, Sydney, Taroona Primary School, Hobart, The Friends' School, Hobart. Jensen 198 05:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mind giving us links to these sources? --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^•^Contrib 06:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They do not have internet sites that i know of however i will try to find some for you.

If they aren't internet sources, what sources are they? Text? --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 06:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to sources:
- http://www.ais.com.sg/
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_International_School_Singapore
- Mention of Roselea on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlingford,_New_South_Wales#Public_primary_schools
- www.taroonaprimary.tased.edu.au/
- www.friends.tas.edu.au
- it doesn't seem to recognise the last two but type them in and they will work. There you go.

Those demonstrate the existence of schools, yes. How does that demonstrate that this particular variant of soccer is played at those schools (let alone anything else)? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do any of these sources actually mention "Lunchtime Soccer" or are me meant to assume they do? If so, please point them out to me. --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 06:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Textbook example of WP:NFT. eaolson 04:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I suggest that those defending this article quit resorting to personal attacks because it doesn't help their case in the least. Most of us at Wikipedia aren't going to be daunted by being called nerds; indeed, quite a few of us would probably embrace the term. Catbag 04:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this page is very subjective. Thiere are no official lunchtime soccer rules. The article is also not written in a formal encyclopedic tone and seems to be original research. 71.176.150.42 05:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat that "This page is not original research it is simply a collaboration of information gathered from different sources, rather like an encyclopedia." There is no official definition of the word or phrase "y'all" although i believe there is a wikipedia page about it's definition that has no sources and yet still has not been put up for deletion. Why is my useful page being targeted? Jensen 198 06:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhat are you talking about? Y'all has five sources in the article. --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 06:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Additionally, the fact that there are articles you feel should be deleted doesn't mean that an article you argue to be useful should be kept. If you feel that an article you've found is unsourced or should be deleted for some other reason, you're welcome to list it at AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per notability guidelines. This is more suited to a personal website. Wikpedia isn't a reference guide. Solent 07:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Notability; the article does not asset notability, nor does it provide sources to back up notability. The guideline here is WP:NOTE. The article is totally unattributed - all information on the encyclopedia needs to be attributable to reliable sources which are verifiable. This does not achieve any of these. Also, this article appear to be made up and is original research. WP:NFT! --Haemo 08:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 10:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete soccer rules for an individual school are about as un-notable as you can get. Suriel1981 13:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Suriel1981 --Zabadab (Talk) @ 15:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is poorly written and these sort of rules for soccer would vary depending on your school or where you live. Its not written from a neutral point of view as some local teams for some place are mentioned, I mean Fry & Oats means something to someone (but the rest of us dont have a clue who they are). --PrincessBrat 16:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fry and Oats are famous Quakers. I'm sure if you google search their names you will get some information on them. The rules for soccer do not vary and they are not for an individual school. As per above they are from many schools and they are the rules that you would find nearly everywhere in my continent+. There are other articles in wikipedia and other encyclopedias that note the information may vary slightly in different areas. Jensen 198 00:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable or encyclopedic. Adambro 16:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. It looks like another one of those made up games from high school that could even fall under WP:NEO and WP:OR. Mkdw ^talk 17:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you possibly say soccer is another one of those made up games from high school. Don't you realise what soccer/football is???

This is the same fallacy as the one on my Talk page (namely "My school is notable, so you can't delete what we do there"). Yes, soccer/football itself is notable. The rules that you and your friends play by in your lunch breaks at school, however, are not. That's the key difference. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not ready for the big league. Jensen 198, if you want to keep developing this article, consider copying the wikitext into a new user page, User:Jensen 198/Lunchtime soccer. John Vandenberg 01:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I will, although isn't that making my user page a blog, which you can not do. How ever this is encyclopedic content and i still don't see why it should be deleted. Jensen 198 01:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus here is that the article isnt encyclopedic content, so rather than contest it, prove it by taking the article onto your own userspace and improve it until it is. This will not save it entirely, as someone may list it on WP:MFD, but if you are actively working on the subject, and find real reliable sources for the statements made in the article, then people will leave your user page alone until it is ready for prime time. John Vandenberg 02:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it encyclopedic content? Other users have demonstrated the policies which this article violates, thereby explaining why it should be deleted. "Encyclopedic content" is not a synonym for "information". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oh my, this is about an encyclopædic as the contents of my fridge. Lankiveil 03:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well, the contents of your fridge could be encyclopedic....an apple, a half eaten pizza....no, seriously, I can't believe this discussion is taking so long...Article should be thrown into the trash a long time ago. --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 03:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pick on my page. It shouldn't ever be thrown in the trash you fridge loving fools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensen 198 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 25 February 2007

Nobody owns Wikipedia articles, not even the creator —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richfife (talk • contribs) 17:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete in its present form. An articles about informal games of soccer would be appropriate, if sources could be found, and regional variation could be accommodated. But this totally unsourced article shows obvious signs of being based on a single school, and of policies which have never been written down. I find it odd that it should have attracted quite this much debate, since the total absence of all the customary WP standards is so very evident. What the supporters should do, is try to write a proper article.DGG 07:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We actually already have articles on various kinds of street football, such as rush goalie. Uncle G 13:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article however refers to rules played in playground games in one particular school. Suriel1981 10:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lunchtime sex ;-) Ohconfucius 06:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for its extreme non-notability. --Roisterer 09:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 11:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much as non-notable as it gets ChrisTheDude 11:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable non-verifiable variant of the sport. Qwghlm 11:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page rocks don't delete it. Jensen 198 22:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've already said that. Additionally that's not a great reason to keep it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete However, I don't know if I'm just making more of a mess here, Note that there is already an article for Street football which covers the ground of the massive popularity of informal football games. I say that without any comment as to the notability of that particular article... Robotforaday 16:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Street football. Lunchtime soccer. Aren't they the exact same at the end of the day. Just leave both of the articles alone and stop wasting everybody's time. Jensen 198 01:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the least bit. The Street football article seems to deal with an international competition. This article, on the other hand, deals with the rules that a bunch of friends play by. There's no proof that the variant of the game under discussion here is played anywhere but in one school - such sources as have been provided simply show that other schools exist. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia, I don't think that you grasp the knowledge of how important it is to keep this arcticle. Your statements mean nothing compared to the vast seriousness of my arguement. Please, for the good of all, don't delete it. Orlando Mason

Dear Mr Mason (or Jensen198),

The editors of Wikipedia are yet to see the argument that you claim to be vastly serious advanced anywhere. What has been said (ad infinitum) so far is that this article is about a variant of soccer/football played by some friends at a certain high school. No proof of that has been provided, and no proof has been provided that it is played anywhere else. If you believe that the article should not be deleted, please provide sources showing its existence and its notability forthwith. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sport of lunchtime soccer is an extremely interesting variant of normal or even casual soccer. Many people around the world will be enlightened on the beauty of the World Game.Orlando Mason —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 20:52, 28 February 2007 (talk • contribs) Jensen 198.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Trebor 12:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ştefan Pelmuş[edit]

Fails to meet the WP:BIO standards Ozgod 01:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The subject is a well-known artist in his region. The article currently doesn't meet WP:BIO, but I say give it a little time to develop.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No justification for notability. Article has existed for six months and has not developed, beyond minor edits in that time. No hits on google, for either the artist or any of his artwork (though the latter is per a notability criteria still under debate at Wikipedia:Notability (artists). - Mocko13 03:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Stefan Pelmus" gets over 600 google hits (mostly in Romanian). I was not aware the article has existed for six months, but I still say "Keep". We have stubs in all categories that have been around for longer than that.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have taken the initiative and expanded the article and added a few references. My Romanian is not very good (actually non-existent, but Romanian is decipherable with a working knowledge of Latin and Spanish), but there is plenty more available sources for a good Romanian speaker.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 04:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The current references in the article are really quite weak for notability. He may be a notable artist but all I can tell is he's had gallery shows. References should give a little more substance beyond a bio blurb. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 05:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per WilliamThweatt.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The artist has works displayed in multiple countries. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The artist's displays are public and across many (primarily non English) non-cultures, so I suggest sources will be easy to find by those familiar with the subject and languages, especially Romanian. (edit) Also, I am not familiar with the awards, but those alone might suggest notability (end edit) Also, consistent deletion of this type of article without sourcing in the native language, will lead to systemic bias. —siro χ o 16:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Romanian artists are as notable as American ones Al-Bargit 17:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an award-winning artist, whose article has been significantly improved by WilliamThweatt. -- Black Falcon 21:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The URL linked to the last statement about his award mentions that his artwork is internationally exhibited which would meet the proposed notability guidelines for artists. Ronbo76 21:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The evidence here shows a working artist with facts that remind me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhaskar Hande. There's an international dimension of some sort, but no expositions at notable galleries or museums; and there's an award (or two) of unknown notability. Independent evidence that he's well known in his region - as far as I can see - is as a name in a list, like [1]. So let's be consistent and delete it, without prejudice to recreation if/when better evidence is found. Mereda 14:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, my concerns are not about the notability of the artists but about the article lacking sources and references. If we cannot reach at least WP:V in an article I strongly advocate it must be deleted regardless of the subject Alf^Photoman 14:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mereda & Alf. No press refs at all Johnbod 03:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reluctantly despite the extra work on the article there are no news articles or other published works (magazines, paragraphs in books) about him. He may have shown internationally, but he doesn't meet the criteria for notability. The Gh. Patrascu award is given at the National Fine Arts Biennial Exhibition in Romania. But I couldn't find a news story about Pelmus and the award. --Bejnar 22:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep - The nomination was probably bona fide, but it is the 3rd in under a month. The article was renamed in the meantime (spacing), making it easy to have missed the previous two. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. P. Calderon[edit]

This article isn't that relevant as this isn't well known nor was he great in Survivor: Cook Islands. People who were in the jury deserve to have an article I believe. Willbender 01:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close This is the third AfD for this article in less than a month. The previous results were no consensus and keep. Notability is asserted by the individual's Survivor appearance, his professional volleyball career, his modeling career, and his appearance on The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency. Seriously, though, third AfD in less than a month. --Maxamegalon2000 01:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a different member nominating it (I know my good friend Otto is going to allege that this guy is a sock of mine... AGAIN, but I assure you, I had nothing to do with this afd), I see no reason why the AFD shouldn't be followed through. Recently, Survivors who finished SECOND AND THIRD in the show have been going through afds and losing, so it was only a matter of time before somebody targeted this article. I'm sick of the wikipolitical philosophy that articles that survive 2 afds should automatically be kept, if people who finished THIRD and SECOND aren't considered notable, how is a guy who was voted out fourth and was in a couple episodes of a low-rated cable show notable? -- Scorpion 01:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speediest possible keep and step the hell off the article - As noted, this is the third time in a month that this article has been AFDed. The first closed with no consensus and the second, opened just minutes after the first one closed, was closed with a KEEP. There is absolutely no justification for nominating and renominating and renominating this article. The subject clearly passes WP:BIO. "The article isn't relevant" is not a valid criterion for deletion. "This isn't well known," in other words WP:IDONTKNOWIT, is not a valid criterion for deletion. "Nor was he great on Survivor: Cook Islands" is not a valid criterion for deletion. The nomination does not cite any guideline or policy that the article violates and while I am doing my best to assume good faith, the constant attacks on this article are absolutely ridiculous. The matter of Scorpion's continuing hostility to this article and his extremely poor conduct regarding it are not relevant to this discussion, as much as he would like to make this about me and him. Otto4711 03:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's called precedent. Other Survivor contestants who were in the show considerably longer have been judged unfit for a page. See the following CURRENT afds: Bruce Kanegai, Brandon Bellinger, Ian Rosenberger, Sundra Oakley, Burton Roberts , Lillian Morris, Ami Cusack, Gregg Carey, Jennifer Lyon, Rafe Judkins, Becky Lee, all of whom made the merge, several of who made the final and all of which are heading towards deletion. There will probably be several more coming too. Also, it's been more than 30 days since the last nomination, so why do people keep saying "3 nominations within a month"? And, has this guy done anything of note on JDMA? It seems to me that all he has done is appear in a few episodes of 2 reality shows. As for the "sources", notability is more than counting the number of published pieces on any given subject. -- Scorpion 04:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your points in order: 1) "Precedent" is certainly something to consider, but each article is to be judged on its own merits. This article has been judged on its merits and the consensus was to keep it. That some other contestants may end up deleted is irrelevant to whether this article should be kept. 2) This article was last nominated for deletion on January 30. It was nominated by you 37 minutes after the previous AFD closed. The second AFD closed on February 5. Today is February 24. It has been 25 days since the article was nominated for the second time and 19 days since that second AFD closed. 3) Yes, he did something very notable on JDMA. He came out of the closet on national television and landed the cover of an internationally distributed magazine. 4) Notability guidelines require that a subject be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Calderon has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, including as previously noted an internationally distributed magazine. Otto4711 04:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But was the entire series focused around his coming out of the closet? Going back to precedent, several of the early Survivors were on the covers of US Magazine, People Magazine and Entertainment Weekly and yet they don't have pages. And like I said, I had absolutely nothing to do with the nomination of this article. -- Scorpion 04:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire series doesn't have to be focused on his coming out for his participation to be notable. And I'm honestly not sure why you are not grasping the concept that every article stands or falls on its own. Every single article on every single person who ever even heard of Survivor could be deleted tomorrow and it means nothing to whether the Calderon article is kept. If you think some of those other contestants should have pages, and you have the requisite multiple independent third-party sources for them, then write the articles and if they get AFDed I'll stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you to defend them. But for god's sake, stop using them as the whetstone for the axe you're grinding over Calderon's article. Otto4711 04:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per above, as you can't just keep nominating an article for deletion because you didn't like the outcome of previous AfDs. Catbag 04:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep You have got to be kidding me another one in a month?? AfD is not a once aweek process when you don't like the outcome of a previous one. EnsRedShirt 05:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Close. You can't just re-nominate because you don't like the previous result. Besides, I find the article suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 05:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, I had nothing to do with the nominating of this article. I think the nominator is a newer editor who had no idea the article had previously nominated. I didn't nominate it because I knew people would just use the "It's survived before, let's keep it" principal, which is why Wikipedia is stuck with some pretty useless articles. It's insane to think that there are many TV characters from well-known shows that don't have pages because they aren't "individually notable" and yet, this guy has one. -- Scorpion 05:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to believe that Scorpion had anything to do with this nomination. As for the nominator's awareness of the previous AfD's, I did reply to his comment about this article at Talk:Survivor: Cook Islands. --Maxamegalon2000 06:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per precedent. Other participants of the show have had articles --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, many Survivor, Big Brother, Apprentice and Amazing Race contestants are losing their pages and seeing as he is the earliest voted out Survivor that has a page, it was only a matter of time before somebody nominated it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Meets the notability requirements. Diego Cervantes 14:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep yes, consensus can change, but not in this time. No new reasons for deletion have been added and this seems like nothing more than an attempt to re-vote until you get the result you want. Koweja 16:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, I don't need to explain notability, but I want to chime in that the number of times this has been nominating is absurd. When nominating an article, please ensure that it will not be a rehash of a previous nomination. That implies either new evidence is provided, or a significant amount of time has passed. (Generally on the order of months) —siro χ o 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, most of these numerous nominations are appear to be out of bias for this person. He certainly has had enough media attention to be considered notable under WP:BIO. This article does require some wikification, but this should ultimately be the last AfD for this article. Mkdw ^talk 17:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Yes, consensus can change, but not this fast. I won't say that the nomination is WP:POINT as the nom may not have checked the talk page. -- Black Falcon 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong if not Speedy Keep per WP:BIO notable outside show, needs some slight cleanup to verfify references. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 05:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and if possible a policy that closely-spaced repeated AfDs are disruption of WP. DGG 07:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Third AfD since January is verging on the abusive. It may warrant deletion, but current consensus appears to consider even 4 months as insufficient time for a renomination, regardless of the article's merits. Ohconfucius 06:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 08:04Z

Awareness Loves Life[edit]

Page putatively created solely to promote the book "The Little Book of Awareness" and the website http://meaning-of-all.org (which is merely a portal that links to http://ucadia.org). The page has been created by User:Architect of ucadia (contribs) which has also edited the article O'Collins, the name of the book's author. Cacycle 02:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable promotion. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotion. Article seems to be written by the author of the book it promotes, as seen in other edits concerning his surname and in the username chosen, which is also the name of the only sites google flags it for besides Wikipedia and Yahoo Answers. - Mocko13 03:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable pseudo scientific book Al-Bargit 17:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Incorrect association originally made by Cacycle that entry a promotion of Transplexity/Hoffman et.al. Article has been edited and conforms to Wikipedia Policy, removed of any promotion comments. No reference to O'Collins at all in article and is a legitimate alternate theory. Architect of Ucadia 04:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC). It is grossly unfair that upon the removal of all reference to O'Collins because of the original complaint that additional users now have voted for deletion based on the absence of notations. I plead and ask all those who keenly advocate the elimination of this entry for guidance- am I supposed to include legitimate references to my publishing and work and be damned by you as a nobody, or not include myself and this reference be damned as having no central notation? Please, I beg before another user happily posts their negative comments that one of you with infinite wisdom and experience to tell me what you expect? Thanks Frank O'CollinsArchitect of Ucadia 12:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The citations are over 20 yrs old, and while they may relate to the general idea of this theory, there is no reason to think they relate to it in any specific way, as much of the OR speculation is based on more recently fashionable concepts. There would have to be references to N for the particular formulation under this particular name. DGG 07:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references cited do not support this theory or support its notability. While the references are valid, they are only valid in the sense that they were referred to when this article, which appears to be original research, was created. The author claims it is "a legitimate alternate theory" but offers no references to back up that claim. Hatch68 06:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions[edit]

Created yesterday as one of the most blatant WP:POV forks in history from Al Gore controversies. No recent talk by forker on the original page.[2] Derex 02:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The edit summary for the creation of the page is pretty much all you need to see. "Since media criticisms + explanations are removed from Gore controversies page(for the fact of not being a controversy) this page explains media misconceptions and criticisms of the public figure Gore". And as Derex alludes to, you have to go back to November 2006 to see the article creator even editing the source article he forked from -- and back to June 2006 to find him posting to the talk page of that article. Even as a last resort POV forking is not acceptable; as nowhere near a last resort it should be shut down hard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. I've seen discussion on how having the "controversies" article is a POV fork (a way to keep the negative stuff out of the main article). So why are we forking out content again? The large majority of the material is copied from the controversies article, so there is a lot of redundancy. This makes me think that we do not need a spinout article for this already spinout article. Also, the creation intentions (and some recent editing over at the controversies article) leads me to lead that this is nothing more than a POV fork. I'd like to hear a defense of this as a simple spinout article. -Andrew c 03:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the stuff here has at one time or another been inserted into the "Al Gore controversies" article and subsequently deleted because the info is either not notable or spurious. Some discussion on the controversies talk page indicates that particular article could be construed as a POV fork, and this ridiculous off-shoot is even worse.-Hal Raglan 03:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In my experience people are generally too eager to construe a spinout article as a POV fork. From what I have seen Al Gore controversies has discussed the controversies from both sides and so has avoided being a POV fork. This article, however, practically announces in its very title that it's going to take a side -- and it does. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the information on here is sourced and documented. Actually any info on here that was on Al Gore controversies was removed because of people saying it was non notable or it did not generate a 'storm of controversy'. How is it not notable when it appears in major news outlets?? Not every story that makes the news generates a storm of controversy, yet is very important, especially political stories that do not get front page news for political reasons. All the stories on here are from major news sources, the Washington Post, Newsweek, the New York Times, etc. At least these stories should be merged on Al Gore Controversies and not wholly removed.--The great grape ape is straight out of the know 02:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment As an editor on the controversy article I would be happy to have a chat on the discussion page about what should be included. You don't do that.In fact, you just added material to the article that I tagged as plagarized and ignored all previous talk page discussions on other controversies. Jiffypopmetaltop 02:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incredibly blatant POV fork, no redeeming value. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more than POV and original research --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. POV fork. Guettarda 07:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, textbook case. Gazpacho 12:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the subject is useful and serious. I get the idea from comments about politically controversial articles that merely addressing a controversy is itself POV. If POV is a problem with something like this, then let other editors add the other point of view or edit out bias. Serious subjects deserve articles on Wikipedia. Noroton 18:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have one. In case you missed it, see Al Gore controversies. Derex 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "I get the idea from comments about politically controversial articles that merely addressing a controversy is itself POV." No, that's a fairly frequent misconception, but addressing a controversy is not POV. What is POV is addressing only one side of a controversy, or trying to arrange boundaries of discussion of a controversy that would limit discussion to one POV. That's what this article does, as it is titled "Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteIn my opinion, people should not have criticism articles. Huge pov fork.Jiffypopmetaltop 18:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So why the Criticism of George W. Bush page?--The great grape ape is straight out of the know 02:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI don't remember making that page. Jiffypopmetaltop 03:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge(parts) The article is actually a good read and theres a lot of references but its too much of a POV view, especially since hes a living person. I think that some of the content has merits and perhaps the most well written, notable and well reference of it could be merged into a critique on the actual Al Gore article. . In any case this is just far too much, mostly non notable, criticism for an encyclopedia, espcially the Al Gore quotations criticized by the media section. LordHarris 04:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 20:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a rather POV rewrite of ionformation that could better be merged into other articles if it's not already there. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MergeI apologize if my methods are in the wrong, but my thoughts were to show content that critiques with explanation of the media and Al Gore. I attempted to reference it all with sources and boths sides of view the best I could, and hope some of it can be merged without POV in a way that I have obviously failed to do. I believe the information is relevant to show all sides of a person, seeing that the 'good' side is shown with no mention of past actions that show a different story. I only hope such diligence and effort that is shown here also will be shown on the Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, Criticism of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney hunting incident(does this really need a page?) CNN controversies and allegations of bias(allegations are allowed but not documented points against Al Gore?), Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, and other polictial controversies and criticism pages. Thank you --The great grape ape is straight out of the know 02:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Cheney hunting incident(does this really need a page?) Gosh no, why would we need a page on that, it got barely a mention in the media, why it's as if it never happened, almost. NPOV much? Gzuckier 21:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: "Allegations" does not inherently contain a viewpoint that the allegations under discussion are valid or invalid. "Criticism" does not inherently contain a viewpoint on whether the criticism under discussion is well-founded and proportionate. "Misconceptions", however, inherently advocates the viewpoint that one side is the truth and the other is just "misconceptions". -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I've said it before and I'll say it again...why is Al Gore not allowed to have a criticisms section, either as a separate article or (better) on his main Wikipedia bio page, when almost every other public figure from Presidents to stand up comedians on Wikipedia does? The "controversies" page is not a criticism page, it is an obnoxious fork intended to split off and then remove criticism of Al Gore from his Wikipedia biography. How can we justify treating him completely differently than any other public figure and still argue that the main article has a shred of neutrality? As it stands now, his Wikipedia biography reads like a press release for an upcoming election bid. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.38.150 (talk • contribs)
- Comment You make a very good point. In order for Al Gore controversies to not be a POV fork of Al Gore, Al Gore must contain NPOV summaries of the major controversies ("major" meaning we don't really need to make room for something like the "Gore said that Love Story was based on him and Tipper" thing or something else that non-substantial). However, even though there is an Al Gore#Controversies header, there's nothing there but a link to Al Gore controversies, and the only one of the controversies I see touched on in the article is the "created the Internet" kerfuffle. This is not acceptable and must be addressed, either by creating the appropriate NPOV summaries in the main article or by merging back to the main article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I would suggest that both articles be returned to the original under the title "Controversies and Criticisms", as was suggested once before, and they can then be summarized and NPOV'ed by the usual editorial process. As it is, both articles basically exist outside of the Wikipedia process and represent dueling POVs. There is information in both articles that, unless it in some way represented in Al Gore's main biography, gives us an incomplete view of the man. If we continue to allow this kind of splitting off (even at the short term gain of some civility or stability in the editorial process) we'll lose the heart of the main article.
- Comment No criticism pages. Really those are the worst things you can do to wikipedia. It's just my humble opinion but no living person should have a criticism page. They are nothing more than pov magnets. Controversy pages are fine (Al Gore does have one) because there has to be some sort of legitimacy behind accusations. This page has little or nothing to merge. Jiffypopmetaltop 04:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I understand your feelings about criticisms pages/sections, we are probably all sick of them. But the fact is virtually every article on Wikipedia on a major living public figure contains a criticism/controversy section. I'm not sure how we cannot have one on Al Gore and argue that we are being neutral. As you say, they are POV magnets but that doesn't remove our responsibility for addressing these issues in a NPOV way in the main Al Gore article. It sure makes it easier not to have them in the main page, but it doesn't make the article better, it makes it worse. I'm very leery of just having a section called "Controversies" without the term "Criticisms"; semantic debates on the definition of the term "Controversy" have been used in the past to delete large sections of biographical material on Gore, and it's become a sore point for some contributors. I'm not saying those sections shouldn't have been deleted or edited, I just would have liked a better argument for dumping them than that they don't fit a strict definition of the term controversy. I think our primary focus should be on making better articles, even if that sometimes makes things harder for us, having to deal with POV nuts and flamers. As things stand now, I'm worried we are copping out of our responsibilities. No doubt, the Al Gore page is a magnet for attack right now because of his visibility, but many pages go through these periods and still maintain a civil discussion process and ultimately a neutral POV. If we have problems with this article and the "Controversies" article, I think it is best to return them to the main page and deal with them there, fact by fact, issue by issue. Just deleting them or favoring one over another is going to cause a justifiable resentment to the whole process. We'll have avoided dealing with the issues and over time it will just get worse.
Delete - POV pushing rewrite. Most inappropriate. The title itself is simply very awkward. Smee 08:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per op --Kim D. Petersen 18:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep or at minimum Merge Precedent has been set with George W. Bush. Wikipedia currently has pages named Criticism of George W. Bush, Public perception of George W. Bush, and Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush and within the Bush article itself there are George W. Bush Domestic perceptions and George W. Bush Foreign perceptions sections. As a matter of fact, even the Al Gore article contains a substantial Criticism of Bush Administration section! --Jayzel 18:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia also has articles titled Bushisms and a 115 kilobyte long joke called Movement to impeach George W. Bush. --Jayzel 18:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is the fabulous article entitled George W. Bush substance abuse controversy which accuses Bush of being a "Dry Drunk" on the word of some unknown hack from Iowa without a license to practice medicine adn without ever meeting the man. Seriously, people, Wikipedia is never going to be taken seriously when this blatant bias is allowed to run rampant here. Any and all negative information regarding certain select politicians is continuously segregated from main articles or censored altogether while other politicians are smeared repeatedly. This has got to stop --Jayzel 19:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayzel, one reason the George W. Bush substance abuse controversy article was created was because a number of editors (myself in particular) spent 4 months arguing to keep it out of the GWB article. After a "vote" the majority of editors compromised to create the daughter article...so some of the articles you mention are actually cut from the main GWB article either due to a need to follow summary style or to have a place to expand on the precise issues. There is also the George Bush military service controversy...we can't forget that one!--MONGO 11:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning those articles right to exist, I'm questioning the attempt to delete this article when precedence has already been set with the creation of the Bush articles. Many of the Bush criticism articles have survived AFD, therefore this one should as well. --Jayzel 13:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I must have missed a memo. I didn't realize our mission statement had been changed, so that we are now honor-bound to assist the public in determining what is significant and in forgetting the vast quantity of trivial dreck which they are fed each day. Because there are already a zillion sites devoted to "the 10 most important uncovered stories of 2006" etc. which we could follow. Gzuckier 14:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to smear all politicians equally. I don't think that any of the articles you mentioned should exist. Why create or sustain another article that shouldn't exist in the first place. Also, I hope that our past conflicts aren't playing into your decisions here. Jiffypopmetaltop 22:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't the slightest idea who you are and I'd appreciate it if you did not put words into my mouth (In addition to attempting to censor my comments on the Talk:Al Gore page. If there are valid criticisms of public officials they should be mentioned and articles should exist; If there are well-known and documented smears they should also exist. It is not up to us to determine if something is unfair. If the info can be validated by reliable sources that is all that matters. However, it is hypocritical and extremely damaging to this website to try to delete an article dealing with criticisms of an important public figure without a Wikipedia-wide purging of all criticism of everyone. --Jayzel 23:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Holy cow, I've read the main Al Gore article I don't know how many times and never connected the fact that, in an article where we don't allow a criticism section about its subject, there is a long criticism section of another public figure (Bush). I guess by logic, if we want to see public criticisms of Gore or his administration we need to go to the Bush page. In all seriousness, I think this illustrates the problem with not having a criticisms section. As it stands right now, the article allows Gore's criticisms of other public figures and topics, but doesn't allow any criticism of him or his actions. This policy just can't be regarded as fair or non biased and its a recipe for long term disaster. Ultimately it will make the article one sided and neuter the subject.
Delete. One article per topic oughta do it. Gzuckier 21:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Warning to all concerned User Jayzel is drumming up support on other pages trying to influence the vote and also adding unsigned comments to this page in order to persuade the discussion. Check the history of this page and of Jayzel contributions. Jiffypopmetaltop 00:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like this drumming up of support from the nominator?

Al Gore criticisms and misconceptions, created yesterday, is clearly a WP:POV fork of Al Gore controversies. It should be AFD'd. Derex 02:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That notice was left on Talk:Al Gore which is both standard and appropriate.Derex 02:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for your other charge, libel is not taken lightly. You'd better have a solid case. --Jayzel 00:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case? Is court now in session. Anyway, I am cutting off contact here. I will stay away from you, you stay away from me. Just like our old unspoken agreement. Have fun. Jiffypopmetaltop 00:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats are not taken lightly either. User has been blocked indefinitely by an ANI admin. Derex 07:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your dreams. --Jayzel 13:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we can get back to the discussion now, I see that the main Al Gore article has had the above discussed "Criticism of Bush Administration" section removed. I don't see how this helps things or the article; these are Gore's own words and personal beliefs, I can't think of much more essential to summing up a man. I think we are better suited by publishing Gore's criticisms of other people and the criticisms of him, just like every other public figure on Wikipedia. It is essential that we have both sides of the story if we are going to understand him as a man and try to give a clear view of his life. At this rate the article will have absolutely nothing left except that Al Gore owned a dog, and then that section will be removed by someone who owns a cat. BTW, so that everyone can clearly know my bias on these issues, I own a cat.

I think we should delete the dates of birth (and of death, where appropriate) of people. I mean, what possible use could that be to people? Gzuckier 15:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Humorous, but please sign your comments. Regards, --Jayzel 01:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, POV fork. Andrew Levine 02:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I an going to be Henry Clay here. Everyone shouls come to an agreement on how this article should be worded. If you don't think an article on Al Gore's downsides should be included in Wikipedia, that's fine. But you should have a criticism section on his regular article. All politicians have their downsides and none of them, are perfect. George Bush isn't perfect and Hillary Clinton isn't perfect. Come to an agreement on what to do with this article.

Mrld 23:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once again, POV fork. And redundant. Not to mention unprofessional and unencyclopedic.--Jackbirdsong 04:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redundant argument carries no weight as the Talk:Al Gore controversies page shows, large portions of text have been deleted with the argument that the text was regarding criticisms of Gore and not regarding controversies of Gore. Therefore, a "Criticism of Al Gore" page is needed to cover the deleted information. --Jayzel 13:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

Janemba[edit]

The result was speedy redirect. No reason for this to be at AfD. A Train ^{take the} 16:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article on a character from a single Dragon Ball film. Its content is almost exclusively a plot summary. I'm recommending a redirect, because I am reasonably certain TTN has already adequately merged any salvagable content into a main list. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of aliens in Dragon Ball#Janemba per above. This has been way to drawn out. Nemu 03:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No need for this to be at AfD. A Train ^{take the} 16:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bojack[edit]

This is an article on a character from a single Dragon Ball film. Its content is almost exclusively a plot summary. I'm recommending a redirect, because I am reasonably certain TTN has already adequately merged any salvagable content into a main list. Also note that despite the title, this is actually the first nomination for this particular Bojack. I am reasonably certain the first is a completely unrelated topic. The title here is for disambiguation purposes only. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of aliens in Dragon Ball#Bojack per above. This has been way to drawn out. Nemu 03:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train ^{take the} 16:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tullece[edit]

This is an article on a character from a single Dragon Ball film. Its content is almost exclusively a plot summary. I'm recommending a redirect, because I am reasonably certain TTN has already adequately merged any salvagable content into a main list. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball#Tullece per above. This has been way too drawn out. Nemu 03:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an article on Tullece in List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball so we should delete this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghadden (talk • contribs).

The point of redirects are to be able to link to the section (which is not an article) or article it belongs in. Nemu 03:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlevse 21:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google distance[edit]

The paper that defined this wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal, nor, as far as I can tell (from citeseer/citebase) were any of the three article which cite it (and two of those are by the author of the original paper). It has a reference from New Scientist (here, which is offline, see archived version) and one from Baseline (here, which I've never heard of, and which may have been written by the author of the original article as well). I believe that the lack of references from reliable published sources independent from the author of the article which originates the term indicates that this isn't a notable term. Sopoforic 03:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete It seems more a definition which would be better in wikitionary or whatever it's called. I can't see any particular information in the article so I can't see any reason to keep it. Mike 15:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- irrelevant and fails to meet Wikipedia policies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astrotrain (talk • contribs) 16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. Vitanyi is an established scholar; I'm not concerned about the lack of peer review yet. But though his paper has attracted around 20 citations in Google scholar, it's not clear how many if any of them are about this "Google distance". A better source would seem to be The Google Similarity Distance by the same authors, but that's also a preprint with no citations yet. It seems premature to consider this encyclopedic. —David Eppstein 03:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bejnar: Merge into Semantic relatedness, Semantic similarity, or both (after those two are also merged). —David Eppstein 22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

very Weak keep The present evidence for N is that New Scientist thought this worth an article. Many items in this field are now published only in arXiv, even by the very best scholars. But since this isn't peer-reviewed publication, they would have no be established by citations of the articles from unquestionable sources. All the alternatives to conventional peer review make use of subsequent citation as the test for quality--which is reasonable because such citation is from the same group from whom the reviewers would have come. I would consider one additional one to New Scientist enough. I think if necessary this might prove to be a good test case for how to deal with these non-conventional quality control systems, but it would not do so until it has been widely cited in convention publications. I suggest re-creating it at a later date with the references that will have accumulated. DGG 07:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree that enough citations, even from non-peer-reviewed sources, would make this worth keeping. I'm only just on the side of deleting this, which is why I mentioned everything I could find in the nomination; a few extra (reasonable) sources would make me think this ought to be kept. It is written (somewhere, probably, I think) that things published by known scholars on e.g. their own webspace should be considered also as probably reliable. I just think that this probably isn't notable enough, yet. --Sopoforic 12:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found this announcement for a refereed paper that's supposed to appear next month. I also found this paper, which defines a different quantity as the "google distance". With two substantially different definitions wandering around, it may be too soon to write about this concept for Wikipedia. DavidCBryant 17:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With all due respect the arguments for deletion strike me as weak.

The article provides more than a definition by providing the algorithm used for measuring Google Distance and this is of some interest. What's provided may be insufficient but this merely justifies a Stub tag and not deletion.
I'm just flummoxed by the suggestion that this concept is irrelevant since the way Google measures website popularity and related notions has been in the news and the subject of lawsuits.
If there is confusion between the concepts of "Google Distance" and "Google Similarity Distance" then that should be cleared up. But I don't see how that in itself is grounds for deletion.
The article mentioned by David Eppstein is in the IEEE Transactions of Knowledge and Data Engineering , The Google Similiarity Distnce

Also, four articles came up on the ACM digital library in regards to "google distance", and, what can I say, found over 800 hits when I googled "google distance". There is no question that the article needs to be improved, but I'm not seeing how any of these are grounds for deletion. Could something cite the specific Wiki policy that they think is relevent here? A B Carter (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy I was concerned about when I nominated it was WP:N. Specifically, the part about being the subject of multiple independent non-trivial works. Granted that a google search for "google distance" yields a few hundred results, but a fair number of those are unrelated, and many of the related ones are from blogs and such. I agree that the case for deletion is pretty weak--I just also think that the case for keeping the article is pretty weak. Basically, especially given how happy the media is to report on google, I'd expect that if something like this could be called notable, a couple of newspapers/magazines (in addition to new scientist) would have mentioned it. That may have happened, and, if so, we ought to keep the article; however, I couldn't find such mentions.

Incidentally, as far as I can tell, this Google distance isn't Google's celbrated sorting algorithm that they use (i.e. pagerank), but some other thing which happens to use google as a tool. So, I don't think that the notability of google necessarily implies that this is notable. --Sopoforic 01:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I was initially confused on this point. I would also agree that as a consequence notability is an issue, though I'm still for a weak keep. A B Carter (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "… some other thing which happens to use google as a tool." It's a measure of lexicographic similarity. It's one of the first attempts to use the actions of a large number of individuals (their choice of words for web pages) as the basis of artificial intelligence. If you haven't looked at the article recently, you might want to read it again. DavidCBryant 13:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notability. SakotGrimshine 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge per Bejnar. Many references to "google distance" in google scholar. This is a rather similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurolinguistics. John Vandenberg 13:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all that convincing. I only got 19 references of which 6 referred to articles by Vitanyi, 3 to "google distance learning", 2 to Poesi which appear to offer a different notion of "google distance" and 5 of unknown origin. I'm still a weak keep but this offers no additional support, in fact, it kinda weakens it for me. A B Carter (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Semantic relatedness. This is not a new idea, "semantic distance" has been measured for years using a variety of different algorithms. See for example [3]. This does not deserve its own article. --Bejnar 22:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we have a winner! Merge is an excellent option. The entry is clearly on the cusp: I wouldn't have given it an entry but now that there is one I'm reluctant to simply delete it. A merge allows us to keep the contribution in some form; if later research supports it it can always be split off into its own entry. A B Carter (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems an excellent choice. There is not enough here for a separate article.NBeale 10:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge into something and leave a redirect to that page. Reason: reading the article I actually found what is the formula. It is more appropriate as an example in an article about semantic connectedness or something like that. Having an article by itself probably is not justified, but erasing the whole info?..:Dc76 00:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 08:01Z

List of techie films[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another vague list attempting to create a connection between films that actually have little in common. Croxley 03:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Inevitably POV and OR. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Travelbird 08:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate list and directory. Otto4711 16:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOT. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 18:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep doesn't fit the reason given to delete it. I don't see why the other voters consider it "vague" POV and OR. I don't see any of those problems in the article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "techie" is vague, and the list is filled with vague inclusions. There is a bit of merit to lists of this ilk; consider List of films that feature computers, or List of films that feature Linux, List of films that feature Apple and List of films that feature Microsoft OSs (by feature, I mean really feature; I'm sure another word would be more appropriate). John Vandenberg 13:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: the Heymann Standard at work. Thanks to Dhartung for his efforts on this. Chick Bowen 17:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tired and emotional[edit]

This article has several problems. Chief among them is that it does not cite its sources and relies on original research. Since it refers to popular usage its assertion of notability is not verifiable. Most importantly, there are living persons issues, since it implies an accusation of drunkenness. It has been transwikied to Wiktionary, but I doubt much of this material will be used there for the same reasons. Chick Bowen 03:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per nom, which is a shame since it's kind of entered popular culture. It might be possible to dig up some citations for people being described in this manner, but then there's the issue of figuring out whether it's being used euphemistically or whether the individual was really just tired and emotional. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now that sources have been added and the potential (which IMO is always going to be there, but there's nothing we can do about it) for a BLP violation reduced. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as there appear to be plenty of sources showing the origin from Private Eye and its currency (i.e. discussing same) as a bit of newspaper jargon (as opposed to slang, which it isn't clear it is). The phrase is included in the Oxford Dictionary of Idiom. --Dhartung | Talk 04:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Other references in which it's included: Cassell's Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins, Brewer's Dictionary of Modern Phrase & Fable. A biography of Brown was actually titled Tired and Emotional. --Dhartung | Talk 04:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your work sourcing this. It's still on the edge as far as I'm concerned, but you've certainly made progress. I removed the section I considered a WP:BLP problem. Chick Bowen 04:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that there are some sources, the page is worthy of inclusion. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 04:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is definitely worthy.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --JuntungWu 12:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 08:00Z

Ed Reams[edit]

Non-notable and vanity; please see article text and history. Takeel 03:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of an attempt to assert notability (unless every TV production staff member is notable by default...) and a lack of reliable sources leave the article devoid of any encyclopedic value. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. John Reaves (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Travelbird 08:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keep I userfied the one line he wrote. However, Ed Reams is mentioned on the WHSV article as the director. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 12:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A TV station director is rarely going to meet the primary notability criterion, and this one certainly doesn't. A Train ^{take the} 16:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, no attempt to assert notability, fails WP:BIO.--– Dakota 23:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He was formerly a reporter at TV-3 (a dab page), if that means anything to anyone. John Vandenberg 13:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Online Poker Players Tour[edit]

Entirely non-notable vanity entry linked from and to article creators only other (unrelated) article. Apparently it is just an affiliate's idea of running tournaments at various sites. Even if it were something other than advertising, the first event was just a few days ago so it has established zilch notability yet. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. 2005 03:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not sure what the correct procedure to respond to this is, if I'm doing something wrong here, by responding here, please let me know the correct method. Was surprised to see someone marking the article for deletion before I had even finished writing it, but I'll respond to the concerns here. Firstly you mention linked to an unrelated article, as clearly indicated on both articles, the relationship is that the company it is linked to is (UTC)sponsoring the page in question.

The site is clearly content based, with a small number of advertisements for companies supporting the venture. It is primarily a community for enthusiasts to compete in a worldwide competition and a site with tutorials and guides for new players.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Julesl (talk • contribs)

Please read this section of "What Wikipedia is not." And in the future, please sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~ or the signature button at the top of your edit screen.--Vbd | (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, thanks for the tip. Yes I did read that link, as far as I understand it, my article is posted from a neutral point of view and, I believe, written in an unbiased style, no claims are made, simply statements of fact. --Julesl 04:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, so probably fails WP:WEB. No one seems to link to it, either [4]. eaolson 04:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See WP:CORP for notability guidelines specifically for corporations and organizations. Primary criteria include independent and reliable sources, neither of which are included in the article.--Vbd | (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to say I wanted to know how long Jules1 had been a member of Wikipedia because before I say anymore if this person is a newbie can Wikipedians please remind themselves of the policy 'dont bite the newcomer.' Aside though, I have visited the poker site link on the article and on the front page it says it is new and therefore is not notable yet. I speak from experience that I created an article which was quickly deleted - so I know how it feels! --PrincessBrat 11:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. SmartGuy 21:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I can certainly understand the point of view that the website/organisation is not "notable" enough yet. --Julesl 13:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As others have said, this organisation isnt notable yet, and it is pretty decent of Julesl to acknowledge that. Good luck with the venture and if you want to hang around, there is a "WikiProject" for poker that you may be interested in. :-) John Vandenberg 14:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 subsequent re-creation. DS 14:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Gemini Awards[edit]

This is a list of nominees for a People's Choice Award; it does not even designate the winner. It is an example of what WP is not: a directory or an indiscriminate list of information. It is non-notable and non-important. (It is also misleadingly entitled "2006 Gemini Awards" when it only provides information about a single award.) Vbd | (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It lacks focus and context, and it fits the description of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There's no need to record every nominee for a single award in one article. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, it's a list of nominees and nothing more. - Denny 05:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least Cleanup. The Gemini Awards are a notable Canadian award, but this is just an indiscriminate and unordered list of supposed nominees. --Charlene 08:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gemini Award until a proper article for the ceremony is written. Caknuck 08:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Caknuck. Notable award, the Canadian version of the Emmy, and as such an article on the 2006 award ceremony is notable and justified, but I don't get why someone would simply create an article for a single award category. 23skidoo 13:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification per nom. Please note that there is a Category:Gemini Awards and a subcat Category:Gemini Award winners. This Afd is just a random article included in the former. There are no pages about the Gemini Awards broken down by year; there are articles listing the winners of specific awards, such as the Earle Grey Award. I would support the creation of an article for the "People's Choice Award" that lists its annual winners, not all of the nominees in a given year.--Vbd | (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --JianLi 08:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this article can be cleaned up. Would you ever suggest an article on the Emmy Awards be AfD'd? So why the Canadian equivalent? -- Zanimum 15:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't an "article about the Canadian equivalent of the Emmy Awards". It's a list with no context of nominees for 1 award in 1 year of said award show. Who's going to clean it up and what should it be in the mean time? Leebo⁸⁶ 15:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 08:00Z

VH1's The Nations Favourite Lyric[edit]

Meaningless article with little value and no supporting detail. Grimhim 04:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable list of a one-time survey on VH1. - Denny 05:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Travelbird 08:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless. Should be mentioned on LyricWiki... ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 16:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary and no added value.05:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colby High School[edit]

Not notable, would fail Wikipedia:Schools John Reaves (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alright, yes, I'm going to be completely biased because this is my high school, and I am the author of the original article. It has survived since October, and I've kept an eye on it for maintenance. I will admit that I wrote the article tongue in cheek, and it certainly needed some citations. NOW, though, user Noroton (talk · contribs) has done an amazing job of assembling (factual) information on Colby High School. And, though some of you may argue that it's not an article worth having on Wikipedia, I wholly disagree. As Sefringle (talk · contribs) commented, Wikipedia has many articles over schools many people wouldn't hear of otherwise. The notable alumni definitely helps my cause... it's not every opera singer that pops out of a conservative NW Kansas school. If you haven't been here, let me tell you, not succumbing to the pressure to be a farmer or housewife is an accomplishment (we live in 1950). By the way, Colby High School is on Google. --Buglindseybee 01:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately as it's a suprisingly well-written article, but makes no assertion of notability and a Google search isn't turning anything up. Catbag 04:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well done article as said, but fails to assert notability for schools. - Denny 05:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep considering we have articles for hundreds of other non-notable high schools.--Sefringle 07:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Denny. We indeed have thousands of other articles on high schools. As long as it's a real school that is publically licenced I don't see a ground for deletion. Travelbird 08:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or WP:BJAODN You guys are kidding right? Are we reading the same page? From the article "Until 1995, Colby High School was located on Third Street, but the need for a larger building was recognized, and thus emerged the building that accommodates the students and teachers now. The building makes up for its lack of windows and originality with a large technology lab and a fully-stocked art room." This article is rediculous and unsourced, though it did give me a good laugh.EnsRedShirt 09:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep removed most if not all the copy vio. But it needs to be sourced badly... EnsRedShirt 04:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but only as a stub. It's a real school, but most of the information in this article is either original research, or a copyvio from http://www.publicschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/30941 . Strip out the speculation/satire and stick to the facts, and then the article's worth keeping. --El on ka 10:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -per nom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astrotrain (talk • contribs) 15:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This is one of the better written notable high school articles. The article however; is original research and copyvio. Tagged with clean up, cited sources and added a reflist for the sources. --Masterpedia 16:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High schools are inherently notable, as I argue here. Noroton 18:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noroton, and I endorse much of his essay. Newyorkbrad 19:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I'm not sure where the concept of "inherently notable" comes from, but this Afd does not meet the WP notability guideline for organizations (which includes schools). The argument that it should be kept because WP has articles for hundreds of other non-notable high schools is specious -- we should be deleting those articles for the same reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vbd (talk • contribs) 22:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Agree that high schools are important to those who attended them but this one, and many others, fail to meet the core notability requirement for any organization which includes schools. Warfieldian 23:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Schools are NOT inherently notable, and WP has thankfully been cracking down on these (I remember last summer it was almost impossible to delete an article on a high school if the school was real). This is just another non-notable school. TJ Spyke 00:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noroton, though I think this article needs a few references and could to with a wikify.LordHarris 04:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Notable alumni has always been regarded as a factor in N. In this case there are, two, one widely known and one less so, which as the only N factor is borderline but in my opinion enough. DGG 07:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep WP:SCHOOLS is not a policy, I'm not sure how this would fare with beefstew, but there is a minor claim to notability in terms of the fact that there are multiple notable alumni. Willie Stark 19:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I haven't been able to find a guideline that says that having "multiple" (in this case, two) notable alumni makes a high school notable. Can someone please point me to a source that says so? I know WP:SCHOOLS isn't a policy or guideline, but WP:ORG is and it doesn't mention notable alumni in its criteria for notability (neither does WP:SCHOOLS).--Vbd | (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a policy as much as it is implied and relies on common sense. If a school has produced multiple personalities which are notable for WP:BIO, the school is notable. You see something similar to this in WP:MUSIC when a newly formed band has multiple notable members. Policy mixes and changes. Willie Stark ^{"Believe in Me!"} 01:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a notable school, with notable alumni. --Carioca 03:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not have adequate independent references; since this is a bedrock requirement in our community the article fails. I don't feel that the claim of notability on alumni grounds is adequate, as everyone has to be educated somewhere. If notability transfers from a student to a school, why does it not transfer from a customer to a shop ? I do note that both cited alumni are musicians; if it can be shown that the school specifically develops musical talent in its pupils I'd be inclined to change my view, but otherwise I feel this should go. The assertion that all schools are notable I have addressed in many previous AfD debates; I am opposed to the idea that we should relax standards of notability for the special case of schools. WMMartin 15:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its a interesting read and has a bunch of new Wikipedians contributing that haven't yet been formerly welcomed. Buglindseybee (talk · contribs) is doing a good job of keeping the vandalism under control. The claims to notability are borderline, but given a bit of time and guidance, additional rationale for keep may be found. If not, it can be renominated after a month if its not improving. John Vandenberg 14:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with a pedophile theme[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No context or information, just a list of (largely unlinked) and unreferenced titles. I've seen quite a few of the films on the list; many of them only feature a brief sub-plot about a pedophile, some don't include any pedophile themes. Croxley 04:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably impossible to verify, and moreover almost certainly consists of original research, and surely will be an endless honeypot for it, since it's highly subjective what constitutes a "pedophile theme" (not to mention the broken grammar in that phrase. --Haemo 08:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is, but not as a bar to a better-titled article restricting itself to listing films for which an independent citable source had discussed a significant element of pedophilia(I'm sure plenty could be found for, e.g., Lolita). bd2412 T 12:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete as indiscriminate list and directory. Otto4711 16:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Responding to comments above: all films are clearly linked by the topic of pedophilia - sometimes as the major them, sometimes as a minor theme. A much more detailed list with back up infomration and links etc can be found at Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films. That article, which I 'maintain', is divided into sections and is quite long. This list, which is (I agree)to some extent a duplication, puts all the films into one alphabetical list and so may be more useful for some wikipedians. It is easy to verify all the films though the above article and by visiting Imdb or Amazon etc. Most wiki lists are structured like this one. Tony 17:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Tony ps Haemo is strickly correct on the grammar, but 'List of films with a pedophiliac theme' would be clumsy and most learned articles on pedophilia now use pedophile as an adjective as well as a noun. Pedophiliac is seldom used.[reply]

Convert to cat: This list is pretty much a duplicate in purpose of Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films neither serve any purpose as an article that couldn't be better served as a category. A category would have the additional benefit of a tag on the individual articles that could then be verified by editors more familiar with the content of the films. --Monotonehell 18:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable aspect of films. Good use of duplication of imformation. WP:LIST - Navigation. - Peregrine Fisher 18:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a significant common thematic element.--JayHenry 22:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons given so far. This is certainly a notable topic. Also, it should be noted that Otto4711 has nominated a very large number of film lists for AfD and in AfD debates seems to hold the opinion that Wikipedia should be list-free. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Changing my vote to Redirect to Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that not only did I not nominate this article for deletion but your claim that I think Wikipedia should be list-free is a complete fabrication and utter misrepresentation of my position. I would appreciate it if you feel compelled to comment about me you would refrain from lying. Thank you. Otto4711 15:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I've never seen you argue to keep a list, and much of the time, most of your reasons given in arguments to delete lists boil down to little more than "lists are bad." Furthermore, knowing something about the sheer volume of list-related deletions you're involved in right now (most with a canned statement of flaws when you were the nominator) may put your comments here in context. If you wish to use strong accusations such as calling me a liar, please go to my talk page for it instead of cluttering this AfD. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you have not happened to see me support a list does not reasonably translate into "believes Wikipedia should be list-free." Characterizing my nominations of various lists as "lists are bad" is another misrepresentation. And I will continue to call you out on your misrepresentations and fabrications when and where you make them, even if you do prefer that I hide them away on your talk page. Otto4711 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films. No need for the duplicate, so let's use the better article. --UsaSatsui 10:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable aspect of films. --Masterpedia 03:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Convert to cat as per discussion above --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 15:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films. I was looking at Category:Pedophilia and saw that these duplicate topics were included. I was going to consider suggesting merging them, when much to my surprise, I found onen of them up for deletion! This list doesn't constitute original research, though. Macarenaman 08:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletproof Chinese[edit]

Likely neologism. No sources. Googling for "bulletproof Chinese" yields very few results, many of which are not relevant here. Contested prod. eaolson 04:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Likely the author's neologism, failing WP:NFT. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 05:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism, doesn't meet criteria; per nom. - Denny 05:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought this was the sequel to Bulletproof Monk. Croxley 06:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this even a real thing?--Sefringle 06:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism and/or hoax Travelbird 08:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Travelbird. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 19:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think this is an actual hoax. For example, see [5]. I just think it's a term that hasn't caught on yet. eaolson 19:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be original research, and highly POV. Ohconfucius 07:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a few reliable sources are added to the article. John Vandenberg 14:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Zevita[edit]

American Idol Season 6 contestant who was eliminated in the first round of "Hollywood Week." (quoting from article) Clearly non-notable per WP:BIO. Bringing here to get consensus for deletion and salting because it has been created at this title and Rachel zevita no less than 4 times in all. Awyong J. M. Salleh 04:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:BIO that I can see. 5 minutes of fame isn't notable. - Denny 05:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Denny Travelbird 08:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt away. bd2412 T 12:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and salt as well. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 19:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE Other contestants who were voted off of American Idol have articles, so why not Rachel Zevita who has already accomplished more than most musicians and is on her way to being very successful. At least give her some time. Is it a requirement that an artist be famous to have an article on Wikipedia? She is obviously notable by that fact that her fans keep reposting for her and do not want her deleted. If Wikipedia is only a place where people can come to look up information on people they already know everything about, then what is the point of it all anyways?'Moellering2007'— Moellering2007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Awyong J. M. Salleh 08:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that a person is voted off American Idol does not automatically guarantee them an article. The existence of other articles on people who've been voted off may simply mean that we haven't gotten around to deleting them yet; this article just coincidentally got nominated for deletion earlier than them.
- "Is it a requirement that an artist be famous to have an article on Wikipedia?" - In a word: Yes. In many words: look here.
- "She is obviously notable by that fact that her fans keep reposting for her and do not want her deleted" - The fact that a page keeps getting reposted does not mean a thing. Some automated programs post spam pages many times over as well; and last I saw there was a page filled with nonsense on the number pi that was created no less than ~~four~~ nine times. They don't want their spam/nonsense deleted either. How many times a page is created tells us absolutely nothing about its encyclopedic worth.
- "Wikipedia is only a place where people can come to look up information on people they already know everything about" - you're missing the point. Wikipedia doesn't discriminate on who gets included as long as they're all notable. Awyong J. M. Salleh 08:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO --MaNeMeBasat 12:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No achievements other than having been on the show. Even extras get paid, but I don't think she was. Without doubt, does not pass any criteria of WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Ohconfucius 07:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet notable. John Vandenberg 14:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected. DS 15:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Haussman[edit]

Article on Sky Haussman, a fictional character in the Revelation Space series, is nominated for deletion because individual characters are not encyclopedic topics by themselves unless they're major enough according to WP:FICT, which this is not really. There is already an entry for Characters_in_Revelation_Space, and I have already moved this material to the listing that was already there for this character, at Characters_in_Revelation_Space#Schuyler_.22Sky.22_Haussman_.2F_.22H.22. Even if it were argued that this character were of enough encyclopedic interest under WP:FICT for his own page, there are several much more notable characters in the Revelation Space series than this one, and they are all happily on the omnibus Characters_in_Revelation_Space page; those more major characters would all have to be convincingly shown to be major enough for their own pages before this character. For example, while this character is a major character in one of the 'RS' novels and has a cameo in a second one, the character Nevil Clavain is a major character of two of the 'RS' novels and the central character of two of the 'RS' short stories - if any 'RS' character were to get his own article, it would be him. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 04:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This individual character article isn't notable enough for the FICT rules, or major enough. Delete. - Denny 05:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge You've moved the material? Then merger is the option here, not deletion. Make it a redirect and be done with it. FrozenPurpleCube 06:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, my mistake. Since it was actually a merger, already effected, I edited the original page to a redirect. No content has been deleted. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 07:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (as-is) to help people find the content. John Vandenberg 14:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:54Z

Pylorus (band)[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 04:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a non-notable band - most likely a vanity page. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 04:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't assert notability, or meet the Music guidelines. - Denny 05:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable band. Parts read like an ad. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Travelbird 08:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP is not MySpace. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 20:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE! just because you haven't heard of a band doesn't mean that they're not nottible.Scubster 17:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Please do not shout. While it is wonderful that you are supporting local music, garage bands are not notable by standards of WP:MUSIC. Calm down, and read the standards. Shimaspawn 20:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ONCE again. there's a difference between a garage band and a band that has nottiblity in a different state that you live in. do you live in Indiana? do you know band that are from Indiana? didn't think so. my statement stands just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they're not nottible.Scubster 08:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I do live in Indiana. In fact, I don't live all that far from where they're supposedly famous, and you know what? I still haven't heard of them. Shimaspawn 14:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe they're "nottible", but around here, we're concerned about notability, and there is none here. Can you show some published articles about this band? Do they have an album? There's notability guidelines that you're more interested in ignoring than checking out. And for the record, just because you have heard of them doesn't mean they are notable. --UsaSatsui 10:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet notable. John Vandenberg 14:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly written, multiple breaches of POV and embarrassingly illustrated. No evidence they are anything but one of a million struggling bands yet to achieve success or recognition. Grimhim 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:53Z

Holmwoods[edit]

Google searches for the title and the name of the supposed director turn up nothing film-related. If this movie is real, it's never been seen. Djrobgordon 04:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as likely hoax. Travelbird 08:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very simple. If it is a notable film, then it would be possible to find something on the internet about it. I can't find anything about the film or director. It doesn't assert why the film, if it exists, is notable. Probable hoax. Adambro 16:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone trying to play around with Wikipedia, WP:V. Willie Stark 21:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also tried and conclude it is a hoax. John Vandenberg 14:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. When nominated, this was about an athlete, now it's about a porn star again. If someone thinks that person is nonnotable, they can renominate the article for deletion. Sandstein 18:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Andrews[edit]

Looks to be a biography of a thus-far non-notable individual and appears to be vanity. I would have nominated it for speedy deletion, but it seems to have an extensive edit history. Thisisbossi 04:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Article needs improvement. If the page is a borderline vanity, it should be userfied. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 04:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered userfying it, but with the edit history (which includes an apparent variety of editors), it just seemed odd that it would be such. Also, I can't tell if the ongoing edits by individuals are vandalism or not... everyone seems to change the entire context of the article and its very basic facts each time around. Not a single source when at least something is dearly needed. This seems to fail the Google test -- definitely doesn't seem notable. I'm somewhat thinking that all the editors may be personally involved with the individual which the article references. --Thisisbossi 04:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try a Google search to see if this guy is verifiable? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 04:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep: lots of Ben Andrews', but nothing as best I can tell relating to a guy from Portland other than the Wikipedia article, which tops the results. It's a relatively common name -- I know a Ben Andrews myself (though certainly not the Portlander)! --Thisisbossi 05:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, up until February 20, the article was about a gay porn actor of arguable notability. Then someone added something about a British businessman[6]. Earlier today someone replaced the article with the Portland HS athlete[7]. I believe we should revert to the porn actor and discuss notability for that version. --Dhartung | Talk 05:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the present person--his HS athletic accomplishments if real are probably N, though the bio is Vanity. There are 2 independent sources although not of high quality on Google, after searching for "Ben Andrews" Parkrose. His MySpace page link doesnt work. Per Dhartung, it does seem like someone is playing an elaborate multipart hoax at out expense, looking for different people of this name. First step is to change the titles so we can tell them apart, and relist. Alternatively, just delete this and watch if they start again. DGG 08:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:05, 27 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, BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 12:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:53Z

List of abbreviations for names[edit]

(View AfD)

WP:WINAD. This article is merely a list of names and how to abbreviate them (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so they have been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. There is strong precedent for this kind of deletion; recently, all lists of given names have been moved to Wiktionary and deleted.

See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman praenomina, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Modern Greek given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish given names Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swedish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latvian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kurdish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hispanic surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of hypocoristics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of counterparts of given names, etc.

Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 05:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear violation of WP:WINAD. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 05:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks any genuine information, even such basics as the superscript writing of non-inital letters, regionalistic variances, etc., etc. ThuranX 07:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic, and already transwikied. A Train ^{take the} 16:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as transwikied. And unless this is somehow sourced, I would recommend deleting from Wiktionary as well. Who's to say that "Henry" should be abbreviated "Hy." rather than "Hen." while "Patrick" is abbreviated "Pat." instead of "Pck."? -- Black Falcon 21:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WINAD and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE.--Vbd | (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:51Z

Bopsta[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:WEB. I got no hits on Google News, which leads me to believe there aren't a lot of independent articles about it. The site gets a ton of Google hits, but only twenty of them are unique. The site contains no original content. All videos are linked from other sources, such as YouTube and Google Video. The site's former name, "Google Idol" gets a good number of hits, but they're all blogs and ads. Again, no usable sources. The article is written like an ad. --Djrobgordon 05:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they contain the results of individual competitions hosted on this page:

Delete all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one fails to meet WP:WEB. - Denny 05:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Few independent sources = non-notable, non-verifiable. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main Bopsta article (see the "Bopsta in the media" section at the end of the article), but delete the rest. -- Black Falcon 21:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use the sources listed in the "Bopsta in the media" section to write a sourced, verifiable article for purposes of Wikipedia:Attribution... delete if this is not done before the end of AfD by someone with an interest in the subject. Delete OR Blank and Redirect all sub-articles to the main article. -- saberwyn 22:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Not notable. Does not meet web and notability guidelines. Big top 02:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. Sandstein 07:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ORGANISMuseum[edit]

Article fails WP:WEB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Christmas worldwide. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:49Z

Romanian Christmas traditions[edit]

This article is a stub, and has been for over 2 years. It has no reliable sources, and it is pretty clear that material to expand this does not exist or is scarce. I have moved all the relevant material on this article to Christmas worldwide, where stubs on this topic belong. Are we to have an article for every country in the Christmas worldwide article? There simply isn't enough material to warrent this having its own article seperate from Christmas worldwide, especially since some of the other countries Christmas traditions listed in Christmas worldwide have more content than this article, and they still don't have their own article for Christmas traditions. Sefringle 06:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Odd, my edit didnt take. Redirect. Sources undoubtably exist in Romanian language sources, but no one's added them. Redirect, a content matter. Someone can always go back and re-expand the article later if they do the research or it's worthwhile. - Denny 07:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until someone expands it into a useful article. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christmas worldwide. The text of this article is already in Christmas worldwide, so it may have already been merged, in which case it must be redirected per GFDL. If it wasn't merged (i.e., if this is a fork), then still redirect as it is a plausible (if not entirely common) search term. -- Black Falcon 21:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This could be a very interesting article but currently doesn't merit its place and doesn't have the sources. Suriel1981 09:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for the time being. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I can't say it better than Suriel1981 just did. Noroton 04:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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?)} 21:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoni Raz Portugali[edit]

non-notable journalist, Google search in Hebrew returns ~250 results if you don't include wikipedia results. Article was deleted from the Hebrew Wikipedia as non-notable. First nomination could be found here. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 06:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 06:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fail to see non-trivial mentions independent of the subject Alf photoman 14:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Clamecy[edit]

Cannot find any reference to this cathedral, even using variations of name and spelling. Original author has questionable history. It's a hoax or mistake. Glendoremus 06:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete No content--Sefringle 06:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm assuming it's a hoax. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely hoax, based on these factors, or an error. - Denny 07:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's NOT a hoax. Dozens of online tour guides refer to tours of "Clamecy Cathedral" ([8] and [9], for instance). Clamacy has a collegiate church, but for something like 600 years it was the home of the Bishop of Bethlehem! (Yes, that Bethlehem.) The cathedral is 13th century and may now be known as the Collegiate Church of St. Martin. If so, and if tour guides call it a cathedral, it's a legitimate entry, at least as a historical seat. By the way, for those who aren't Catholic, a "cathedral" is merely a church that is also the seat of a bishop. It doesn't have to be big or fancy. Given that the original creator appears to be a major contributor to articles on French churches, I suggest that this is legitimate and that the cathedral really does exist, at least as a historical entity. --Charlene 07:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as sources are sparse and it's a redlink request on FR fr:Portail:Bourgogne. The real name seems to be Eglise Notre-Dame de Bethléem à Clamecy[10][11][12] (it's the flattish dome building, not the one with the classic gothic tower). Unsure about the "monument" part (though here's a French government listing) or even a construction date. It seems it hasn't been a cathedral since 1790. --Dhartung | Talk 07:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to the barge tour people, it's 13th century. It appears to be a notable tourist destination, but there may not be that much out there about it online. --Charlene 08:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It this the church that Clamecy, Nièvre#Sights tells us (without citing sources) is now part of a hotel? Uncle G 12:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Cathedral exists but the page doesn't provide any meaningful information as it is now. Either expand considerably or delete. Travelbird 08:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I expanded it a bit, and it should now be acceptable as a stub. Travelbird 17:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- cathedrals are very notable Astrotrain 15:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a good faith stub. Some information from this afd should be added into the article. —siro χ o 17:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Medieval cathedrals and formal cathedral churches ought to be "notable" per se, without any further showing of fame or widespread knowledge. The best thing to say is that they are, in fact, encyclopedic. All that should be shown is that they existed, and I'm satisfied that's the case here. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung and Charlene. It also seems that a rename may be in order. -- Black Falcon 21:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Seat of the Bishop of Bethlehem from 1223 to 1790 sounds amazingly encyclopedic, and it now has several good references. Edison 23:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was not an actual bishopric, but a titular bishop, the diocese no longer existing after the failure of the Crusades.

No, it was an actual bishopric in partibus infidelium (a status the church abandoned in 1882). A titular bishopric is one assigned to a bishop without an actual diocese. --Dhartung | Talk 11:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep because none the less , certainly any Cathedral is N. I don't think it was claimed otherwise, the difficulty was just in verifying the correct name to find the sources. DGG 08:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for all the good input to my nomination. I'll concede the article is not a hoax but I do believe there's been a mistake--there is no church with the name Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Clamecy. There is a Collegiate Church of St. Martin in Clamecy (started in the 13th or 14 century); There is a Church of Notre Dame in Bethleem (built in 1926 or 1927); and there was another (smallish) church in Bethleem that may have technically been a cathedral at one time but has since been partially destroyed and converted into a hotel. [13] The article as it has been rewritten in the past 24 hours seems to be a pastiche of all three of these churches. My new vote would be to rename the article to one of the two existing churches and then add a second article to cover the other. The interesting and notable info about the Bishopric of Bethlehem could go with the Bethleem church or even stand alone as a third article.Glendoremus 17:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I found out the domey church was actually 1926 at some point yesterday, but I was too busy to follow up on my confusion. Interestingly, it is considered a landmark of 20th century architecture in Bourgogne[14][15], so probably deserves a listing. It isn't *the* former cathedral, but it's obviously the one with the frescoes! Now, the bit about the hotel seems to be that there is a chapel in what was a 12th century hospital established by Guillaume IV at the same time. It isn't clear to me that the hospital and chapel itself was the seat of the bishopric, but that seems to be what has become a hotel. Argh! --Dhartung | Talk 11:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no, it says so here[16]: Ancienne chapelle des évêques de Bethléem* 12ème remaniée 15ème (IMH), transformée en hôtel-restaurant. (Former chapel of the bishops of Bethlehem, 12th through 15th centuries, converted to a hotel-restaurant). That seems to be the clincher -- wish I'd found that 24 hours earlier! I think that the name Ancienne Cathédrale Notre-Dame-de-Bethléem (or Former Cathedral Notre-Dame-de-Bethléem is best; that is supported here[17]. I'll make a new article for the newer church as the architectural features are a small part of the article. For the record, I don't see that I confused it with the third church at all, but please point anything specific out. --Dhartung | Talk 11:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could go with Chapelle des évêques de Bethléem supported by this[18]. --Dhartung | Talk 11:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PSP 2[edit]

Product does not exist, nor has it been confirmed to be an existing product in the future. Juggaleaux 06:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wait until the product actually exists before making an article about it. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a rumour mill. Sandstein 07:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal ball, rumors, etc - Denny 07:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Crystal. Travelbird 08:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete till something solid comes, if ever. Whilding87 10:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Crystalballing. To quote the article "There have been no official reports from Sony, all information in this article is only rumored." What more needs to be said? Koweja 16:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Worthless collection of rumors and speculation. As per WP:CRYSTAL. Adambro 16:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 20:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom under crystal ball criteria. There is no such thing as PSP 2 yet, so don't expect this until Sony confirms that there will be a PSP 2. For right now, it's too soon to tell and it's too early to announce. Big top 02:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Big Delete, it hardly has any info and even admits it's nothing more than speculation and rumours.DreamingLady 10:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; when the product exists, it can have an article. Until then, it's just pure speculation. --Alan Au 23:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, use two balls here and close it now. —ptk✰fgs 05:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Serpentes 19:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:48Z

Workation[edit]

WP:WINAD, WP:ATT. Unattributed dictionary definition of a term, likely a neologism. Recreated after a PROD deletion. Sandstein 07:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Travelbird 08:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly violates WP:NEO. --Haemo 08:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism, failing the attribution policy and moreover, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Kyra_~(talk) 08:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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?)} 23:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Cycles[edit]

This article is blatant free advertising for a private business enterprise. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia--not an online "yellow pages." If allowed to stand, this article opens up the door for free advertising touting the product line of all private business enterprises. It constitutes a gross abuse of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Watson (talk • contribs) 2007-02-24 07:37:38

Creator Comment Seven Cycles clearly meets the criteria for a company to be included in Wikipedia. It has recently appeared in several independent magazine articles, a list of which can be found here: [19]. If citations are a problem I can add them, if wording is the issue it is a wiki and open to anyone to help. Also, it's possibly worth noting that the nominator has (impropery) nominated almost every page i've created for AFD because I nominated an article of his that was deleted as neologism (AFD debate here: [20]). Goodnightmush 03:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless sourced If there are magazine articles, please add them to the article, for at the moment is has no sources not derived from the business--there well might be, for there ought to be product reviews. Even so, the existing article with the extensive catalog of models is unsuitable. There;s also the problem that the sources would have to indicate that the company was a major manufacturer, either in quantity or in terms of notabliity for special quality or other features. Might be possible--go try. There is no point in talking about personalities, because if the subject can be sown to be notable it will be approved. DGG 08:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add several of the independent sources before the debate ends. Just need to get them together. Might be a day. Goodnightmush 18:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE I have added numerous links to assert the importance of the subject of the article in the external links at the article. If I had more time I would incorporate them. However, in that section alone they should suffice to close this debate in favor of keep. Here are a few examples: Review of the company in Bicycling Magazine, Bicycling Magazine article about one model, Velonews Article Goodnightmush 02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the article needs a huge clean up. As already mentioned the listing of the entire range is going to leave the article liable to deletion as spam. Nuttah68 13:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling#Case study in constructive dispute resolution for an earlier dispute about a cycling-related page. We resolved that dispute by trans-wiki'ing the unencyclopedic portions of Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais to Bicycling Wiki. --Teratornis 20:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - this is simply PR stuff. WikiPedia is not an advertising billboard, and we can't have articles about every company that has ever been mentioned in any magazine. NBeale 10:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Daniel.Bryant 08:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Workin Title:(Myspace Comedy Series)[edit]

This page seems to be a non-notable nonsensical article that might not quite meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. I just tagged it A1. - Denny 07:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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?)} 21:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Industry Nine[edit]

This article is blatant free advertising for a private business enterprise. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia--not an online "yellow pages." If allowed to stand, this article opens up the door for free advertising touting the product line of all private business enterprises. It constitutes a gross abuse of Wikipedia. Gregory Watson

Delete. The AfD nomination was not complete, so I completed it. I comfortably agree with the nominator's standpoint. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 07:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Travelbird 08:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam advertising. Wooyi 20:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creator Comment I don't why this article qualifies for AFD. There are over 160 pages about cycling manufacturers many smaller than Industry Nine. It has been reported on in independant reliable sources, including the most recent Dirt Rag and fairly recently in Mountain Bike Magazine. It is a large brand sold in hundreds of stores. I can see that it will need work to be a good article, and that's why its open to the public for merciless editing. I'll put in citations from those articles if the result is keep. Also, it's possibly worth noting that the nominator has (impropery) nominated almost every page i've created for AFD because I nominated an article of his that was deleted as neologism. Goodnightmush 03:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete unless notability is shown and sourced. Can you find outside sources, such as product reviews to show the the product is considered N in its specialty? DGG 08:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add several of the independent sources before the debate ends. Just need to get them together. Might be a day. Goodnightmush 18:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources. I've added sources in the external links section of the article showing the notability of the company. For instance: Review at Dirt Rag Goodnightmush 02:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple reliable sources confirming the claims of notability are provided per WP:V. Nuttah68 13:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling#Case study in constructive dispute resolution for an earlier dispute about a cycling-related page. We resolved that dispute by trans-wiki'ing the unencyclopedic portions of Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais to Bicycling Wiki. --Teratornis 20:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Very poorly sourced - we can't turn WikiPedia into a PR agency NBeale 10:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:48Z

Producer Israel[edit]

This person in question does not seem to pass WP:NOTE, because there are no independent, multiple works attributed to him. This seems to be a promotional article of a person, which would defeat WP:NPOV and WP:COI. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 08:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable, and most likely a vanity page. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 20:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Vbd | (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not useing this as a promotion i'm just telling the people what i do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.61.31.105 (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep There is no promotional stuff in this article
Speedy delete A7/G11, and per nom. Leuko 07:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete fails WR:MUSIC, WP:BIO and WP:CORP depending on how you read the article. Nuttah68 13:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special rights[edit]

Unnecessary content fork/POV fork from LGBT social movements. Fireplace 08:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki - this article does not have much to say about special rights other than a definition. Either it should go to Wiktionary (if it is notable, which I'm not sure it is) or just be deleted. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is used often enough to be considered notable. I've removed a decent chunk of the text than made seem like it was only applied to LGBT right. It is no longer a POV fork. Koweja 16:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Koweja. The article needs work, but the term has application beyond LGBT issues. It's widely used in relation to all kinds of affirmative action, civil rights, and hate crime debates. PubliusFL 16:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Koweja and PubliusFL. The article needs to be expanded a lot, but is worth keeping. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 20:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Koweja and PubliusFL. The term has general applicability and any orientation towrad LGBT issues has been removed by Koweja. -- Black Falcon 21:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, term has been in somewhat wide use for a long time. Dragomiloff 01:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Good work, people. DS 18:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Svalbard and Jan Mayen[edit]

Delete. There is no such thing. Svalbard and Jan Mayen are two distinct parts of Norway, they are never treated as the same. They already have their separate articles. Note also the conspicuous absence of any such page at no: and nn:. Dagnabit 08:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though Google does give plenty of hits on the phrase, these two things are not well connected in any way. Such "and" subjects are difficult to cover meaningfully without duplication when we already have separate articles giving reasonable coverage, and disambiguation just seems meaningless as was illustrated at this AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All meaningful information is already present in the separate articles, thus leaving us with an article which itself admits to being tenuous ("two separate parts of Norway" and the fact that they are linked only by a piece of "trivia"). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The article explains the rationale for keeping it: there apparently is an ISO 3166 country code "SJ" which stands for "Svalbard and Jan Mayen"; as a result there is also an assigned Internet domain set, .sj, with the same name. Someone seeing this code and not having heard of Svalbard and/or Jan Mayen may enter "Svalbard and Jan Mayen" into Wikipedia, and the search needs to lead the user to an article. Redirecting to either Svalbard or Jan Mayen would be inappropriate as the code relates to both locations and there is no basis for choosing the redirect target as between them. Accordingly, the short article we have is the best solution. Newyorkbrad 19:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the .sj page. Dagnabit 20:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is appreciated, but it still doesn't address the need for an article on "Svalbard and Jan Mayen" in case people enter that query. People from locations far from Norway may not have heard of either place, and they may see the phrase and think "where the heck is that" and should get an article in response to the query. Newyorkbrad 21:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite the existence of "Svalbard and Jan Mayen". Dagnabit 21:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do: [21], [22], [23], [24]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.147.229 (talk • contribs)

There is no evidence that "Svalbard and Jan Mayen" exists separately from Svalbard and Jan Mayen on those pages. They are just long lists with various misinformation. The UN is plain wrong. Please cite reliable sources. Dagnabit 22:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the UN considered an "unreliable source", sir? Most sources will tell you that Svalbard and Jan Mayen were administered together from the 1920ies up until 1994. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.147.229 (talk • contribs)

The UN is certainly a reliable source that it is a term, even if the term is wrong, we can have an article explaining that the term is wrong, which is what we have. However can you please provide a source for your last assertion, that says they were "administered together from the 1920's until 1994"? If that is truly the case, it should settle it: if nothing else, it is legitimate as a historical entity. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, sure: According to dates retrieved from this source Jan Mayen has been administered as follows:

1930-1994: by the governors of Svalbard

Since 1995: by the governors of Nordland County

This source quotes the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (on page 127) as stating that "Norway has restricted sovereignty on Svalbard (but not on Jan Mayen).

This is another source that briefly explains the current (i.e. post-1994) administration of Jan Mayen.

So, perhaps this reversion should also be overturned? 213.113.147.233

Keep though make it more clear it's a disambiguation page. FrozenPurpleCube 19:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newyorkbrad. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 20:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the .sj page. Dagnabit 21:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. Either keep per Newyorkbrad and clarify disambiguation per FrozenPurpleCube or redirect to .sj. -- Black Falcon 21:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I understand the two places are distinct parts, the term is used in ISO and many international documents. I agree with the points made by Newyorkbrad that there needs to be an article to explain "Svalbard and Jan Mayen". I think we can improve the current article to stress that the places are not administered together (see United States Minor Outlying Islands and for a similar situation). And finally, .sj is simply the ccTLD given to S&J, they're not the same either. Redirecting to .sj would likely confuse the reader more. Chanheigeorge 00:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Scattered islands in the Indian Ocean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.147.229 (talk • contribs)

Strong delete. Nonsense article. There is no such thing. This is like lumping Los Angeles and Dallas in an article, that's how close and closely related these islands are. TexasWalkerRanger 14:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. 129.241.71.164 11:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please note that the article is not about the islands: the intro sentence says "Svalbard and Jan Mayen is a statistical designation". -- Black Falcon 17:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For someone who knew almost nothing about the subject other than having seen the name on globes, rather near the top, I found the article quite informative. It explains the situation clearly, and answered several questions that I had. It's a shame to think that someone doesn't want me to read this information because of some nationalistic pov. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't follow the reasoning here. Nobody's trying to prevent anyone from reading about Svalbard or Jan Mayen. What people are arguing about, though, is whether it makes sense to have an article on the two of them together. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm talking about the encyclopedic information and links that are actually on this page, that are not present on any other pages. Why destroy access to that information, that may be of historical interest, for purely political considerations? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - - I still think that's an overreaction. The information (such as it is) can be moved to the pages on both islands if this article is deleted. Nobody's trying to "destroy access" to anything at all. I also totally fail to see where these "political considerations" are. As far as I can tell, the arguments are based on the validity or lack thereof of the designation, not politics. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given that it is a statistical designation used by the UN and many others, it would not hurt to have a semi-disambiguatory article on the subject. The text of the article does not leave any room for confusion that the islands somehow belong together geographically or administratively. Please note that the article does not write that the phrase "Svalbard and Jan Mayen" refers to two islands, but rather that it is a statistical designation. -- Black Falcon 17:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Svalbard and Jan Mayen" may be a nonsensical misnomer, but it's a well-documented one (ISO 3166, etc.) which needs to be explained. —Psychonaut 02:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the actual text of an ISO designation[25], the designation being the subject of the article, not the two separate areas - Sjakkalle is incorrect in suggesting that this is an "and" article . This might be made more clear in the article, to avoid the appearance that it is the name of a governmental administrative district or the like, emphasize Norwegian sovreignty, etc., or the whole article might be named something like "Svalbard and Jan Mayen (ISO designation)". Presumably Svalbard required a separate code because in some cases organizations would need to code for it separately, probably due to the signatory rights of the Svalbard Treaty. An interesting tidbit found here and perhaps suitable for inclusion in the article:

Since Svalbard was given a separate code in the ISO list, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs wanted to make it represent both Jan Mayen and Svalbard...An attempt to change the name of the ISO entry from ‘Svalbard and Jan Mayen’ to ‘Svalbard’ failed because the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not approve. - David Oberst 06:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Naturally, not to rehash the separate island articles, but to address the designation that is apparently used. A new article title (as suggested above) would be helpful to make this more clear. --Van helsing 13:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Wizardman 03:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Legion Baseball in Wisconsin[edit]

It's actually a shame there isn't an article on American Legion baseball in general. However, I can't see a reason for this article to exist. American Legion ball is on the same level as Little League, and I can't see having state by state articles for that. Except for copy editing and adding cats, the article hasn't been edited in a year, and the only real contributor is the original author. That leads me to believe this will never be more than the chart-without-context it is now. Only two mainspace pages link to it. Djrobgordon 08:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related article, which is nearly identical and was written by the same user:[reply]

Merge info from both into an article on American Legion baseball. Better than nothing. bd2412 T 12:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If I'd come across these charts in an article on American Legion baseball, I probably would have deleted them as an unencyclopedic. The truth is, state by state tournament results just aren't that important. WP doesn't have state championship results for High school football or Amateur Athletic Union basketball, and I don't think we should. --Djrobgordon 17:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. I have lived in Janesville, one of the champions, for most of my life, and I've never heard of this; maybe it's been up on the letter sign outside the Legion hall, but this seems unimportant even per WP:LOCAL. If the team is still active, it certainly isn't talked about much, so I assume it's of interest mainly to Legionnaires and their families. --Dhartung | Talk 20:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, no context given or assertion of importance. –Pomte 00:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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?)} 21:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Schmitter[edit]

Not notable. Nog Google hits. Is not famous. Webstite is not even up yet (see talk page) Sander123 08:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Darkspots 11:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing that shows reliable non-trivial secondary sources Alf^Photoman 01:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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?)} 23:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liselott Persson[edit]

Non-notable (at least outside of Sweden). I have been unable to find any English-language biographical information on her with which to expand this stub. Also, see comments here. Vbd | (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support If it can't be expanded it should be scrapped, and I can't find anything on her in any of the foreign language wikipedias. Lord Pheasant 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 12:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Erling Persson. Although lack of English language sources should not preclude inclusion of the genuinely notable, the subject would not appear to be notable outside of having inherited father's shareholding. Ohconfucius 07:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, let's see, several non-trivial secondary sources, referenced i.a.w. WP:V, the only foot we have to stand on for deletion is I Don't Like It. I.a.w. the rules it should be Keep Alf^Photoman 01:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. A trivial mention in the Forbes rich list and a local paper reporting that does not provide any reliable sources of which the person the article is about is the subject. Nuttah68 13:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment being in the Forbes Rich List is only a little different to being listed in any other directory, which Wikipedia is not. We need better sources which attest to her notability. Ohconfucius 03:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. See also the deletion log for Nicktropolis. – Steel 19:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicktropolis (online game)[edit]

Notability of the game is not established, reads like an advertisement Alex Bakharev 08:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nom. No assertion of notability, no references. A Train ^{take the} 22:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 06:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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?)} 21:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Potomac Little League[edit]

An article about a NN recreational youth league. As long as it goes on, the article never attempts to assert notability. I did a Google search, which yielded a few mentions in local newspapers, but nothing more than scores and announcements. Apparently this page has been deleted before. Maybe we should consider locking the page, if the result is delete. Djrobgordon 09:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally listed with first nomination. I have split this out into its own nomination page and have fixed all the appropriate links. The first nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandria Potomac Little League -- saberwyn 22:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as no claim to notability or as a re-post if applicable. Either way, fails WP:CORP. Nuttah68 13:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD G11. Most edits were done by APLL2004 (obvious acronym, single purpose account) and much of the article is written in the first person. Nothing in the article asserts any notability beyond any of the thousands of other youth sports organizations in existence. Caknuck 10:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:46Z

Lists of surnames[edit]

Note that this is not a renomination. The previous set of surname lists were successfully deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames; these are more that were just transwikied to Wiktionary.

(View AfD)

WP:WINAD. These articles are merely lists of names belonging to a particular language or culture (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so they have been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. There is strong precedent for this kind of deletion; recently, all lists of given names have been moved to Wiktionary and deleted.

See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman praenomina, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Modern Greek given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish given names Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swedish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latvian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kurdish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hispanic surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of hypocoristics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of counterparts of given names, etc.

Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 09:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as indiscriminate lists of information, just like all the other surname lists. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 20:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per justified transwiki. All content is currently at Category:Surname appendices. -- Black Falcon 22:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Big top 02:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Indiscriminate lists, not suitable for an encyclopedia. utcursch | talk 14:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:42Z

Lovewrecked Posters and Movie Stills/Production Images[edit]

The following images not deleted since they are used by the article Lovewrecked:

Image:Lovewrecked film.jpg

Image:Lovewrecked.jpg

—Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:45Z

Image gallery with stills from a movie. Its only purpose is to serve as a repository of non-free images, which are not used for "critical analysis" (or are far too many to serve that purpose) and hence don't qualify as fair use. Delete page and all images hosted on it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. bd2412 T 12:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete as copyvio. Koweja 20:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Service codenames[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable and no WP:RS, Contested Prod DXRAW 09:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps the article could be better sourced, but it is useful information I would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Improve the article, but don't delete it. Johnn 7 10:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful to have this data in one place, though it needs to be linked and catted so people can actually find it. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs better sourcing, but that should be relatively easy to find. Agree with the above two editors - this is useful reference information and it makes sense for it to have its own article. JavaTenor 17:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:USEFUL is not a valid criterion for inclusion. Otto4711 22:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic , IMO, and now sourced by recent edits. A Train ^{take the} 22:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The source that is being used lists a TV Program codename for Queen Elizabeth II That shows how it does not pass WP:RS DXRAW 23:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the discussion here is about whether this is encyclopedic or not. If it is poorly sourced, that should be fixed, but it isn't a critera for deletion. Johnn 7 19:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The point i'm trying to make is that it the sources is incorrect and thus should be removed leaving something which is unsourced and also thus leaving nothing there so in a nutshell there is no article. DXRAW 20:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not per nom. This is at the moment just a list, and not a useful source of information on things such as how the codenames are given or when they are given. However, I am certain that a point like "some of the information in this article is wrong" isn't a reason to delete it, as that's not what WP:RS says. It says that reliable sources must be found. So ignore the WP:RS part of the prod nomination. Wittyname 21:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand it. It could be a useful and interesting list. Kolindigo 07:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a list, but a list is valid WP content (as opposed to WP:NOT#IINFO). The topic itself ("why is this information collected together?") here isn't OR (I just added some more cites that Secret Service actually does codenames, not just a Hollywood construct) and the scope is explicit and well-defined. DMacks 18:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...but rename/move. On further thought, if this is primarily a list page (as opposed to a page about Secret Service operations that happens to include some examples), it should probably be named List of Secret Service codenames. DMacks 07:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons given so far. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are kind of obscure, but interesting and I believe worthy of inclusion. I have a book somewhere with more of these in them, I'll add them later on, perhaps. They have codes for more than just people. --UsaSatsui 10:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although the discussion below is not favourable, the author has made a genuine and thorough attempt to source the articles, and to assert the notability of the subjects, toward the end of this discussion. I conclude that the reasons for nomination are now no longer relevant, and I thank JonHarder for helping the author during the debate. - Richardcavell 22:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Animated Hero Classics[edit]

Bump from speedy. Non-notable animated series. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-18 07:38Z

Delete all - notability has not been established for this animated series. There is evidence of conflict of interest with the Nest Famly — 65.166.221.68 (talk · contribs) and possibly X1a4muse (talk · contribs) — adding links to the for-sale parts of the Nest Family website. The article seems to have become more a vehicle for advertising than an informative article. These series can simply be mentioned in the Richard Rich (director) article, without the long lists of individual episodes. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 15:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - articles don't establish notability, COI issues. Mentioning them at Richard Rich (director) is sufficient. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adjust if necessary but to not delete - These series have been available for years and are very popular in the home educator and public school and library envirnment. Many teachers, parents, children and others doing research on the male and female heroes for acamedic purposes might want to know that there are video portrayals of those characters. Since many other children's movie series IMDB listings are included in Wikipedia it seemed appropriate to add those links here. The "long list" of titles has been here for some time, a couple folks (myself included) just recently added the links to IMDB. If ther are specific comments or links that you object to which you belive to be "vanity" or "adverstising" let's delete those - - but let's not remove the entire selection and therefore the ability for kids, teachers and parents that are researching these topics, such as Harriett Tubnman, Geoerge Washingotn, Moses or John the Baptist from finding IMDB references to additional resources.

Also, if you think this one is "advertising" then take a look at the Veggie Tales wikipedia citation for comparision. That citation describes nearly every episode indeetail, the actors etc. These sites just link to the IMDB.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryHero (talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It would be helpful for you and others interested in preserving these articles to look at the proposed notability of films guideline and provide independent, reliable sources that establish notability. I think you should be able to come up with something. Perhaps Christianity Today or another prominent publication has reviewed them? When those sources are provided, I will consider switching my opinion to keep. I don't have a particular objection the the imdb links, but would like to see the article dominated by descriptive prose. As it stands, it is somewhat of a link repository (see WP:NOT). ✤ JonHarder ^talk 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - As you suggest,I will look into the guidelines and revisit the content. But off the cuff, just so you know, these films are used regulalry for research, homework, lesson plans, etc. by teachers and students. The series and individual titles have received mutiple awards including the family approved seal from the Dove Foundation, The Parent's Choice Foundation award and the National Educational Media Association award, the "Award of Excellence" from the Film Advisory Board, the Director's Choice Award from Early Childhood News, they are endorsed by KIDS FIRST!, and received the highest rating from Practical Homeschooling. These educational movies are used in over 60,000+ public schools & libraries, 100,000+ churches of all Christian denominiations, by counteless home educators, and are streamed into public schools by Discovery Education's United Media Streaming group. They are a great tool for kids researching the heroes of history (Biblical and secular) covered by the series. As you suggest, I will look at the [WP:NF|proposed notability of films guideline]]to see how best to add more content and make it clear that these series and the individual movies are a serious research and teaching tool. Thank you again for the suggestion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HistoryHero (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 10:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is notability now established? - As requested, I have added more information and background content about the series, its genesis, purpose and the reviews and awards it has garnered. Thank you again for your suggestions.HistoryHero 14:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The main problem now, as I see it, is that the information in the article needs to be sourced... where was this information found (what books, magazine/newspaper articles, reviews, etc...) If that can be added to the articles, per Wikipedia:Attribution, the odds of these articles being kept shoot up. -- saberwyn 23:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Things actually have taken a step backwards. On at least three of the articles, there are copyright problems. The new text that was lifted directly from commercial promotional material. The copied parts need to come out immediately or this becomes a speedy delete. Once that is corrected, the sources need to be provided, as stated above. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification re attribution The story outlines were taken directly from the video sleeves. Looking at the attribution rules and other examples on Wikipedia, it seems that if I add a foootnote to the Story/Plot Outline section which attributes the source of the outline to the video sleeve and the video distributor all should be okay. Correct? HistoryHero 02:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically the material needs to be rewritten in your own words. Borrowing complete sentences or rearranging borrowed phrases without permission is considered a copyright violation. Right now it is important to list the independent sources for the parts that assert notability; expanding the text in your own words can come after this AfD is settled in favor of the articles. When the references are added, I will consider changing my opinion to keep. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 16:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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?)} 21:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestrator (strategy)[edit]

Bumped from the COI noticeboard. Non-obvious but pure corporate vanity, as the creator Mike Cline (talk · contribs) is vice president of the company who made this stuff up (you're going to have to trust me on this one, as the evidence conveniently disappeared while it was on the noticeboard). John Warden is the president. Sources are self-published, notability is scarce. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prometheus Process. MER-C 11:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from creator of articles

Please consider my comments on discussion page--Mike Cline 14:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_{I have moved his comments here - some may not think to look on the AFD talk page CosmicPenguin (Talk) 18:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

My name is Mike Cline, I indeed work for a company that teaches and practices the concepts the four articles up for deletion embody. [26] I created the articles in good faith well before the COI was raised. Once the COI was raised I acknowledged it and ceased any work on the articles—therefore they are indeed incomplete and at this point, poorly referenced. The first deletion comment states—“of the company that made this stuff up.” That is not only untrue, but shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter of the articles. All these terms are widely used in the context of strategy and have long histories. For example the idea of Strategic Campaign was first introduced by Sun Tzu in “The Art of War. (6th Century BC). At the simplest level, google searches for the terms when associated with the word “strategy” return a remarkable number of hits

Orchestration (strategy) (749,000+)
Prime Directive (strategy) (77,000+)
Rule of Engagement (strategy) (10,000+)
Strategic campaign (63,000+)

Below are just a few specific references that use terms in the context of strategy.

The Air Campaign - Online
PERFORMANCE OF THE B–2 BOMBER IN THE KOSOVO AIR CAMPAIGN
How To Command and Control a War
Evolution of Air Power
The Eagle in the Desert
The Changing eStrategy Context

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 10:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments
Keep per Mike Cline. Jtrainor 02:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The concepts themselves are certainly notable, and may or may not be worth real articles--they are surely covered in a number of places on WP--but not in the present context. Since the articles talk about them primarily in terms of the services provided by the company, principally the book Winning In FastTime, apparently published for the company by a vanity press, they are all primarily advertising. An attempt to piggyback commercial spam on dictdefs. DGG 04:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked the history for each one and read each one. What was that term MER-C used recently ... Vanispamcruftisement! (a.k.a. WP:VSCA.) Perfect. — Athænara ✉ 12:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Perhaps valid articles could be written on this topic, but this is not it. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles can clearly be re-written with NPOV. Subjects are notable per references provided.--65.255.197.162 03:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve subjects notable enough --RockerballAustralia 08:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. IF someone can rewrite the articles in a context beyond advertising one company and product by the end of this debate AND provide reliable sources I am prepared to reconsider. However, the sources have to be about the subject, clearly discussing the theory, unlike those given above so far which appear to be random pages generated by entering the title into Google. Nuttah68 14:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please --Oceanside 21:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Keep these articles. All of the above are notable strategy topic, and can be improved to NPOV status easily. They are well researched and are a great example of strategic planning in action as well as in concept. I find them to be very sound[reply]

Delete the article is trivial, says nothing and is very poorly sourced. If there is something useful, merge. it looks like an attempt to plug the book. NBeale 11:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 02:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Year 10,000 problem[edit]

Year 10,000 problem was nominated for deletion on 2004-11-09. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Year 10,000 problem.

Year 10,000 problem was nominated for deletion again on 2006-09-15. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Year 10,000 problem (2nd nomination).

The article is blatantly speculative (WP:CRYSTAL) and full of original research (WP:OR). The only cited source is a dead link, and using Archive.org I found only a single passing mention, which I don't think is sufficient to establish notability. And none of the external links seem to be to serious articles, so they can't be considered reliable sources. Redxiv 10:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep possibility of OR doesn't mean that the article will stay that way. It's a real problem, right? Keep it. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's a speculative "problem" that might occur in seven thousand nine hundred and ninety-three years. And even then, it could only occur if (1) the Gregorian calendar is still in use at that time (not a certainty) and (2) today's computers are still operational (WP:CB comes to mind). But the accuracy of the speculation isn't even the issue. WP:CRYSTAL tells us that we only have articles of future events if they're both notable and verifiable. Speculation is innately unverifiable; if it could be verified it would cease to be speculative. Redxiv 11:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, speculative article. (The only "reference" link appears to be dead.) —Doug Bell ^talk 10:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources provided are reliable. This may be a real thing, but without sources, there's not a single piece of information that can be kept. For what it's worth, two of the first three Google hits for "year 10,000 problem" are this page and its answers.com mirror. 416 hits overall. --Djrobgordon 10:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is certainly a real thing. It's the type of thing a computer programmer learns about when he learns "common" mistakes. Also, the fact that the top two hits are WP type articles is true about many searches I make in Google these days -- and that's a good thing! - grubber 19:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Doug and per somewhat surprising nomination :) Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm an inclusionist, but not that much of an inclusionist. Redxiv 11:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I read this article long before it was nominated and has interesting information. It has links that work, I dont see what the problem is! Its also a fairly lengthy article on a future problem which will happen. its not crystal ball stuff, this will happen if something is not done - granted it wont be in any of our lifetimes (unless we can live that long). Can I also note although this is the articles third noimation, the gfirst was back in 2004 when the article may not have been as detailed? --PrincessBrat 12:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or maybe (just maybe) merge into Year 2000 bug. The reason you can't find references via google is that it's probably more properly called the "Year 10,000 bug". Here are just a few I found with one search: [27] [28] [29]. -- Plutor ^talk 12:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these pages are useful references (to put it mildly). —xyzzy_n 23:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --JuntungWu 12:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I nominated it back in the year 2004 and was surprised it was kept then. Hopefully by the Year 10,000 Christianity will have been abolished and so we won't even use this system of years anyway. Astrotrain 15:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment NPOV isn't just for articles: your opinion of Christianity is irrelevant to this AfD. -- Richard Daly 02:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep my gut reaction was to delete, until I remembered that I often find Excel 1900 dates really annoying because they don't go back to BC. I presume anyone dealing with software for astronomy, or anyone holding a database which extends scientific predictions for planets beyond 10,000 would find this a problem. There will be a controversy whether to use 4, 5 even 6 digits because some people do have data for predictions that far ahead and there will be a problem. There may even be some people producing equipment that is needed to last this long (nuclear repositories, space craft leaving the solar system), so there may be people alread having to deal with the Y10K problem - bit of a bummer since the world ends this century when all the fossil fuel runs out - but we can't all predict the future! Mike 15:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just have to say that anyone designing such a special-purpose database that doesn't know how to create a database that will allow dates going as far into the future as they wish should get another job. :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real problem which has some reasonably notability to it, but it could use some clean-up. Might be redirected to a page discussing date issues in computers in general though, which could combine this page, y2k, y2038 and any others... FrozenPurpleCube 19:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a real concept. I'm not sure it's really a "problem" per se, but... Even if an article is OR, that is not grounds for deletion, merely rewrite. - grubber 20:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assertion of notability without proof and practically unreferenced, failing WP:A. Software has been around for 170 years (if we include the analytical engine) and this problem won’t be relevant for a couple of millennia. Anything that has to handle data in that order of magnitude today can simply use signed long long counts of milliseconds or microseconds since 1970-01-01T00:00:00+0000 and avoid this problem (along with the year 2038 problem). This topic has no practical relevance except in cases of careless engineering and no recognisable theoretical relevance at all. —xyzzy_n 22:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not our role as WP editors to speculate on how likely this event is to take place. It has received coverage from multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources, and therefore meets WP:N. I don't see why the "External links" were discarded as "not serious" and no reason was given. If one search did not return sufficient results, try others like "Year 10,000 problem", "Year 10,000 bug", "Y10K problem", and "Y10K bug". That gives between 1920 and 4306 ghits (the latter figure being the sum of all four, although there are bound to be duplicates). -- Black Falcon 22:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question to the ‘keep’ people: what exactly do you suggest to use for references? None of the links in the current article are seriously usable except perhaps to prove that some (but not many) people are concerned about undefined problems to occur on Y10K. —xyzzy_n 23:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would a New York Times reference be sufficient? [30] --Richard Daly 02:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That’s a letter to the editor. It’s not usable as a source for the article. —xyzzy_n 02:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. I'm not up on the specific policy WRT this, but how about a WSJ article in earnest[31], or an academic paper [32]? -- Richard Daly 03:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That’s a search page, and they’re both the same. Using your query, I found only one article, of which there is a copy at [33]. The only part dealing with Y10K is ‘the five-digit date convention is needed to avoid the dreaded Y10K problem’ (which is misleading anyway). If I missed something, can you link to the ‘preview’ pages or cite author, date, journal and title (or equivalent information)? In general, Wikipedia:Attribution is the policy that requires sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources is a major guideline that advises on the quality of individual sources. Wikipedia:Notability is another guideline that sets a lower bound for the abundance of sources on an article’s topic. —xyzzy_n 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not my night, apparently. The academic article I intended to link to is from the ACM.[34] With these links I am only seeking to demonstrate notability and address the crystal-ball issue. Specifically, Y10K was discussed as an issue in 1999 as one of the consequences of the Y2K fix. --Richard Daly 04:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, but that’s not an academic article and it’s not from the ACM. The RFC papers document and standardise current practices, protocols and formats related to networks, including the Internet. RFC 2550 is part of the fine tradition of publishing joke RFCs on April Fools’ Day (see e. g. [35] for a nice list, but be warned that some knowledge of the field is necessary to appreciate them fully). Basically, it’s a joke, written by three guys at Compaq who probably spent that year digging through very old code looking for Y2K bugs. In case I’m not being convicing, note that the RFC is identified as being in ‘Category: Stinkards Track’ or simply read it with attention to the details. I’m sorry I’m not being more constructive, but I am still convinced that Y10K is a non-issue. —xyzzy_n 04:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Delete I have been persuaded. --Richard Daly 04:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Redxiv/Doug Bell -- Ratarsed 09:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think our civilization will last till 10000 CE. Either cyborgs will replace us, or we will be back in the Middle Ages Al-Bargit 17:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though it's probably not a legitmate problem, it is a legitimate topic. It deserves an article, in my opinion. - grubber 18:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What’s the topic, then? —xyzzy_n 19:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a summary onto a page about problems with computer date-related problems. (This can also include the 2038 and a summary of the Y2K pages.) — RJH (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've done a first pass cleanup. I'm a bit inclusionist so please edit away. New references are the Kermit daemon (I suspect jokingly) reserves a leading blank for Y10K in the database date field (have added a reference for that). The g77 runtime also refer to the problem (have added a reference). I have updated the Wikipedia April fools page for 1999 to include the RFC 2550 (and RFC 2549 and 2551) too as an aside. Still need to add in the broken y2k references if it's relevant. Ttiotsw 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, it looks a bit better now. I'm not entirely sure it actually merits its own article, though; I like RJH's idea of merging into a combined page for computer date problems. Oh, and I really never thought I'd see the words "delete per Redxiv/Doug Bell". LOL. Redxiv 23:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Speculation, no verifiable info --Milo H Minderbinder 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may not currently be verified but it IS verifiable. - grubber 23:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be easier to believe if you'd add some sources verifying it. Without them, how do we know it is verifiable? This article has been around for years and had previous AfD's - there certainly has been plenty of time to look for sources. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Doug Bell, xyzzy_n. I'm not convinced that Year 2038 problem should be a stand-alone either, but that's smergeable per RJH. Alternatively, we could merge this into Computing-related April Fool's jokes or something like that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not a joke. This issue represents a real (and common) programming mistake. - grubber 23:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Year 2000 problem, which I'll probably do anyway if this gets deleted. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 22:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Cannan[edit]

This had a notability warning, which I have since removed. I believe that this person is notable, however I'm adding this to AFD to see what the community says. The reason he is notable is that he recorded the latest theme song for Home and Away, something that is extremely notable. After all, almost all Australians (and more than a few UK citzens) know this song in their head. Ta bu shi da yu 10:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems borderline to me, but I don't know enough about Aussie labels to tell whether his LP's legit or not. I'll defer to the native on this one. --Djrobgordon 10:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 10:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, as is there is nothing by what any reader could verify this article, therefore fails WP:V. If appropriate sources and references are added change to Keep Alf photoman 14:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found two independent online sources which support the article's notability. Plus enough online chatter to demonstrate that he is noticed sufficiently to qualify for WP notability threshold. Probably should be tagged for more sources and cleanup. --Kevin Murray 14:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability established by sources added by Kevin Murray. If Ta bu shi da yu withdraws the nomination, I think this could be a case for early closure with "consensus keep". -- Black Falcon 22:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problems with it being closed early. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have wikified the article and rewritten it based on Kevin Murray's references. I have changed the reference from Home and Away from recording the theme to appearing in the show which I could find sources for. Capitalistroadster 00:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the theme song was sung by the Robertson Brothers? He's notable even as an actor, though, so that's not going to make much difference. JROBBO 01:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've done a bit of tidy up work. John Vandenberg 01:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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?)} 23:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Upstate[edit]

Prod removed with no concerns addressed. Small non-notable independent wrestling promotion, no third party sources, fails WP:CORP One Night In Hackney 10:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, failing both WP:Notability primary criterion and WP:CORP. A Train ^{take the} 22:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's part a of huge conglomerate in the NWA

Comment The NWA hasn't been a huge conglomerate for many years, and even if it still was that doesn't make this promotion notable. Is every branch of McDonald's or KFC notable because they are part of huge conglomerates? One Night In Hackney 01:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-But this is not McDonald's or KFC ONIH, this is a wrestling promotion and even so each promotion is genuine in it's self

--72.225.255.18 01:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps you'd like to show us some evidence the promotion meets notability guidelines DJ BatWave? One Night In Hackney 00:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This promototion is not simply a local wrestling promotion. It pulls in top independent wrestling talent from all around, including Abyss (TNA Wrestling champion), Chris Candido (former ECW and NWA champion), and Teddy Hart. It also sponsors an annual tag team tournament that featues some of the top tag teams on the independent scene.

Comment Please can you show some evidence of meeting the notability guidelines, instead of presenting unsourced wrestlecruft? One Night In Hackney_IRA 17:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's non-notable, v poorly refed, and seems to be a commercial plug. NBeale 11:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Booshakla 10:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train ^{take the} 14:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MoreMobility[edit]

nn company [36] Mzlc 09:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - non-notable, spam, fails WP:V, WP:ORG, WP:RS. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP--Dacium 01:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence of N in any sense.DGG 08:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like all the other MVNO articles on Wikipedia, it really fails to show much notability. I think that it can be improved greatly to meet notability requirements, but since it isn't (and I highly doubt that it will by the time that the deletion discussion is over), it should be deleted. --Адам12901 ^Talk 06:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:40Z

Junglebuko[edit]

Not notable band, was deleted by Prod but resurrected Alex Bakharev 23:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable. If the recreation is similar to what was deleted, CSD G4 may apply. YechielMan 01:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment CSD G4 doesn't apply to Prods. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC says it isn't notable enough.--Dacium 01:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I'm from the Philippines, and I've never heard of this band (not even in print or in indie radio). --- Tito Pao 15:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per TitoPao and nom. When the band is signed with a major label and has released a video or music's heard in radio, only then. But now, delete. Berserkerz Crit 20:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, google test returned only 4 hits. 2 from Wikipedia, 1 from an irrelevant site and 1 from friendster.Lenticel 05:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:39Z

Hilip[edit]

Fictional brand does not seem to be an notable category, and this brand even less so Proofreader J-Man 21:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couldn't find anything in google. -MrFizyx 23:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sub-trivial, no references or hope of ever having any. A Train ^{take the} 22:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Dacium 01:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bizarrely very no.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Merge into one of the lists linked at Fictional brands. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD G1, hoax. A Train ^{take the} 22:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YiesYisYeno - 3 Yama[edit]

Subject material appears to be an invention of User:YiesYisYeno; article lacks sources, context, or any indication of notability; content is unverifiable. RandomCritic 20:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to being a hoax, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary regardless. SubSeven 19:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 prejudice against re-creating article if properly sourced. A Train ^{take the} 14:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian A. Miller[edit]

There is no indication of exactly what role this man played in the production of the shows. Therefore, he is probably not notable. The page is an orphan, which suggests that as well. N Shar 20:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 00:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate references/sources, and no evidence of notability. Did he just make the tea for the assistant producer, or what ? WMMartin 13:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup/reference. He's not the tea-maker for the ass producer. He was "executive in charge of production", "executive producer" for many popular productions, such as Powerpuff girls, Star Wars clone wars, G.I. Joe. [37] —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:29Z

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs sources that mention him and how he is notable, else it fails WP:BIO--Dacium 01:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as nominator). Given that this person clearly has done notable things, it would be too bad to delete the article -- but I'm not seeing sources, and I worry about WP:V. Perhaps despite his activities, he hasn't got any sources about him? That would be surprising. --N Shar 03:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. NN name. Aksi_great (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thachenkary[edit]

Pretty sure this fails WP:N. If Wikipedia had an encyclopedic entry on everyone's surname in the entire world... well, we all know what that would look like. Delete Rockstar915 19:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed broken AFD template on this page. ●DanMS • Talk 05:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...True, but a name that is tied to a substantial amount of the history of Christianity and of Catholicism in India. It is also a unique name, meaning only members of the family carry it. BTW, is the objection to the entire article or just parts of it? Thanks, Thachenkary. (I am new to this process, so my apologies in advance.)

Note: This article is referenced so it's assertion of notability might be legitimate, but it sounds like it could be a vanity article. Verkhovensky 17:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete What are the rules on surnames in general having a page? I don't think they get to. I wouldn't have a problem with this article if it explained only history. But then it goes on to say every generation and all the people, non of which are notable in any way at all.--Dacium 01:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a notable surname or a disambig page (as is the case with most pages on surnames). utcursch | talk 10:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete names and their definition belong in a dictionary. Only if the name needs a disambig does Wikipedia need an article. Nuttah68 20:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Souds like a vanity article. If it is about Tomin J thachenkary I.P.S I will not oppose because he is the most controversial police officer in Kerala. But this article is based on just a surname. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train ^{take the} 14:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disciplined Minds[edit]

Reads like an advertisement, onyl reference is the book itself. --Hojimachong^talk _con 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So improve how it reads. Are not articles about books legitimate? This book has a story: a civil rights campaign and legal case... There is also a URL link with much info and links to other sites about the controversy... What's the problem? Denis.g.rancourt 20:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A website and a book do not constitute notability. If that was the case, I could write an article about myself using my MySpace page as a reference. I highly doubt that Jeff Schmidt meets the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. You probably are more knowledgable about this subject than I, so please review those guidelines and respond here as to why he should be kept. --Hojimachong^talk _con 20:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The web site details the extent of the public campaign related to this issue and cites several independent journal articles in different journals and by different authors about the book and the issue. This is a partial list. A simple Google search using "Jeff Schmidt Disciplined Minds" shows many citations and articles about this book. Using Google-Scholar shows several books and articles and conference contributions that cite or review Schmidt's book. Is it possible that you do not agree with the author's political position; such as his critique of professionals? Denis.g.rancourt 03:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. In fact, I made a concious attempt not to explore the author's political opinions after realizing it was of a political nature. A google search of your terms brings up 23 hits. Perhaps wikifying the article and citing these statements correctly would help. --Hojimachong^talk _con 04:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stub. I think it merits stub status without being deleted. It can be improved of course: feel free. Denis.g.rancourt 22:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ An authoritative additional reference appeared about a year ago, but I just added it--, dealing with the settlement of the controversy over the book, and the article has been updated accordingly. Will those who saw it earlier please revisit the article. DGG 11:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a standard for books WP:Notability (Books) which this fails.--Dacium 01:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep It would be perhaps better to have only the article on the person, since the book seems less notable than he.DGG 08:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The controversy surrounding the writing of the book probably makes it notable. I'm undecided on DGG's suggestion that Schmidt should be the subject. Should be fixable, whatever it's called. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep--Wizardman 23:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkwind 1997[edit]

Disputed prod. Very limited edition album released only to fan club members and therefore not within the scope of a general encylopedia (I would contend). kingboyk 13:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 19:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.....album released by a notable artist = notable album Jcuk 23:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Define released. This one was "released" in the sense that it exists, but it was not sold at stores or available for purchase at all except as a sort of concert souvenir or fan club gift. Is that really considered a release? GassyGuy 02:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I accept that this release had a limited print run and didn't receive general distribution, but I don't feel that this criteria should be a bar for this article's existence, there are many other articles that also don't meet this criteria (eg The Beatles' Christmas Album). Ultimately, this was an album produced by the band for public consumption and I feel that the overall Hawkwind article would lack completeness if it were omitted. In addition, if this article is to be deleted, then by extension the Spaced Out In London article must also be removed. Drwhawkfan 11:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Demo's have articles, and they ain't even publicly released. LuciferMorgan 00:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: sounds like "other crap exists" to me! Actually, demos are more often than not deleted because of their nature, so little is written about them. The article fails to establish why the "album" merits an article. If completeness is an objective, this could be included in the discography of the band's article. Ohconfucius 07:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Drwhawkfan. May only have had a limited print run, but it is still notable. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 15:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am leaning towards a delete unless references to articles are supplied to indicate how/why it may be notabile/important, in accordance with WP:N. It utterly fails that at this point in time. Ohconfucius 03:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This nomination criteria would also apply to (for example) Seeing Stars but availabilty and notablity of a record are not one in the same. A1octopus 14:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A fan will think ever single track or release is important, and nothing will ever change that. However, at least the reason why someone thinks Seeing Stars is important has been stated in the article, and whether one agrees or not whether this translates into notability is another matter, but this is usually demonstrated by quoting reliable sources. For the article under discussion, all this is demonstrably lacking, and therefore merits deletion, IMHO. Ohconfucius 02:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Surely this is merely a question of whether an album by a notable artist can be deemed notable if it had a limited print run and/or didn't receive general distribution. Both albums are listed on the band's official disography, does that make any difference? Drwhawkfan 13:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Avro. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:38Z

Avro Aerospace[edit]

nn company Mzlc 09:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as spam. If the article was reliably sourced per WP:CORP, maybe, But how many companies get government contracts to research various things? Probably a lot that aren't very notable.Montco 00:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment as an aside google references can actually relate to Avro which is actually an old Aerospace firm whose name was used on British Aerospace jets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montco (talk • contribs) 00:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Avro, the company which anybody searching for this title will actually be looking for. Forget British Aerospace, Avro built the Lancaster bomber, as used in the Dambusters raids, and the Avro 504, an iconic WWI biplane. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Avro per above. When I first saw this I thought it was referring to the article on that notable company. If this article is kept, it really needs to be renamed with some sort of disambiguation. 23skidoo 13:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the eminently notable Avro. This company doesn't do much to indicate notability at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per JzG. No reliable sources provided. John Vandenberg 04:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Steve _(Slf67)^talk 04:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LANDesk[edit]

Bump from speedy. I cleaned up the adcopy, so it's no longer spam. Borderline notability though. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-18 09:40Z

~~Delete~~ for no assertion or citation of notability. Given good references, I'd be happy to change my "vote", but as it exists, no reason to assume this is anything but a tiny unit of a large company. -Markeer 13:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep changed my vote based on Crypticfirefly's added citations, although I'd still like to see more (or, arguably, any) assertion of notability per WP:CORP -Markeer 14:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good enough to me per WP:CORP "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works...." There are many, many product review articles about this company. Crypticfirefly 13:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assert of notability, no external references, now owned by Intel anyway --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 08:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Weak keep dull as dishwater, enterprise computing product but the added information means it can stay --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 22:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've heard of this company, and since I am not an IT professional, perhaps this is evidence that it is a large & well-known company. Also, according to the linked company website it is not owned by Intel, it is now owned by Avocent. Crypticfirefly 06:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup: I did some checking, and this is indeed a well-known company with a worldwide presence. The reason some people may not be familiar with it is that its products apparently are used for managing large corporate computer networks. I found references to several articles on it in German and Spanish on top of a vast number of articles in English in various IT publications. An Amazon.com search shows that a couple of books have been written about how to use some of their products and LANDesk is referenced in many others. Crypticfirefly 04:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article as it stands at this point (presumably significantly more verified than at time of nomination) —siro χ o 17:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following the improvements made and sources added by Crypticfirefly. -- Black Falcon 22:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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?)} 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catmandu Branded Entertainment[edit]

nn company [38] Mzlc 09:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability per WP:CORP; no coverage by independent sources; only external links are to the company's own sites. Walton monarchist89 17:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 10:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Running one major ad campaign is not sufficiently notable (unless your campaign involves Homeland Security and gets your client's exec fired). Fails WP:CORP & WP:RS. Most of the edits were done by a single-purpose account, Soniatbolt. Caknuck 10:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:37Z

Rich Hansen[edit]

Does not seems to satisfy WP:BAND Alex Bakharev 11:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i dont see a point in destroying an OK article --Matrix17 11:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ...apart from the fact there aren't any sources and it fails WP:MUSIC. Oh, and creator was User:RichHansen...EliminatorJR 13:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)*[reply]
Delete per being WP:VANITY and failing WP:MUSIC. --Haemo 00:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that the subject meets WP:MUSIC. Nuttah68 14:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlevse 03:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man-Faye[edit]

This doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate material is the reason for this nomination. Tony Cruze Haize 10:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC) — Tony Cruze Haize (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Previous nominations:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Faye - no consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Faye (2nd nomination) - keep

Comment I completed the listing of this afd. I don't have much of an opinion about the article, but this is the third afd for Man-Faye within a year, and the second afd was also irregularly listed. The nominator seems to be more-or-less a single-purpose account. Darkspots 11:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Darkspots 15:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
Delete - only one reference; only other links are to his own site and MySpace. No evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources per WP:BIO. Walton monarchist89 15:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonencyclopedic topic. Kyaa the Catlord 00:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO failure. GassyGuy 01:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it already. Now having read the previous deletion discussions (both linked to on the article talk page), I think that the television appearances, although not references per se, satisfy WP:BIO (name recognition) and meet the standards of WP:V. The argument has been made several times that he is the most notable American cosplayer, in terms of media coverage--and that hasn't up to now been refuted in a convincing way. I knew nothing about Cosplay until I stumbled across this afd, and I think Man-Faye puts the entire phenomenon into context for the general reader, much more colorfully than the main article. I also think there should be a strong bias against a third afd in a year, particularly when the second one was argued at length. Darkspots 15:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above - see also WP:POINT. Snarfies 17:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this is a WP:POINT violation, it's a pretty unclear one. What point is trying to be made? I grant that it appears to be a single-purpose account, but I don't understand the POINT accusation. Please assume good faith. GassyGuy 03:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:BIO though I'm surprised that his Who Wants to Be a Superhero? and The Tonight Show appearances are only mentioned but not actually referenced. --Farix (Talk) 18:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I had doubts, but I followed the refs and links to see it was actually N. DGG 00:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on the article description, neither the Sci Fi thing or The Tonight Show were non-trivial coverage of him - those are things about which there should be coverage for inclusion in the article in the first place. There's exactly one reference here, and the site is of questionable reliability. I'm not sure that would clearly pass WP:BIO or WP:N. GassyGuy 03:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The multiple television appearances are enough for me. --- RockMFR 04:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Farix. --Ifrit 22:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the third ****ing time, let it be. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:BIO and has been up for discussion before. bbx 03:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BIO if only for his fan following... but it needs more WP:RS. McKay 03:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the same reasons raised in the 2nd nomination just six months ago; the subject is well known within his niche, the internet at large, and has made several cable network television appearances as well. Never mind that this is a bad faith nom made by a fly-by-night account created solely for stirring up this debate once more. RFerreira 03:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being "known within one's niche" is not a notability criterion, nor is having fans, nor is simply "appearing" on television. Being nominated before is not a keep criterion. If this is sourceable to reliable sources, why have none been added to the article in all this time? As has been noted, this isn't the first time it's been brought to deletion - how many times should we say "keep but source" when sources are not forthcoming? GassyGuy 08:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for multiple non-trivial TV appearances, which can be verified by watching the shows. –Pomte 00:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlevse 12:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peekvid.com[edit]

A slightly odd one -this was deleted as failing to assert notability at Peekvid, and that deletion was endorsed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 2, but this separate article was created and kept by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peekvid.com. I've checked Factiva (full text) and GNews, I find one non-trivial reference, a story in The Australian about the copyright enforcements against this site. I find a couple of other stories which list this with other leech sites as being affected by copyright concerns affecting YouTube. The site's brief popularity seems to stem form its providing leech links to copyright content, and that's not going to be allowed to continue, so we have no way of knowing if the site will continue to have any popularity, but that's not the issue: the issue here is that I can find only one non-trivial source, the rest seem to be passing mentions of the site as another in a series of sites under the hammer for copyright violation. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How is this "odd"? It's very likely that the article was rewritten before being re-posted as peekvid.com. -- intgr 15:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whether re-written or not, the current article fails WP:WEB - lacks detailed coverage by multiple independent, reliable sources. Awyong J. M. Salleh 16:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nominator. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notability. SakotGrimshine 20:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 07:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The contrast between this and the previous nomination is awkward. Commenters in the previous nomination pointed out coverage in several published and quite prominent sources, among others CNet[39], NBC15[40], and RealTechNews[41] and the site indeed hit the top 300 rank on Alexa for a short period, and has stayed in the top 1000 since. I do not know what to make of it, other than simply "delete per nomination" bandwagon mentality (WP:PERNOM). -- intgr 08:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have just sought out this entry while researching an article about file sharing, and was stunned to find it being considered for deletion on the grounds cited above. If it's not good enough yet, then please fix it; if it lacks notability, then please also rid Wikipedia of everything else that is merely accessible and used every day by countless thousands around the world. Robma 14:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the three sources on the article and more provided on the previous Afd, the subject is notable an verifiable enough. John Vandenberg 04:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I had the same experience as User:Robma, which is why i created the article. There are five current hits in Google news including one from the guardian, 1/2 million Google hits, and it is in the top 500 on Alexa. Need more be said? David Spart 09:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is one of the first well-known sites of it's kind, that alone makes it notable. Apart from that, the internet news community has spent considerable time about the subject.MrXian 0849, 1 March 2007 (UT)
Comment I've added another two sources I found in Google News Archive. John Vandenberg 09:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable site that I am surprised to see here on afd but glad to see as an article in wikipedia. They deserve an article re our notability grounds but the name should be changed to Peekvid, SqueakBox 15:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources demonstrate notability. Everyking 10:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable per WP:WEB. Xihr 21:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you would explain how it is not notable? AfD is a discussion and not a vote; evidence of coverage by non-trivial and reliable sources has been produced. -- intgr 05:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable per WP:WEB by non-trivial secondary RS. –Pomte 00:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has been up for about 9 days now, can someone close this? David Spart 01:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was the one who noted the NBC & RealTechNews (via Netscape's portal) in the last AfD discussion. I'm puzzled about the re-nom... Caknuck 10:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Wizardman 00:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Growing Earth Theory[edit]

Joke presented as a real theory Alex Bakharev 11:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sam Carey was neither a jokester, fraudster - but a theoretician on a particular way of looking at geology... they said the same of wegener, so on this the basis of the afd is somewhat POV from my limited understanding Satu Suro 11:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This page is not about Carey's work, but that of an amateur follower of his. Giving undue weight to fringe theory. The article fails to demonstrate that there is any coverage of this theory (not even debunking of it) in reliable sources independent of its inventors. WP:A#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources are cited to establish that this theory is notable. The theory itself may be junk, but it isn't the role of Wikipedia editors to make that judgement. Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. Walton monarchist89 15:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sorry, but where is that evidence? I can see: 1 article in a popular online newspaper for nerds. 1 appearance of Adams in a TV talk show. 2 online articles by Adams himself. 2 books that are not about Adam's "Growing Earth", but Carey's much more serious "Expanding Earth". All the rest are links to advocacy sites by followers of the theory. So, we have a guy who has some nerdy sort of noteworthiness for being a comic author, and who has drawn some very limited media curiosity for coupling his comic authorship with his freak pseudo-geology beliefs. Nothing else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to comment - don't you think that "nerd" and "freak pseudo-geology" are rather subjective and POV terms to use in an AfD? Seems like an ad hominem argument to me. Walton monarchist89 19:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (with redirect) into Expanding earth theory. Seems notable enough that it deserves a mention, but Wikipedia doesn't need an independent article on each minor variation of an extreme fringe theory. PubliusFL 16:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Do Not Merge Expanding Earth is not extreme fringe theory rather emerged with strong supportive evidence, revived Wegener's Continental Drift and paved the way for Plate Tectonics. Growing Earth Theory is not a minor variation of EE, rather a significantly evolved derivation which addresses issues in physics and cosmology that Carey did not. Its notability is referenced and deserves a place in Wikepedia. MichaelNetzer 17:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Note that User:MichaelNetzer is a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest. He's only ever edited his own autobiography (Michael Netzer) and the articles on "Expanding Earth" and "Growing Earth" on Wikipedia, and he is apparently the owner of several of the advocacy websites cited in the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not Advocate: I have openly stated at my user page that I was drawn to Wikipedia because of a biography about me and hope to step out to contributing more widely to the project. My brief involvement in these subjects, so far, is no indication that I am a single-purpose editor and I intend to widen my involvement out of pure regard for the Wikepedia mission. I have studied the guidelines for conflict of interest and my edits and writings will show I have no POV intentions, rather only contribute to enhancing the scope of Wikepidia content. I do not own "several advocacy" web sites as claimed above, rather only one. I have no present affiliation with any of the other references cited in Growing Earth Theory article. MichaelNetzer 19:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (now Neutral as explained below). I tend to support articles about all pseudoscience for which there is any degree of N, either scientific or popular. In this case there appears to be none whatsoever. Every single one of the references is a self-published or personal websites. There is not the least evidence that anyone else has ever paid the least attention to it even to debunk it. The EE Theory, though probably a thoroly disproven hypothesis, was at least promulgated by an actual scientist and has some actual references. A sentence about this one might be appropriate them, perhaps as an external link. It would not bother me the least if you wrote the entire article yourself as a single-purpose account, if only you had some source for any of it, and that others than yourself could be shown to have taken any notice of it. DGG 09:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Innocent Oversight: I do not believe, DGG, that you intentionally ignore the two references to a Wired Magazine feature and the 2 hour interview by Art Bell on Coast to Coast Radio as indicatory of popular notability. I believe rather that this was an innocent oversight. I have since added another such third party unaffiliated reference, The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Radio Podcast where the subject was also discussed in a lengthy interview. All this in addition the primary sources you and others have mentioned. Regarding your other concerns: I would truly not endeavor to create this article had this material not existed. Though I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing, I'm familiar enough with the guidelines to understand that this subject fulfills them. I accept being frowned upon for a possible conflict of interest but I maintain that COI guidelines allow editors to walk this fine line as long as no POV or biased material is introduced to Wikipedia content. I believe the article shows that I've remained within these guidelines and have shown due notability to the theory. I would hope now that this is clarified, that you might rescind your objection and support keeping the article, based on your own comments and the above citations. Best regards, MichaelNetzer 15:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork of valid encyclopedic article expanding earth theory. While Neal Adams is serious in his promotion of this fringe science, the idea that Adams' ramblings about fundamental physics qualify him as a notable scientific researcher is definitely a joke. Tim Shuba 21:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not an issue of scientific qualification, rather the citation of verifiable sources of notable unaffiliated third party popular interest. It is not an issue of one's POV of the theory. MichaelNetzer 01:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment True, I hadn't noticed the Wired article; I consider it suitable to verify the N of Nick Adams but not the theory. (which is what i orig. thought of the radio interview) If anything, the lack of subsequent discussion after these shows it nn. DGG 00:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response: The Wired article primarily deals with the theory. The radio show came as an aftermath of a previous one with host George Noory, (now also cited), both of which dealt with the theory. In between them came the Skeptics Podcast which is also about the theory. This shows a series of subsequent discussion and popular notability for the theory gaining momentum - the last of which was less than 3 months ago. Your original remarks were "...There is not the least evidence that anyone else has ever paid the least attention to it even to debunk it."... and "...if only you had some source for any of it, and that others than yourself could be shown to have taken any notice of it." I believe these requests have been met abundantly. MichaelNetzer 01:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I want to say that crackpot scientific theories are not deletable on the basis of their crackpotiness, but rather on the basis of their notability. This looks notable. Tag the article for re-writing, make sure it's categorized as fringe science and/or pseudo-science, and keep it. No more problem. If there are edit wars, resolve them somewhere other than AfD. If we could delete every notable crackpot theory, there wouldn't be articles like Bigfoot. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established. Needs work not reason to delete. - Peregrine Fisher 07:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeper I moved it from EE theory. However, I see more POV here than there. Needs editing and to moved to a less ambiguous name. Have a crack at those articles about some minor entertainment instead. Like it or ignore it, I can see no valid argument for deletion. Next? - Fred 14:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why Move? This is the name of the theory, by which it is known. "Growing Earth" appears clear and concise, not ambiguous. It states exactly what the theory imparts. I agree the article needs work, though I don't see POV. The reason for its present state is that it was moved as a section from another article. The intent is to streamline and improve it, also through additional material from the source references. MichaelNetzer 15:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is about some minor entertainment, unless Coast to Coast AM has become a peer-reviewed scientific journal while I wasn't paying attention. Nevertheless, the reason it should be deleted is because sloughing off material that is dragging an article down to create a new article can be bad for the encyclopedia, as outlined in WP:Content forking. Regarding name selection, the title Comics artist theory of life, the universe and everything might just fit, preferably as a subsection on the Neal Adams page. Tim Shuba 19:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not Forking From WP:Content forking: "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." This is the issue which dragged down the EE article which I agreed to. While the two theories share significant common information, the distinct content of Growing Earth Theory (creation of matter, growing uiverse) detracts from Sam Carey's classical model of Earth Expansion. It was moved in order to enhance the content of both articles. MichaelNetzer 21:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment The value of the sources is debatable. We are asked to judge the interview by other interviews. The relative merits of borderline theories is endlessly debatable. (My own person way of evaluating is to think of how much surprised i would be if the theory were true, and how much it would contradict very well established theories. Bigfoot would surprise me very much--on the ground of common sense, but it doesn't contradict biology--such a creature could have evolved. This one would both surprise me, and is contradicted by all theories of geophysics. But I am not a RS, and any view I have on the scientific validity is irrelevant. The question is whether this is N, either to established science, or the public. Impossible garbage which gets newspaper articles is N, and rightly so, because people will come here for information. In this situation I think the default might have to be keep, and I have changed my "vote" to neutral on the basis that reasonable people might disagree on the value of the sources--DGG
This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 22:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why do people continue to debate the scientific validity of this article as a reason to decide one way or another on the deletion debate? Remember Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion, which is official policy. The extreme crackpotiness of this theory has no bearing on whether it should be kept or not. Notable loons will get articles about them and their theories. The article certainly needs re-writing so it presents itself as "famous crackpot guy claims.... blah blah blah" instead of presenting itself as "blah blah blah is true" but re-writing issues are not by themselves a reason to delete an article. They call for cleanup tags instead. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While not wishing to diminish from the gratitude for your support of keeping the article, I'd only like to say that the article itself does not claim the theory to be true, rather attributes its entire contents as being what the famous "crackpot" theorist claims, and says so at almost every turn. The text falls short of attesting any crackpotiness to the theory, or calling the author a crackpot, in order to maintain a neutral POV, as per Wikipedia guidelines. I would think. ...and thanks, MichaelNetzer 04:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I changed my mind on ~~move~~ after reading response. Forking is not relevant to these articles, avoiding consensus &c. are not issues. But I now know a bit more, having read it thoroughly. I do regret having brought Hollow Earth theory to the attention of WP:SCI! Keep - Fred 09:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The theory itself is notable enough to keep. Further, I think that it does a good enough job on its own of stating that the theory is unsupported by the vast majority of the scientific community. No further "crackpopt" notations are required. Kurt 04:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that if kept that further comment is unnecessary. This is not subtle nonsense that needs to be explained in detail. DGG 05:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Properly cited secondary source: Coast To Coast AM. According to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories, "In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual." Coast To Coast AM represents the height of notability in the community of fringe theories. On a side note, the article could use a spell-check, and a section on criticisms to eliminate overall bias. Inmatarian 06:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well written article. It's too long to merge so I don't see any reason not to give this an article of it's own. Also, being a "fringe" theory doesn't mean we should delete. Science is all about questioning the assumption of the mainstream.--God Ω War 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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?)} 21:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ex libris records[edit]

Not notable studio Alex Bakharev 11:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:CORP. Walton monarchist89 15:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A serious entity with profile in the North East of England

Ex Libris Records is a registered Private Limited Company with Companies House, London, and a member of the Association of Independent Music. It has a staff of two people; it's company secretary and a managing director. It's current studios operate with special arrangement with Newcastle College, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England, and has offices at Coleraine Road, Portrush, N. Ireland. Feel free to check the directories for each of these details to see that they check out. Companies House provides a search engine for ligitimate registered companies: simply type "Ex Libris Records Limited" into the engine and you'll see that its company registration number is NI062535

Ex Libris has a strong presense in the live music scene of Newcastle and London, including bands such as Girls, Girls, Girls, Nes Advantage, My Attorney, Aaron McMullan (himself a prominent member of the Blog Critics circle - hear one of the songs recorded at Colerabbey Studios on the Valentine's Day podcast) and Rebecca Jones - all who have a strong following in the local area.

This is of interest to a wide variety of people in Newcastle and beyond: a useful entry and one that will interest people of the Tyne & Wear indie scene.--Unimbued 23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced. There are plenty of companies affiliated to AIM, there are hundreds of thousands of PLCs and every PLC must submit its details to Companies House. Most of these aren't notable, and the article doesn't prove that this one is either per WP:CORP. EliminatorJR 13:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of meeting WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC is shown through reliable sources. Nuttah68 14:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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?)} 23:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CCortex[edit]

CCortex is a project to build 'the largest neural network to date'. Unfortunately there is a lack of reliable sources to back up this grand claim. A google search turned up various press releases and mentions on technology websites, but nothing substantial. [42] Most notably, there does not seem to be any recent coverage of this project; most of it is from 2003 and it peters out by the end of 2005. Even the latest news on the company website has nothing newer than September 2005. The article itself is copied from here.

I suggest that a dead computing project from two or three years ago with no recent coverage isn't notable. Whilst there are *just* about enough sources to cobble together an article, for example here, here and here, none of them strike me as being produced by organisations with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. More importantly, all these sources are from three or four years ago, meaning that any properly sourced article about CCortex will be forever stuck in a time warp. It's also worth noting that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources; if this is a project to build the largest neural network to date, where's the media interest? Nydas^(Talk) 12:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no evidence of coverage in third-party independent sources to establish notability. It certainly asserts notability, but as the nominator says, it needs reliable sources. Walton monarchist89 15:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination, surprisingly few recent mentions on the web; could not find any printed sources. All the accounts seem to describe the machine with similar language, and there is no evidence that any machines have shipped to customers. The company's web site, www.ad.com, lists no technical reports or journal publications. EdJohnston 03:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep--Wizardman 23:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunlop Manufacturing[edit]

I am nominating this for deletion because of concern about the company's notability. There are no sources and I coulnd not find any reliable, independent ones via google. Only sites selling its products and wikipedia (which is the second hit). Does not appear to meet the WP:CORP guidelines or to have other substantial claims to notability, just reasonable popularity in its market. Eluchil404 12:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - the long list of famous clients would constitute evidence of notability, but it's unverified. No evidence of coverage in third-party independent sources to establish notability per WP:CORP. Delete unless relevant sources can be added. Walton monarchist89 15:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The company's website is located at: http://www.jimdunlop.com/.

User:DuncanPickard 12:11 EST Feb. 28 2007

Keep - company is well known in music circles Rothko65 03:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~Delete~~ Keep, but valid sources are required. A look on the company's website (such as here) mention products being used by famous bands (as well as pictures of bands throughout the website), however I am not sure if that counts as a valid source. --RazorICE ^T/_C @ 05:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Related AfD's on the company's products (converted from prods) are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunlop Cry Baby and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tortex. Eluchil404 13:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable specialist company in a niche market. Shrumster 18:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well known in music circles --Adlaiff6 04:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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?)} 23:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of layout engines (CSS)[edit]

This is not appropriate content for wikipedia. It is WP:OR, and lacks WP:RS. Bug lists of this nature have no place here. It is impossible to provide reliable sources for the claims.

Delete - there are plenty of third-party sites doing a much better job of describing this kind of thing. Nssdfdsfds 13:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If there are "plenty of third-party sites doing a much better job [...]", why don't you list them so they provide as WP:RS? I dispute this argument as being contradictory. For the other part of the quote, see below. --Grey 22:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are links at the bottom of the page, which are primary sources of their author's own original research. This page cannot hope to keep up. I don't believe that "westciv.com" is a reliable source as to the CSS specification laid down by the World Wide Web Consortium and as actually implemented by say Mozilla. Nssdfdsfds 00:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is not a "bug list". This article seeks to give an overview over which parts of the specifications are supported by each browser and if not, say so and provide a source detailing the problem. This is not OR. Sources are provided for the most part, and if not, should be added. So instead of deleting the article, we should add sources and remove parts that are OR. --Grey 22:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It sure looks like a bug list to me - it's concerned with detailing non-compliance with a spec. I also can't see that it's practicable to source all the statements contained in the article (there are hundreds). Nssdfdsfds 00:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - See the reasons why Comparison of web browsers was not deleted in the debate and on its talk page. Comparisons therefore are not forbidden on Wikipedia and imho should be kept. --Grey 22:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grey and precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of web browsers. The article should be better sourced, but is most certainly not devoid of reliable sources. -- Black Falcon 22:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparison of web browsers is a far more sensible article subject, because saying whether Internet Explorer is/was available for the Macintosh is an easily verifiable statement of fact. The same cannot be said for this page. The analogy is inappropriate - this is not a comparison, it is a bug list detailing non-compliance with CSS. The browser manufacturers do not state their support for each feature of CSS on their websites. Therefore each statement on this page (each grid cell is a statement), such as "text-transform is supported by Windows IE 4.0 and better" appears to be original research. As such it has no place on Wikipedia. If it is not original research it should be sourced to a reliable source. I do not see that there are any reliable sources for this information. Moreover, what content there is on the page does not correspond with available sources (but since the sources aren't given, it's unverifable). For instance, [43] lists problems with many features listed here as "Y". Yet this page also lists bug with some features, yet it doesn't mention others. Doing this implies that the article is in someway authoritative, and bugs do not exist in other areas. This is wrong, and there are many other bugs.

For me the thing that makes this article an obvious article to be deleted is that the third-party sources contradict each other. This is because detailing bugs (which is what this page is doing) is a difficult and time-consuming process. Looking at just the first two external links (which I assume the user is intended to reference to verify the information in the article), [44] [45] there are conflicts. The only way to resolve these conflicts would be WP:OR in actually testing the CSS support of the browsers. Since the sources conflict, and statements in this article cannot be consistently & reliably sourced, the sources are not WP:RS. Accordingly, the article must be WP:OR in its entirety, and should be deleted. Nssdfdsfds 00:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Let me first thank you for your detailed response. I will not contest the technical (software) points you have brought up as I admit to having limited knowledge in this area. I will also not contest your claim that the sources are not RS (they looked reliable to me, but again, my knowledge in this area is quite limited). I will, however, note that your conclusions do not necessarily follow from your premises.

First, if the sources conflict (I'm not sure how, but I will take your word for it), they are not necessarily both unreliable sources. It could be that one is reliable and the other is not.
Second, if the sources conflict and this conflict is resolved in the article (i.e., one version is chosen over another), this need not be original research as the editor may simply have utilized one of the sources without knowledge of the other (this is working within informational constraints or limited research, not original research).
Third, even if an editor actually tested the CSS support of the browsers to resolve some conflicts (which would qualify as OR), this does not make the article in its entirey OR.

However, to be more practically address the concerns of this AfD, let me ask this: can the OR, RS, and WP:V issues be resolved? Is there really hopeless disagreement between multiple reliable sources (ignoring non-reliable sources)? If there is such hopeless disagreement, can the article be changed to reflect/discuss the areas where there is disagreement? If the answers to this are No, Yes, No with good reason, then I'll agree the article ought to be deleted. My "keep" comment was in response to your nomination that the article contained OR and lacked reliable sources as both of these problems are (usually) correctible, and also because the article is well-organized. If, however, the OR/RS issues cannot be resolved and portions of the article cannot be altered to reflect the existence of differing viewpoints in published sources, then I will support deletion. I know this is an awful lot to ask to be "convinced" to change my position, and I will completely understand if you choose not to go to all that trouble. However, in the end, my being convinced is not as important as determining whether the article is truly, inherently, and irreparably flawed, or whether it can be fixed/improved. Cheers, Black Falcon 03:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; In addition, Whilst I could see this would be a great resource for web developers if it was sourced, I don't see this as being able to follow the precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of web browsers -- If someone is prepared to go and cite each case, then they should at least remove the sections for which the W3 hasn't at least got to 'Candidate Recommendation' status without a thumping great warning. I also don't think that browser proprietary extensions should be listed at all (all those starting with a '-'). -- Ratarsed 10:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as noted above, see why Comparison of web browsers was kept. Yes, the article has issues in terms of sourcing, size, and the inclusion of unfinalised specs. But they can be fixed (except perhaps page size), and the strengths of the page are very substantial. El T 13:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this is very volatile topic. While the information may be correct today tomorrow things could change. If kept this article (and similar ones) should prominently display a date when the contents was reviewed last time. Pavel Vozenilek 20:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that implies that it is accurate to start with. I doubt that. Nssdfdsfds 20:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used word may. I do not work with CSS or the engines and have no opinion on current article accuracy. Pavel Vozenilek 20:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Black Falcon. --Voidxor 04:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worthy or notable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for minute technical details of minute aspects of the huge realm of internet design, it is an encylopedia... This belongs in a technical manual, no doubt, but that is not what wikipedia is.--Vox Rationis 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT#IINFO of the how-to guide variety. Absolutely fails to be an WP:ENCyclopedia article. The WP:ATTributability, or not, of the content is irrelevant. The best referencing in the world wouldn't make this suitable for Wikipedia. There ought to be some WMF/Wikia project this can be transwikied to, where it would be right at home, but this isn't it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as objective and encyclopedic tabulation of verifiable information. You can call it a bug list to make it sound bad, but it is still a compatibility list. This is not a how-to guide. If sources are contradictory, more reason to verify them, and verifying the correctness of sources is not OR. If the tables are neglecting any CSS properties, then mention them on the Talk page. –Pomte 01:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:34Z

Golden chicken plant[edit]

This article was written based off some pictures of a plant seen on a blog, at [46]. The name of the plant is just something the blog writer came up with himself. Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability Xyzzyplugh 13:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, blogs are not considered reliable sources. If appropriate resources are added by end of this AfD change to Keep Alf photoman 14:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, in light of Uncle G's comments I don't think there is a reason to prolong this Alf photoman 18:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An illiterate "Does anyone know what this plant is?" discussion on a web log is not a suitable source for an encyclopaedia article, especially given the admission right at the top that this name is wholly made up. The only thing useful on the web log is one poster giving a binomial name, from which we find that we already have an article on the genus Cibotium, and are awaiting a proper article on the species Cibotium cumingii (named C. taiwanense by Kuo in 1985 but originally named C. cuningii by Kunze in 1841), for which this article is useless as a starting point, since it contains no verifiable content and doesn't even have the correct name. Delete. Uncle G 14:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:33Z

Nemesis (software)[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:PROG Nv8200p talk 13:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, blogs are not considered reliable sources. If appropriate resources are added by end of this AfD change to Keep Alf photoman 14:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC), oops, thought I was in the Golden Chicken Plant Alf photoman 14:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of coverage in independent third-party sources to establish notability per WP:SOFTWARE. Walton monarchist89 15:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not another Freshmeat and cannot cover every piece of software. Nemesis looks as a work of single person and no information is given who (or whether) does use it. Not being used practically means unmaintainable article (not that the current text contains plenty of insightful of information). Pavel Vozenilek 20:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The majority decides. Since I am the writer of this article I feel like apologizing twice: for the article and for the software. Concerning the software: It is indeed a work of single person but while no information is given who (or whether) does use it does not necessarily mean that it is not used. It is indeed used for quite a long within a university (where I am doing my research) and within the next months will be freely publicly available. I suppose that if notability is established by evidence of coverage in independent third-party sources, well yes this software is not being used practically and since WP is not another Freshmeat and cannot cover every piece of software you may proceed and delete it. Concerning the article: I wrote it after searching for similar articles (similar subject/audience/etc) and found plenty of them in a quite miserable state where in no case the current text contains plenty of insightful of information. My intentions were to be as polite as possible (I didn't want in no case to be accused of vandalism or advertisement) and I didn't want to include several pages just to make it seem important but in any case this article is not an unmaintainable article. However if this is what it looks, then you may once again proceed and delete it. In any case I do not intent adding info for the next few days, so if you like please feel free to delete it. Fkar 02:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intended to be sarcastic or ironic or devaluating. Maintenance of this kind of articles is problematic because the information may get obsoleted at any moment and this is quite a demotivating for people to put their time here. During several years of my presence on Wikipedia I expanded one and only one article about a less known software (Metakit). Pavel Vozenilek 19:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not really someone who would proudly call himself a wikipedian (in fact this was my first contribution ever) as to be familiar with difficulties faced by hard workers trying to maintain stuff like this; therefore I totally agree with you. Speaking about obsolete and maintenance however, please keep in mind that this article was tagged for deletion within the first three weeks from its initial entry. Fkar 03:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Consists of a couple of high school students. Note that a real technology company consortium also called NEOSA exists, unrelated to this. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 10:06Z

NEOSA[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notbility per WP:ORG. Nv8200p talk 13:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; organisation only has 5 members; nothing to indicate coverage in third-party independent sources. Walton monarchist89 15:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article provides nothing to show how the organisation meets [WP:CORP]]. Nuttah68 14:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:31Z

The Legend of Zelda (Wii)[edit]

This was previously deleted back in June, but somehow got recreated and wasn't deleted under CSD G4. I'm not entirely sure whether this simply went under the radar or whether the actual content was different. Anyway, one user tagged it as not notable, I prodded it, and another user endorsed that prod. The article was deleted when the prod expired, but it was contested on DRV (with no reason given), so per policy it was restored. Now we're back at AfD.

I maintain that this article is simply a crystal ball for a future game. Of the two sources in the article, one says nothing more than "our sources say it's in development", and the other is in fact about Twilight Princess – a completely different game. Fails WP:NOT a crystal ball, doesn't have WP:N's multiple non-trivial sources. – Steel 13:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Your assertion is misleading. One of the sources is an article about Twilight Princess, yes, but it includes a mention of the game in question, from back when the Wii was still the Revolution, and LONG before the Wii port of TP was planned. Crystal-balling would be saying that Nintendo’s next system after Wii will have a Mario, a Zelda, and a Pokémon. Of course it will, but nothing about that has been said by anyone from Nintendo. Something has been said about the next Zelda for Wii. Getting mnts is necessary, yes, but I don’t believe it is impossible, I am sure I saw it mentioned during a similar interview on Gamespot too, I think it is likely elsewhere, as well. And, for the record, I didn’t leave a reason on DRV because it says to submit Prod contestations in the format “[Pagename]] - ~~~~”. --WikidSmaht (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment all we have is a couple of passing mentions. Where has it been the subject of non-trivial published works? – Steel 15:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - really a case of WP:CRYSTAL. I checked out the sources, which only mention the upcoming game in passing, and don't really provide verification. Rumours have no place on Wikipedia. Walton monarchist89 15:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - both sources do appear to be referencing a Wii game that is not Twilight Princess. However, I don't see why this game is deserving of an encyclopedia article just yet. Most gamers know that, at any given time, there is a Zelda game in development (and a Mario game, and Pokémon, and Metroid, etc). The game probably will be released, yes. The game is almost definitely in development, yes (based on the two sources provided, which are reliable). However, that's about it. It's a game that is in development and will be released sometime in the future. So, the question is- do highly-anticipated games (or books, movies, etc) that are definitely in development deserve a Wikipedia article? Should we have higher standards than GameFAQs and the Internet Movie Database? There is also the problem regarding the lack of multiple secondary non-trivial sources about the game itself, though there eventually will be, so this isn't as big of a problem that some might think. --- RockMFR 18:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It might stay as a stub for a while but when the game is given a name it can just be renamed. -Dark Dragon Flame 21:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 20:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to The Legend of Zelda (series) Nothing substantial/that isn't already covered in the series article. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 22:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a textbook case of crystal-ballery. For precedent see Devil May Cry AFD. Hbdragon88 23:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear-cut case of WP:CRYSTAL-balling. Any given major series generally has the next installment in production. That does not mean we have any encyclopedic information about it, as yet. --Haemo 00:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Looking at the sources given, we have one from over a year ago before we knew there'd be a Wii version of Twilight Princess, so for all we know that project was superseded by the TP port, and another that's basically reporting on rumors. I would be shocked if there isn't another Wii Zelda game, but right now there's not enough to base an article on. BryanG^(talk) 04:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's nothing but rumours. The game doesn't deserve its own page yet.DreamingLady 10:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a game in development. This is game that someone has expressed interest in possibly developing sometime in the future. This isn't in the blueprint stage; it's not even in the buying drafting pens stage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It could be that there's reliable information out there related to a new Wii-related Zelda game. I've heard that beginning with the next game there's going to be a lot of change related to the series. However, there's certainly NOT enough information to base an article around. Cheers, Lankybugger 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now; article can be created when the game exists. --Alan Au 23:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course Nintendo will keep releasing Zelda games. Wait until we have some kind of information besides "Nintendo intends to develop another Zelda game". —ptk✰fgs 05:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending better references WP:Crystal ball doesn't require you to to wait for an "official announcement" before making an article about a future product, but you do need to have information that comes from referenced, reliable independent non-trivial articles about the product. Unfortunately this article only has a couple of very minor looking references, both of which might not be reliable (one was in a "gossip" section, for example). Delete pending more reliable, significant articles about the game. Dugwiki 20:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-02 10:04Z

Ben Grass[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. A vague entry on IMDb. Verifiability issues: only ref is to own site. The tone, especially filmography section, reeks of self-promotion. Also, the synopses were taken from [47]. I tried to remove them, but they were reinserted. Suspected WP:COI. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - only link is to his own site; no evidence of coverage in third-party external sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless sources are added. Walton monarchist89 15:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, no verifiable secondary sources Alf^Photoman 01:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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?)} 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nesiya[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:ORG Nv8200p talk 14:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the sourced quote from Regina Spektor may constitute evidence of independent coverage in third-party sources per WP:ORG, but more sources are needed to firmly establish notability. Walton monarchist89 15:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this covered on the Hebrew WP? Can any other sources be found on this one there? (Right now, I'm leaning towards a "weak delete" pending WP:RS being met.) Caknuck 10:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would like to suggest that if Jews in the Woods merits an article, then Nesiya, which has existed for longer, certainly does. Some googling turned up The Alumni of Five Israel Experience Programs and Their Distinctive Jewish Identity Profiles, a scientific paper, although sponsored by "The Alliance for Educational Programs in Israel", of which Nesiya might be a member?, and Davidson, Adina Ruth. 1993. “Value Development among Jewish Adolescents: Processes of Engagement.” Ph.D. Thesis, Case Western Reserve University., which according to the abstract is based on a study of 25 Nesiya participants. I think this counts as enough notability. – gpvos (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Moderate to weak keep per the sources above. -- Black Falcon 19:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-02 10:03Z

Never More than Less[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 14:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - only external links are to their own site and MySpace. No third-party sources cited to demonstrate notability per WP:BAND. Delete unless sources can be found. Walton monarchist89 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-promotion. Deb 12:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletion no notability or even claim of notability. --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 15:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletion Notability? Anyone? Anyone? Ezratrumpet 04:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-02 10:02Z

Nervous Chillin'[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. No major press coverage. No charted songs or assertion of national tours. Signed to a non-major indie label, etc. Nv8200p talk 15:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - only external links are to their own site; no evidence of coverage in third-party independent sources. Delete unless more sources are added. Walton monarchist89 15:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC or the primary notability criterion. A Train ^{take the} 22:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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?)} 23:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carmella Bing[edit]

Article as it stands now fails to argue notability as defined by WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. - Tabercil 06:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and references I agree with what the nominator says, but don't draw the same conclusion. Can't respect WP:PORN as a legitimate criteria as it has not received widespread support, and BIO is a mess right now. It seems that with the notability assertion of the author there should be sufficient reference material to support an article per the primary notability criteria. I think that it should be tagged for references, NPOV, and cleanup. --Kevin Murray 18:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS to above, has nearly 500k ghits for "Carmella Bing." Many of the links look to be independent of her control and could be significant upon closer research. Remember that notable is being noticed, not being important (per guidelines). --Kevin Murray 18:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "She is popular for receiving well endowed men in her anus with considerable ease" is not a claim of notability. 500 thousand google hits are par for the course with any porn performer, they only serve to indicate the extent of spamming. It's also doubtful that any sources exist to substantiate the minute extent of actual biographical information presented in this poorly written stub. PORNBIO is at least a decent predictor of notoriety, if not notability, and this actress fails to satisfy PORNBIO criteria ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally unnoteable.Sumoeagle179 03:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On one hand, she was in Ass Eating Anal Whores. However, 17 films is hardly a notable corpus for a porn star. Some people shoot that many films in a busy week, let alone a career. Nothing here suggests notability over and above the countless other starlets in the business today. Caknuck 10:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-02 09:15Z

Desafuego[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. No assertion of notability of the song and no citations for the claims made. Nv8200p talk 15:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no evidence of multiple coverage in third-party sources, so no evidence of notability per WP:BAND. Delete unless sources are added. Walton monarchist89 19:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in addition to the lack of assertion of notability in the article, my search for "doctor smith desafuego" yielded zero non-wiki ghits. Darkspots 04:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 Delete since the band doesn't consider itself notable enough to have a Wiki page, I would contest that the song is definitely not notable. A1octopus 20:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:29Z

Maltese Names[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. De-prodded w/o comment. Transwikied. Pan Dan 15:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kurdish given names and all of the similar pages that have been up for deletion recently. I don't know why someone doesn't just nominate all these articles in bulk. Walton monarchist89 16:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- as a former Commonwealth Realm, Malta should not be excluded from a list of names series Astrotrain 16:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the point - most of the "list of names" series have been transwikied and put up for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, etc. I think there's a clear consensus on this issue. Walton monarchist89 17:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:WINAD. As far as I can tell, this is the only list of given names still on Wikipedia. Please see wikt:Appendix:Maltese given names for where it was moved. Dmcdevit·t 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per appropriate transwiki. -- Black Falcon 22:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Marcus1234 07:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:28Z

Cleaners (Max Payne)[edit]

Delete not notable enough in the real world. (158.125.1.113 15:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Merge to Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne. Not notable enough to merit its own article per WP:FICT. Walton monarchist89 16:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect as per above Whilding87 17:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gorkekkingrammit! This article was kept by Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) at 14:41, 19 February 2007 (one week ago) following the first deletion discussion. The discussion as then blanked by IP user 158.125.1.113 on several occasions, before resulting in the text seen above. I have reverted the original discussion and moved this version of the nomination to the new discussion page. Please do not blank and restart deletion discussion pages, they are needed for historical purposes. -- saberwyn 23:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please not that this it not a opinion to keep or delete... I just want people to be aware that this article was nominated for deletion two weeks ago, kept a week ago, then the deletion discussion was blanked today. -- saberwyn 23:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Though I'm tempted to say, "keep for foul play." -- Richard Daly 02:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above (158.125.9.4 03:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 06:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the salvageable bits to Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne after deleting the original research portion of the article. In any case, the subject doesn't seem substantial enough for a separate article. --Alan Au 23:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge makes the most sense. The last discussion didn't seem like it had a keep consensus to me, anyway. — brighterorange (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, zero reliable sources. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahadzadeh High School[edit]

Possibly notable, but it's so poorly written I haven't been able to decipher its notability. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't verify that this school exists. (By contrast several others in Category:High schools in Iran do turn up on Google searches.) Recreate if/when reliable sources are provided. Pan Dan 16:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and its just a list of various things that are not encyclopedic. This information is of no use to anyone out of that community the school serves and also most of the teachers are not notable proved through there is no links about them. --PrincessBrat 16:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The same user created the article on the Persian Wikipedia With Farsi translations, in some cases there might be some other way to spell it that is more "correct". In these cases (both on the spelling and notability), I think we should ask someone over there about this. --Aude (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per lack of any verification that the school actually exists. If someone can provide a reliable source though, I might change my mind. There may also be a larger issue here -- just because a subject is provably notable in one language (such as the Persian Wikipedia), does not necessarily mean that it is notable in all languages. Even if there are Farsi newspapers which confirm the school's existence, I would argue that if there's not a single English-language source on the school, that it is not reasonable to maintain an article about it in the English Wikipedia. Then again, a case could be made that it might be useful to maintain an English-language article strictly as a translation of a Farsi article. But ultimately, we're an encyclopedia, not a translation service. --El on ka 21:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not notable on persian wikipedia either. The most important thing is that there is nothing special about that high school. We can't have article for every single high schools around the world. Hessam 21:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sorry, but unless we can see evidence that the school is notable, and this is provided through independent references, this article fails our community guidelines and should go. I'd like to see broader coverage of educational institutions around the world, but this is not a good place to start. WMMartin 15:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
commentI 'm not agree to delete this page because it might be developed . WMMartin 15:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not notable and verifiable. Hessam 20:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-02 09:14Z

Remember to Forget[edit]

Had prod tag due to lack of any Google evidence for this webcomic's existence. Spoke to author on his talk page and, as he is a newbie, pointed out that evidence of notability needed to be provided. Author replied that this was once 32 on Topwebcomics list but has now disappeared. Beyond this assertion, no links or other evidence of notability provided although the articles' author has removed the prod tag. Delete as non-notable. Spondoolicks 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages created by the same user:

Delete - unsourced, unverified, no evidence of coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:WEB. Walton monarchist89 16:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete - The reason the comic is unverified and non notable is because it is gone. I'm ceartin that there are other stories in this website that no longer exist in published form but the article still remains. When i made this article I made it with the notion that, while the actual comic is gone, people will still be able to enjoy the story. Gamewizard0380 18:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it were ever notable, there would be evidence from reliable sources to document this. There isn't. GassyGuy 21:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spent a while trying to find any evidence of notability; couldn't find one bit. Balancer 05:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it were on Topwebcomics wouldn't that count as notable? Comics such as Megatokyo started out like that. Though it would be hard to say since it was only in 32nd place.LordKal1 17:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-02 09:13Z

List of Council Shoulder Patches[edit]

Gallery of non-free images BigDT 16:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This gallery contains scouting images which are not being used for other than the purpose of recognizing the councils in the United States. KB1KOI 23:01 2007-02-24

Delete, move to scouting.wikia.com. Rlevse 18:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per prior discussion there are several alternatives for this. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:27Z

The Infinite Force[edit]

Delete - there do not appear to be multiple independent verifiable sources attesting to this person's notability. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:WEB. Otto4711 16:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article doesn't assert notability of subject in any sourced way. Darkspots 04:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:15Z

Marilyn Anna Carter[edit]

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Joseph Carter
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quarl (talk • contribs) 07:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Part of what looks like a complex hoax also involving Francheska Marie Luciana, Versale Luciana, Alexis Patrick Luciana, Ianicoli Carter, Matthew Wessley Carter, Brax Carr, William Joseph Carter and perhaps others Henrygb 16:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax It looks like all articles created by this user are hoaxes. Some are still on PROD; others are Hilltop Killer, Hilltop Murderer, Carter Clan, Intrigued, Anna Marilyn Stewart Carter, Daniel Jonathan Carter, William Joseph Carter. He also made a couple of edits to legitimate articles, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. and Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy. --Groggy Dice T | C 19:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete hoax --and also for the others. Very well written hoaxes, not necessarily obvious from the start of the article. DGG 22:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wouldn't be notable even if it wasn't a hoax. JuJube 07:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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?)} 23:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webalize[edit]

Dictionary definition and unsourced neologism. Contested prod. ~Matticus ^T_C 16:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, unless sources can be found to show that the term is in widespread use. Walton monarchist89 19:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary or Delete per WP:NEO. It does appear to be in use. John Vandenberg 04:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NEO as above. Frankly, I'm not certain that the meaning in the article is the most common - I note that most of the first few pages of results from a google search lead to a spyware program of the same name.--Kubigula (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Wizardman 00:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Hope[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL, no references Yonatan (contribs/talk) 16:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, unless independent sources can be found to verify that this album is scheduled for release. Walton monarchist89 19:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the info at http://www.mandymoore.com and her myspace, http://myspace.com/mandymoore aren't enough? 68.229.164.101 23:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; see this MTV News article and this press release from Moore's record label. Extraordinary Machine 21:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep are u kidding me dude, did you even attempt to do any homework. Parys 23:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything other than the tracklist is legitimate information; there are links to independent sources at the bottom. The fact that there is some unsourced info doesn't mean that the whole article should be deleted; rather, that info should be taken out. The fact that this reached AfD seems to be a bit extreme. SKS2K6 08:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But remove sections such as tracklist that fail WP:Crystal. A1octopus 13:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-02 09:06Z

Radon (band)[edit]

Although the page claims the band is notable, it has no references or sources, or anything to indicate that the band meets any of the notability criteria in WP:MUSIC (aside from being signed to a known indie label, which, if I understand the criteria correctly, is not enough on its own to establish notability without any other sources.) I am also nominating the following related pages:

...and the associated images found on the above pages. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no evidence of coverage in independent third-party sources to establish notability per WP:BAND. Delete unless sources can be added; even if the band turns out to be notable, there's no need for the separate articles on each of their albums. Walton monarchist89 19:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless links to non trivial and independent articles about this band are added before the end of this debate. Also concur that individual members and releases do not warrant individual articles even if this page is kept. A1octopus 16:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:27Z

Shelly Glover[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:BIO. No major media coverage. This may be a promotional piece for her political aspirations. Nv8200p talk 16:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no evidence of multiple coverage in independent sources, so no proof of notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless sources can be found. Walton monarchist89 19:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources, but not much notabillity.Corporal Punishment 21:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP. Neither her post nor achievements appear to warrant an article. Ohconfucius 07:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occam's butterknife[edit]

Neologism, and probably WP:NFT. No sources. No mention of where the term came from, or where it's defined. For a term that's "widely used" it gets 22 Google hits. [48] Prod, contested by anon. eaolson 17:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO; unsourced, no evidence that the term is widely used. Walton monarchist89 19:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN neologism. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 20:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NFT. A Train ^{take the} 22:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious violation of WP:NEO, despite claims to the contrary. --Haemo 00:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Joke. Pavel Vozenilek 20:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cute. Clever. Neologism. --UsaSatsui 10:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Funny -- wish I had this term when getting my BA, but still NEO. -- Pastordavid 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Naked Brothers Band (TV series). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:23Z

Beautiful Eyes[edit]

Incomplete AFD, completing it. Procedural, neutral Kesac 17:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to one of The Naked Brothers Band articles. There's no content here, and as the song is fictional there's not likely to ever be any. eaolson 19:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete as per above suggestion--The Spith 19:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2007-03-02 09:05Z

Home.co.uk[edit]

Non notable website (fails Alexa test circa 43,000). Also appears to be autobiogrpahical Ratarsed 13:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator -- Ratarsed 13:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa ranking is not one of our WP:WEB criteria, and checking Alexa is not research. Research involves looking for published works about this subject from independent sources. The web site is one of 10 sites discussed in this article in The Mirror. It's one of the 5 sites tested by Moneywise and reported in this article in The Birmingham Post. It's one of several sites discussed in this article in Estates Gazette. It's discussed in this article in The Daily Mail, and in this article in The Sunday Times, and mentioned in this article in MoneyWeek. There's clearly some verifiable information to be had on the subject from independent sources. The only question is whether there is enough information to support a whole article or whether there is only a little information that should be presented in an article with a broader scope, such as one on the housing market in the U.K.. That's a choice between rewriting the article as it stands from sources and merging it. Neither option involves deletion, or any administrator tools, at any stage. Uncle G 13:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexa is cited as an option at Wikipedia:Search engine test.
  The references I could find seemed to be media reprints of press releases[49] -- the Website itself doesn't appear to have any original content (even their house price index if bought in from Calnea Analytics[50] who run mouseprice.com[51]).
  Neither of those points address the article being autobiographical. -- Ratarsed 14:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it is not cited as an option. Wikipedia:Search engine test explains the flaws in the Alexa test, and some of the reasons why it is not one of the criteria, which can be found, as I said, at WP:WEB.
    As for the article being autobiographical: If sources exist, that is a matter of cleanup, which any editor can do. Uncle G 22:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable website--Sefringle 05:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this were an article on a non-web commercial organization we would surely be deleting it as commercial advertising, and being on the web doesnt change the nature. DGG 05:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Uncle G. Although the text reads like advertising, this can be cleaned up by editing. The multiple sources noted by Uncle G seem to establish notability. -- Black Falcon 22:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Uncle G. Good God, that's a lot of sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Daly (talk • contribs) 03:40, 25 February 2007.
- I'm not convinced as to how much weight those sources carry, as I believe them to be paraphrasing press releases. If we were to trust them, then there should be articles on Wikipedia on a whole load of other websites out there (hated-celebrities.co.uk would be an example of a website that got national (multi-page) coverage in several newspapers, but doesn't get a mention on Wikipedia) -- Ratarsed 08:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources do not qualify if they are "Media re-prints of press releases and advertising". However, from what I can tell, the articles are reviews rather than reprints of press releases. As for the example you note, http://www.hated-celebrities.co.uk, I am not familiar with it or its coverage so I won't comment on its inclusion in WP. However, maybe it should have an article. Just as the presence of an article is not necessarily an indicator of notability, the lack of an article is also not necessarily an indicator non-notability. Cheers, Black Falcon 18:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I eluded to, I'm not convinced that the mentions are not just the result of a press release arriving at a convenient time, or that a marketing budget bought some journo a nice lunch -- the sources more common in the media that I have experienced first hand are those from the Land Registry (government agency), the Halifax (and probably other building societies, but the Halifax sticks in my mind more), and very occasionally Rightmove (I believe they were featured on the Money Programme on the BBC a while back for their house price index. If home.co.uk was really notable, I would expect it to have been mentioned in the broadcast media more, yet it's never even got a mention in a BBC Online news story (Possibly because they just regard it as a meta site with none of its own original content)... Oh, and for the record, I don't think hated-celebrities is worth an article, as it folded without making any substantial impact on the world (short of a few alleged threats from lawyers and multi page spreads in the UK press). In short, I still think I'd need convincing that this article is worth keeping, personally. -- Ratarsed 20:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Granted, and I'm not suggesting that hated-celebrities should be included (I know nothing about the site). However, when consider whether home.co.uk was/is "really notable", please keep in mind whether it meets WP:WEB rather than how popular it is. If the sources provided by Uncle G are not independent and reliable, then yes, the website isn't notable. However, I think there would have to be some proof that the mentions were "bought" for them to be disregarded as reprints of press releases. Cheers, Black Falcon 20:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability. SakotGrimshine 20:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Uncle G. The text needs to be cleaned up. However, the Asking Price Index and asking price summaries by town and postcode are indeed worthy of a mention. Home.co.uk is probably the UK's first 'vertical search' and certainly the first in property. BTW the site is linked directly from the BBC website's property section. I would say notability for inclusion in wikipedia is that this site is a leading and respected source of information on UK property for sale. Dougshephard 15:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G's quick findings. Multiple non-trival pulbished works. --Oakshade 18:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-02 09:05Z

Columbia Basin League[edit]

I'm not universally opposed to high school athletic leagues having articles, but this one asserts no notability, and I couldn't find anything on the web indicating it's unique, or particularly important. I'm nominating this partly because I want to see it gone and partly because I'd like to know whether other editors find high school athletic leagues inherently notable. Djrobgordon 17:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no evidence of notability; no citations of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources, which is required by WP:N. No policy describes high school athletic leagues as inherently notable, nor are they exempt from normal notability requirements. Walton monarchist89 19:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete given no assertion of notability. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to creating a List of Washington high school athletic conferences with this type of format, but creating it with a single conference doesn't seem worthwhile. BryanG^(talk) 04:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Singapore Chinese Orchestra. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 09:05Z

Singapore Youth Chinese Orchestra[edit]

NN Youth Band in Singapore. All members NN, advise move to userpage of main contributor. Kareeser|^Talk! 18:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable music group, organised at the national level, has won numerous awards and performed in other countries. Its history dates back to 1969. This is not your usual youth band, selection is highly competitive and membership is a stepping stone to a professional music career.[52] --Vsion 18:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — Of course the main website would promote their own band as highly competitive and helpful in establishing a future music career... I could even say that on my own wind band's website, but they don't have an article on WP, now do they ;) Kareeser|^Talk! 23:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Actually, there are plenty of independant online chinese sources that can verify the facts, such as those from the government of taiwan. [53], [54]. Good luck to your band, btw. --Vsion 23:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - only external link is to their own site, so no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage by independent sources to establish notability per WP:BAND. Delete unless sources are added to demonstrate notability. Walton monarchist89 19:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful content to Singapore Chinese Orchestra and remove lengthy lists. Should be the best course of action for now. - SpLo T {新年快乐!} // 02:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Singapore Chinese Orchestra because

most of the information in this article is irrelevant, even if it is verifiable. For example, Wikipedia is not a roster: look at any other article about music groups and you won't find a list of every single person in the band; plus, how notable are any of these people? And Wikipedia is not a PR page: this article has more propaganda vocabulary than an average company website. and also a

Comment or suggestion would be for SYCO to setup their own wiki

if they have the need for it (go to www.mediawiki.org) Schroedi 09:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In its current form, the article tone fails WP:NPOV, violates WP:SPAM and WP:NOT#DIR. The subject may be notable, but a massive cleanup will be required if kept per Schroedi. Ohconfucius 08:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:14Z

William Joseph Carter[edit]

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Anna Carter
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quarl (talk • contribs) 07:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Unsourced biography; looking at the authors other articles (e.g. Brax Carr), appears to be part of a hoax. No google hits for William Joseph Carter, Carter Oil Enterprises, or any of the other associated articles. Prod was removed without comment or provision of sources.) Marasmusine 18:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete all related articles as WP:HOAX--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 18:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as hoax (FYI, speedy does not apply to hoax articles). --Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I know that but it's just so obvious that this particular AfD seems like a waste of time.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 20:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All hoax. --Groggy Dice T | C 23:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks any references and as previously mentioned, appears to be a hoax.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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?)} 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vibraimage[edit]

This article promotes but makes no verifiable claim for the notability of this technology. Shunpiker 19:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ - multiple external references and external links are provided for verification. As the references are all book sources, I can't check them out, but it looks like they probably constitute multiple non-trivial coverage by third-party sources, which satisfied WP:N. Walton monarchist89 19:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-examine the references. There is no indication that the third-party sources (e.g. Nobel-prize winner Konrad Lorenz' On Aggression) discuss "Vibraimage". These references (Lorenz, Darwin, Freud, Aristotle, etc.) are given to argue the importance of what -- without reliable sources indicating otherwise -- can only be called "Original Research". Google is also little help in finding independent verification for the relevance of this technology. It may also be worth noting the conflict-of-interest issues in the edit history. -- Shunpiker 19:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK fair enough; as I explained, I can't check out the book sources myself (not having instant access to a scientific library) and will take your word for it. Weak Delete therefore, pending further information on the exact content of the sources cited. Walton monarchist89 19:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Unsourced OR of dubious value. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reads more like an advertisement than an encyclpaedic article. Possibly a hoax. More likely a bit of non-notable technology that isn't used much. Perhaps when it takes the world by storm it should then be written about. Maustrauser 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is a technology patented in five countries, which means that it is a novel technology (according to patentability criteria). Certainly the article could use some clean-up, i.e. make it less of an advertisement, cut out any original research, make it more encyclopedic, use more accurate references, etc., but deletion is a wrong move. I would be glad to start a main page on emotional imaging technology analogous to imaging technology, so to group up the other related technologies, e.g. John Gottman, microexpression, and a few others which I know are around somewhere? I think, in total, the subject of emotional recognition, discerned via the various technologies, would be an interesting and good encyclopedic article to have, one which I would contribute to. Terrorist recognition is a hot topic presently and this seems to be a technology with application in area. Certainly put clean-up or reference tags on the article but not deletion. --Sadi Carnot 13:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - A novel technology is not necessarily a notable one, and the granting of patents does not in itself bestow notability. The working draft of the guideline for notability in science says "Wikipedia does not usurp the usual validation processes of scientific institutions such as peer review, scientific consensus, and academic recognition." In the case of "Vibraimage", there is no indication that it has sustained such validation. Nor does "Vibraimage" appear to meet the criteria of Textbook science, Widely cited, Institutional recognition, Prominent advocacy, Press and fiction, Popular belief, or Historical interest. In fact, it's not clear whether "Vibraimage" has received any attention apart from that of its backers and creators. I find the subject of affective computing fascinating, and I would like to read more about it in its many applications. But "Vibraimage" is not necessarily a notable implementation, and until I see a reliable, independent source that says otherwise, I'm going to assume that it's not and that it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. -- Shunpiker 21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Russian article was created by user "Elsys" who also created most of the content here. And the Russian version (unlike the version on en:) does not read as a marketing brochure of a snake oil salesman. If this is kept the content should be reduced to what it is and irrelevant references to authorities should be removed.

I was not able to understand from the article what vibraimaging actually is - perhaps I am too dumb for it. I'll add that computer based evaluation of tiny changes of some characteristics of human body (e.g. skin color of injuries) is valid topic of research on at least couple of universities. Pavel Vozenilek 20:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2: after cleanup by Shunpiker the text has the proper form for a WP article. (An aside: "forensic identification of person by dynamic stereotype of locomotion" (identification by the way people walk as recorded by industrial cameras) is a new technology currently developed by a team in the Czech Republic.) Pavel Vozenilek 19:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Some of the material in here may fit in elsewhere, but an article using this name is not yet justified since there seem to be zero peer reviewed articles referring to it under that name From the article: "John Gottman, who also used Ekman's principles, has used a similar technique." Similarly, the other RS citations are also besides the point, both the ones in this article and the ones in http://elsys.ru/review5_e.php, which is the commercial site. (It's the site for the Minkin ref). That there is a commercial site, and that there is no explicit link to it, makes this look a little like disguised commercial advertising. But no prejudice against it, for it may become notable later. DGG 00:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tidy and remove the sales talk. Here is a quickly tidied Babelfish translation of the Russian version:-

A Vibraimage is an image, whose each point reflects the parameters of the vibration (frequency or amplitude) of the points of object in space. Vibroimage is one of the primary specific images (visible light, infrared, X-ray) that informatively characterize the object.

Vibraimage records and analyzes vibrations, motor activity, and special features of the psycho-dynamics of a man, by algorithmic conversion of a normal video image into the new vibroimage mode, which informatively reflects the emotional and psychophysiological state of the man. Vibroimage unites contemporary technical achievements with fundamental knowledge in medicine and psychology, and makes real the remote and non-contact automatic determination of the emotional state of the man.

The parameters of Vibraimage are also primary and informatively characterize the man as the parameters EEG, KGR or EKG.

Minkin, V. biometriya. From the identification of personality to the identification of thoughts IdMagazine 3 (6), 2002.

Minkin V. A., Nikolayenko N. N. the "television methods of the development of aggressiveness" = the "14th All-Russian scientific and technical conference" contemporary television "// FGUP BAR" electron ". - Moscow: 2006.

And see Talk:Vibraimage. 07:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 23:18, 25 February 2007 User:Anthony Appleyard

Comment: I edited the article to reduce the number of unsubstantiated claims. In this state I think it is not {{hoax}}-worthy, but it still does not demonstrate notability. -- Shunpiker 08:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I tried to classify article rejections and reply to it.

(1) "References to great scientists (Aristotle, Darwin, Lorenz, Freud, Ekman) that did not use the term vibraimage". Sure, the vibraimage is a novel term. But it reflects the movement and vibration of body, and all previous science conclusions about body activity are visualized by vibraimage. There are classical works like Darwin "The Expression of the emotions in man and animals" and Lorenz "On Aggression" which described the movement of animals and humans. In vibraimage processing we realized the algorithms suggested by Lorenz, who said that "frequency of movement is proportional to aggression level". Why we could not give the link to Lorenz, if we do it in vibraimage processing? It would be incorrect and I think that links for great scientists, that could not measure movement activity by technics, but analyzed the process in the mind is one of the goals for any encyclopedic science article.

(2) "Advertising and not an encyclopedic article". Look strange that primary image could be advertising. Elsys does not claim the vibraimage, we only discovered it. Furthermore, I am sure that if Darwin or Lorenz had web cameras, they discovered vibraimage several hundreds years ago. Also it concerns the great Russian scientist Ivan Sechenov, who wrote in 1853 that “every mind has muscular realization”. The great Brazil psychologist Mira y Lopez suggested in 1950 the theory of miokinetic diagnostics, which also very near to vibraimage, but Mira y Lopez had not web camera and computer for calculations and did manual processing, what is very difficult. So, I think that it is advertising only for science and great past scientists. Vibraimage is only technical realization of great past scientist ideas begins from Aristotle. Also, is very interesting that the word emotion means output of motion, see etymology of emotions. So, I prefer to add more links in this article, but it conflicts with (1)

(3) "Hoax". Every could see the vibraimage if you have a low noise web camera and software accumulated frames difference.

(4) "Not notable". I do not think that technology that try to do contactless and remote emotion control could be "not notable". Vibraimage analyzes the movement activity, it is the difficult task, because the movements and vibrations are little (microns). Emotion recognition needs to divide psychic and physiological processes, but it is not easy tasks. For example EEG (brain activity) processing exists more than 70 years, but there are many novel methods and ideas for EEG processing. 15 years ago I wrote about biometric passports and a little of people believe in it. Emotion recognition is more difficult than person recognition, but both are real. Elsys concentrates on terrorist detection, but vibraimage must be more open and used in normal life. Everyone could process vibraimage, receive more info about himself and this is one of ideas of wikipedia, to do the science more popular.

(5) "Short russian page". VibraImage is widely presents in russian, there are several articles and science reports (more than 1000 pages) in russian language. So I do not think that it is so necessary to have a big vibraimage russian page in wikipedia. The situation in English is the other. I think that vibraimage page could be interesting for readers and thanks for every person discussed this page.

Elsys 12:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: 1.) I restored the mention of Konrad Lorenz. I didn't restore the reference, because the principal question here is not whether aggression correlates to movement or whether Lorenz observed such a thing, but whether there has been any independent review of "Vibraimage". 2.) Until the thory that vibrations in a digital image correlate to emotional states has sustained peer review, it would be irresponsible (and more importantly, against policy) for Wikipedia to describe it as a "discovery". 3.) The {{hoax}} tag was a comment on the article, and not a judgment on "Vibraimage" itself. Wikipedia is not in the business of verifying theories either positively or negatively. 4.) I agree that there is great potential in the claims of "Vibraimage". But unverified potential does not confer notability. 5.) Perhaps Nature, Psychology Today and Wired are missing the boat by not publishing articles on "Vibraimage". But it's not the place of Wikipedia to compensate for that. Until there are articles published in the English-language press, there is scant basis to establish notability or to verify anything which could be said about "Vibraimage". -- Shunpiker 14:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most seriously probably violation of WP:COI as creator has same name as patent holder. Other problems non notable theories (although findable on Google with the company Elsys), references to Lorenz and other past heroes seems violation of WP:OR. Arnoutf 15:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply There is no conflict of interest because vibraimage is not patentable and does not belong to anybody. Firstly vibraimage page has historical links and science explanation, the links to Elsys site and other info about Elsys were done by other users and were taken from open sources. This was done according to Wikipedia policy, but I also do not see reasons for mention Elsys name on this page. For my mind the first reduction of vibraimage page with historical links to Aristotle, Darwin, Lorenz, Ekman and energy emotion model explanation was more right and correct than the last version. Elsys 14:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathic (very very very weak) keep It is a real product. It may well be smoke and mirrors, but that's not our job, sadly. It'll need strict policing to prevent it morphing into an advert. Greglocock 00:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article seems serious, but not notable enough. I couldn't find anything in Google in English that didn't seem to originate with the inventors (including the Wikipedia articles). There are thousands of patents granted every day. This one is not notable until people actually notice it, and Wikipedia is not the place to start a PR campaign (try the conventional newspapers first!). Itub 09:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many primary images are known? Visible, thermo image, ultrasound, MRI, x-ray. Maybe I miss something. Vibraimage is the one of primary images and every primary image is notable for wikipedia. Elsys 07:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can find hundreds of books, articles, websites, etc. completely devoted to X-rays, ultrasound, and MRI. The same is not true for vibraimage. Maybe it is a revolutionary discovery and in a few years there will be hundreds of books devoted to it. But we don't know that yet, and we don't have to guess. It is simply not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Itub 10:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:13Z

Advances in stegonography[edit]

This is obviously a copyright violation of a paper published elsewhere, or it's original research. Even if it's not original research not under copyright, it's basically the full text of a scientific paper and inappropriate for WP. Prod contested by the author without explanation. eaolson 19:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I highly doubt this paper was even published elsewhere. It reads like a freshman CompSci paper. --Haemo 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is unreasonable & unfair to conclude that something is a copyvio, when there is no evidence for what it might be a violation of. As Haemo said, in this case it isn't good enough to be that, but it's not encyclopedic either. We have a fairly good article on Steganography DGG 00:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlevse 03:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Massoud Tofangsazan[edit]

This article unnecessarily publicizes embarrassing events in the life of an otherwise unknown living individual. As noted in the article itself, the Internet publicity given to these events has seriously damaged this person's life and we should not knowingly participate in further doing so. The page, although created and edited in good faith, is the functional equivalent of an attack page against a non-notable person. See my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad for related discussion. Newyorkbrad 19:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nominations: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Tofangsazan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Massoud Tofangsazan

Keep - the separate sources from the Daily Mail, BBC News and Times Online constitute multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party independent sources per WP:BIO. Therefore, this individual is notable. I don't see how this could be construed as an attack page either; it's not the role of Wikipedia to make subjective judgments about what might have "seriously damaged a person's life" or whether events are "embarrassing". This article is an accurate and factual report, containing no libel, and is sourced to third-party reliable media sources. Walton monarchist89 19:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sure it is sourced and neutral and ticks all our internal boxes. But, Wikipedia is now the largest reference work in the world, one of the top-ten websites and developing into a thoroughly powerful resource. With great power comes great responsibility - we can add to human misery - or benefit human knowledge. Once thing OTRS teaches me, is to remember that there is a real world out there - and we can hurt real people. Some of them just unfortunate non-entities. Ticking internal boxes isn't enough - we need to rise above that and look at the big picture. We don't need this cruft. We don't need to add to this chap's pain. If we delete a thousand articles like it, we'll be no weaker. Does humanity benefit by us taking charitable donations and using them to host sub-tabloid tittle-tattle? No. Let's rise above WP:ABC and WP:XYZ and all our little house rules and set our sights on being great. Does this article further that, even a little?--Doc^g 19:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Wanting to "set our sights on being great" is not a justification for ignoring policy. The "little house rules" are, presumably, there for a reason - so they should apply equally to everyone and every article. There is no policy which says "Wikipedia has a social responsibility to do good for the world". It's a neutral encyclopedia that reports verifiable fact - that's what NPOV is all about. And as for calling it "sub-tabloid tittle-tattle" and "cruft", isn't that a classic example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Notability is not based on Wikipedia editors' subjective judgements. I just don't see which policy you're referring to in arguing for deletion. Walton monarchist89 20:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly, I'm not pointing to any policy, I'm putting common-sense and basic humanity over the alphabet soup. Just because something is verifiable, doesn't mean we have to have it. I mean when we've no article on Apollonius The Athenian or the Argentine Basin - will we collapse without this? --Doc^g 21:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It sounds like you're implicitly invoking WP:IAR in this case, which is fair enough (as it is, technically, a policy) but I'm not comfortable with it. Either that, or you're arguing that Wikipedia's notability policies themselves are wrong and should be changed; which is also fair enough, but the whole point of having rules is that they apply equally to every editor and every article. Please don't ignore the clear policy. Walton monarchist89 19:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doc. Sourcing does not equal notability. Bastique 19:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, from WP:BIO: All subjects of Wikipedia articles should meet the central notability criterion for inclusion, summarized here: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works the source of which is independent of the person. This clearly applies in this case. Ergo, this person is notable. Walton monarchist89 20:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but from WP:BLP a/k/a WP:LIVING: "In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Newyorkbrad 21:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm aware of that policy, but Wikipedia would not be the "primary vehicle" in this instance for the spread of such claims; the claims have already been spread extensively by the media, and all the statements in the article are sourced to various mainstream news reports (not all of which are from tabloids; one is from The Times, a reputable broadsheet, and one is from ITV News). Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Newyorkbrad and Doc. Useless junk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is sourced and subject is notable due to multiple press articles. Wikipedia has lots of articles that the subjects may not wish existed but this is not a reason to delete them. --J2thawiki 21:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brad and Doc. I'm particularly unimpressed that variations of the the word "alleged" occur five times in this article. Mackensen (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The word "alleged" is only a bad thing in cases where it violates WP:WEASEL; that isn't the case with this article, as all the major statements are sourced to news reports from reliable mainstream sources. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is most certainly NOT an attack page. It is simply a record of a notable individual who has been involved in several events all of which have been reported by several manjor and respected news companies. Whether or not this article is embarassing to the mentioned individual or not is not the issue. It is not Wikipedia's job to ensure all articles project a favourable image of the subject. This like most other pages is an accurate and truthful account of a notable individual's activities in the public spotlight. Wikipedia is going in completely the wrong direction if we as Wikipedia users are expected to suppress the truth just because there may be a chance that it may embarass or offend someone. Wikiepdia has been and will always be a vehicle of the truth. --JosephLondon 21:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only reason this guy could be seen as notable is because of the blog. It looks like the news items are about the blog. Thus, the guy is not notable, the blog is. We're just contributing to human suffering, not the sum of knowledge, with this one. I could see there being an acceptable article on the blog, hopefully with the guy's full name redacted. The blog is based on actions that the guy has never been convicted of, and is essentially an attack site. We shouldn't blithely repeat the blogger's possible libel. Mak (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - That's not the case. The news articles are not just about the blog (e.g. Daily Mail). This is a notable person, a search on Google or indeed any other search engine will produce copious results. This is a major event in the internet and in time and should be most certainly documented. --JosephLondon 21:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at WP:BIO, the (disputed) criteria is "[...] has been a primary subject of multiple [...]" (emphasis mine). Of the four sources I could read, only one of them has him as the focus; the other three focus on the alleged victim. Not only that, there's no reliable source saying he's actually the one who sold the laptop; he could be a innocent bystander (for instance, if he had sold the laptop to someone else, who then resold it to the alleged victim). I also find it interesting that all the sources are from around the same time (30-31 May 2006); this strongly suggests both merely had their 15 minutes of fame, and nobody will care much 100 years from now. --cesarb 21:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I've gone ahead and proposed the 15 minutes of fame test at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Proposal: "15 minutes of fame" test. --cesarb 21:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tough case considering that it is reasonably current and a living person. I think every effort must be made to keep this as neutral as possible, but the verifiable coverage is there to necessarily keep this. —siroχo 21:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought. Move this to a more neutral title. For example, eBay and Blogger incident of May 2006 as it is truly the story that garnered the coverage. —siro χ o 21:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not censored. The article is noteable due to the coverage in the English press. The arguments to delete above amount to nothing more than censorship due to potential offence to the individual. There are plenty of newspaper articles on this subject beyond those referenced in the article, try googling, many of which have the subject as a primary focus, some UK papers even printed a photo of Amir. If you want to support User:Doc's view above you should be voting for a change to wikipedia policy, not just targeting one article. GameKeeper 02:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not censored. --Richard Daly 02:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the incident may be notable - though this seems more suited to Wikinews than here as a fairly minor news event - the people involved are not, and most certainly not judging by the sources cited. And yes, we do have certain moral responsibilities not to wreck people's lives when they have done us no harm. 15 minutes of fame, anyone? Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Newyorkbrad, Doc G and Makemi plus common sense and basic decency. Absolutely trivial except to the parties concerned. As Cesarb says, this is "fifteen minutes of fame" stuff. Wikipedia should be an encyclopaedia, not a permanent repository for ephemeral tabloid gossip humiliating non-notable members of the public. --Folantin 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the circumstances are embarrassing, they are of note and we can not be revisionist historians and simply erase the facts of an event due to how the still living subjects feel about it. Great care, however should be placed into the maintenance and growth of this article, perhaps a protect to prevent unregistered users from vandalizing it. --Ozgod 04:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are we really supposed to preserve page-filler like this for posterity just because it made a brief appearance in the tabloids on a slow news day? Does this mean we can now scour the newspaper archives from, say, the 1970s looking to resurrect long-dead disputes among non-notable people which caused a momentary media buzz, e.g. an argument over a garden fence which escalated with "hilarious" consequences. This kind of thing is meant to be forgotten - the media have their "fun" then they move on, leaving the subjects of their attention to go back into obscurity and repair their lives. But now it's apparently the duty of an online encyclopaedia to immortalise such storms in a teacup so some poor guy can be humiliated for the rest of his natural. Sad. --Folantin 09:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, The Times is not a tabloid. Neither is ITV News. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 13:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strictly under WP:LIVING, this article unfortunately passes muster. However, I'll apply the proposed WP:NOTNEWS which is likely to gain consensus in a form that would support deleting this article. Even in the absence of WP:NOTNEWS, common sense indicates that we are not a directory of news stories, and if we have to cut off minor news stories this is a good place to start. The argument that the sources focus on the event, not the person, is also a good argument for not having an article at this title. Having said this, if this event happens to be discussed in an article describing its historical significance (if there is any), its significance to the study of Internet memes, etc., I don't think I would object to including the information in those kinds of contexts. Kla'quot 06:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:LIVING, though could use some trimming. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 00:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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?)} 23:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MGMbill.org[edit]

~~Well sourced~~, but the article seems to fly in the face of WP:SOAP: Wikipedia is not a soapbox and WP:COI. Edit: Actually looking at the sources, most are either self-published, or self-released press releases. There is only one independent source (college newpaper), so it looks like WP:WEB is not being met with its requirement of mutiple, non-trivial coverage. Leuko 19:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - In order for the article to violate WP:SOAP and WP:COI, it would have to violate NPOV, verifiability and notability. I don't see it violating any of those three (the NPOV is arguable, but then this is an advocacy organization and its views should be stated). "Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles." Perhaps it should be submitted for community review; if it fails, then delete. - Tim1965 19:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this a community review? What were you talking about? Leuko 07:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Weak Keep It appears to meet notability standards. If the issue is the writing, then it needs to be reworked and rewritten. I don't think it's beyond hope such that it needs to be deleted first. Leebo⁸⁶ 19:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are a lot of sources, but are they reliable as pretty much all being self-published? Leuko 19:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Weak Keep. If only for the CNN article in the criticism section. Perhaps there are others for that area too. I'm going to report User:Mgmbill as a user name violation though. Leebo⁸⁶ 20:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the CNN article discussed male genital mutilation, but it does not mention MGM.com anywhere, so it really can't be used to establish notability for the website. Leuko 20:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions MGMbill directly, is there more than one CNN article we're looking at? Leebo⁸⁶ 20:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It mentions a "Male Genital Mutilation bill." As far as I can see, there is no direct mention of the website MGMbill.com, or any link between the two that I can see. In any case, it's still only one WP:RS, not the multiple, non-trivial as required by the notability guidelines. Leuko 20:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, which is why I changed it to Weak Keep, as there may be more articles like this. I do believe it's about MGMbill.org though, unless it's about a different San Diego organization promoting the MGMbill. Leebo⁸⁶ 20:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Addition of Criticisms section would seem to resolve "soapbox" complaint. Addition of CNN, Columbia News Service, CNS News, and British Medical Journal citations would seem to resolve notability guidelines complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmbill (talk • contribs)

Comment: It's hard to criticize an organization that isn't on the radar. I think most groups who oppose it simply feel that by criticizing the group they lend it credibility. That's a thought, not a fact. So no, adding a "criticisms section" doesn't resolve the soapbox issue. Removing statements about what the group is for does that. The article should be about who the group is (no mention of its leadership or members is made) and what the group has done or trying to do. It should not be a platform to discuss issues that are described in other articles. The article is more of another forum for the group to make its political points and violates WP:POV by attempting to couch the neutrality of the article as its actions. See the Biased writing and Other areas where POV comes into play sections in particular.--Walter Görlitz 20:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is suspect, and the history of the article is problematic as a conflict of interest. --Nlu (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment History section shortened to address conflict of interest complaint.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 17.255.240.162 (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A conflict of interest cannot be removed by changing the content, it's based on the user editing. User:Mgmbill has a conflict of interest with article. Editing from an anonymous IP address won't change it either. Leebo⁸⁶ 23:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is bogus. It looks like a well-sourced article, but all the links (with one minor exception) don't pan out. Most are to a variety of PR or self-publish sites. Another is a news service associated with Columbia University, which I assume is place for students to practice their chops; it's better than a high-school paper but not the same as a real commercial news source. The sole neutral third-party source is medicalnewstoday.com, whatever that is. That's one obscure source. The "comments by legislators" are essentially form letters: "Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should the Senate consider this issue in the future." == "yeah yeah yeah whatever". I've got to hand it to User:Mgmbill. He'll make a fine editor if he wants to be. Here, he's done an outstanding job of making what looks like a well-sourced Wikipedia article on a notable subject, but in fact is a Potemkin village. Don't be fooled. Herostratus 02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 100 Google hits. The first link back to the site. While the cause is interesting, until the group gets a bill passed somewhere, they're just a fringe lobby group. I would be willing to change my vote if other lobby groups have pages. The interesting thing about this page though is that they aren't so much talking about themselves but rather they talk about the cause they're fighting for (or against). --Walter Görlitz 05:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I labeled it as soap-boxing. And personally, if there are other lobbying groups using WP to propagandize, I would rather delete them all per WP:ININ and WP:AADD#What_about_article_x.3F. Leuko 05:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP) I agree with this nomination. I would welcome more information about the topics involved here, but this is an encyclopaedia, and this BIO of a lobby group isnt of value. If the original contributor wants to further their views, they should be using Wikipedia to construct well written articles about their views, not their organisation. I'll reconsider if more reliable sources about the organisation are provided. John Vandenberg 03:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment cnsnews is not a news service associated with columbia university--it is http://www.cnsnews.com/corporate/history.asp "cybercast news service" a politically oriented professionally-run news service, whose exact sponsorship & direction I cannot easily decipher, but seems anti-Bush administration. Based on its coverage of current stories with which I am familiar, I'd consider it an RS. DGG

Keep The article needs considerable cleanup, but with careful editing could become a suitable contribution to Wikipedia. --Gulalo 00:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC) — Gulalo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, along with the rest of the Dolla Billz hoaxfarm. Deiz talk 10:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lunchroom Confessions[edit]

No notability asserted. Googlesearch does not show any reliable info. Articles has been speedily deleted and recreated several times Agathoclea 20:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt due to prior recreation of article. AgentPeppermint 23:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per nom. --Haemo 00:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete and salt per above and my comments on Dolla Billz's deletion page (see them here). Can we also think about speedily deleting all of the singles off each of his albums? (There are many.) Rockstar915 20:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's get this out of the way first. Once this is closed I'll delete those that can be speedied and will AfD the rest. Agathoclea 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources. Nardman1 08:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This and all the other articles associated with the non-notable Dolla Billz.

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

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

The result was Delete. Deiz talk 10:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshy's Crazy Life[edit]

No proven notability. Previous speedy deletions. No Google references outside Wikipedia/myspace and blogs. Agathoclea 20:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; clearly fails guidelines under WP:NOTE and more specifically under WP:MUSIC. --Haemo 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete per my comments on Dolla Billz's deletion page (see them here). Also, his material has been speedily deleted and then recreated in the past. Salt? Rockstar915 20:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources. Nardman1 08:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firm delete. And don't forget the songs that are also given their own articles. --Richhoncho 23:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment just been too lazy to list them all. Most could be speedied, and will be once the testcases are over. Agathoclea 23:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Along with Dolla Billz --Ozgod 04:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Deiz talk 10:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dolla Billz[edit]

No proven notability. Only reference is a set to private myspace link. Agathoclea 20:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable rapper. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 20:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete. Article fails every aspect of WP:MUSIC, and looks definitely like a vanity article. Note that there are also pages for all of Dolla Billz' albums and most of the singles off those albums, which look more like mixtapes than legit albums. Big Hunna Entertainments, Dolla Billz' "label," is just Dolla Billz' best friend, Big Hunna, as he explains in his album Joshy's Crazy Life. Finally, the creator of the Dolla Billz page, Jack tha Ripper, and a probable sock puppet Fan3 (user) have vandalized Cassie Steele and Fan 3's pages, adding Big Hunna Entertainments as their labels, when it is obviously not. There are also no third party references or independent web search results. Rockstar915 21:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above comment. Classic case of failing WP:MUSIC. --Haemo 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User Jack tha Ripper is constantly vandalising/blanking the AfD templates to all the Dolla Billz and the rapper's albums. I've left vandalism notices on his talk page, but maybe we should look into this? Rockstar915 18:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Nardman1 08:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:BIO standards. Most of the edits largely seem to come from a general ISP. --Ozgod 03:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Since the keep voters all seem to imagine that this has something to do with Oscar Wilde's quotation from The Picture of Dorian Gray, I have boldly redirected this page to Caliban (character), where Wilde's quotation is discussed. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rage of Caliban[edit]

Someone's rant about the (negative) reaction he got when he criticized the practices of academic research. Who cares? Sadly, this doesn't appear to fall under the speedy deletion criteria. Delete. Lupo 20:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A first person essay under an inappropriate title. Could live with speedy deletion despite the fact that does not obviously appear to meet any of the formal criteria. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a key theme in Oscar Wildes writings and a key to understanding the critique of 19th century realism and romenticism.Franz-kafka 22:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say what? Other than using a well-known Wilde quotation in the title, this has nothing to do with Wilde, realism, or romanticism. If I write a rant about a hospital nurse and call it "The Quality of Mercy", that doesn't make it an article about The Merchant of Venice. —Cel ithemis 22:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this article has naught to do with Oscar Wilde or 19th century Romanticism. If it had, I would welcome it, because Wilde rules OK? - Smerdis of Tlön 22:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good article, it should *not* be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.231.83 (talk • contribs)
Delete. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. —Cel ithemis 22:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear god, that is to say, STRONG DELETE - copy and paste from here which acknowledges that it's an essay, which runs afoul of WP:NOT#OR (whether it's user Franz-kafka's original thought or someone else's). Otto4711 22:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only reference listed links to a copy of the essay posted on the professors's website. Not encyclopedic in nature and definitely not NPOV. Warfieldian 22:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsalvageable first-person essay, no encyclopedic content. A Train ^{take the} 22:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DEFINITLEY KEEP, the quote is a vey important in understanding Oscar Wilde's thinking, it also provides an understanding to the backgrouing to the quote. It is much better than many other topics on wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Franz-kafka|Franz-kafka]] ([[User talk:Franz-kafka|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Franz-kafka|contribs]])

This is Franz-kafka's second !vote in this AFD and should not be considered. Otto4711 00:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete But lets remember that this isn't a vote. --Richard Daly 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As addressed above, this article has absolutely nothing to do with Oscar Wilde. The above comment is patently absurd. As such, I move for a strong delete, given that this is totally unencyclopedic. --Haemo 00:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP, this is about and importnat theme in ninteenth century literary thought. it is one of the best articles on wikipedia, i canot understand why anybody would want to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk • contribs) 08:50, February 26, 2007 [55]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John H. Cox. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:12Z

John H. Cox presidential campaign[edit]

~~non-encyclopedic article~~ Re-Direct, per FrozenPurpleCube's suggestion. SERSeanCrane 20:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question What's non-encyclopedic about it? John H. Cox has a Wikipedia entry, and given the size of the current article, I'd support redirecting to there, no problem, the content is rather sparse. FrozenPurpleCube 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the content is lifted directly from John H. Cox and I have nominated that article, which is sourced by the subject's campaign website and press releases, for deletion. Otto4711 22:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge into John Cox article for now. Obviously if that one is deleted, this will be too. -R. fiend 16:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete simply a promotional piece for a perrenial losing candidate.--LyonsTwp,IL. 20:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Deiz talk 10:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theze Wordz[edit]

No notability asserted. No reference outside Wikipedia[56] Agathoclea 20:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a good example of a crystal balling, considering the lack of available sources. —siro χ o 21:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete per my comments on Dolla Billz's deletion page (see them here) Rockstar915 05:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete no sources Nardman1 08:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete along with main artists page Dolla Billz. --Ozgod 03:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 kept. This seems like it's being done to make a point (see Talk:Timothy Noah for context). Even if that was not the intent, this is not the best way to handle this particular issue; conducting an AfD on this article will create far more heat than light. Conduct further discussion as to notability on the talk page. JDoorjam JDiscourse 23:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Noah[edit]

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

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

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

Fails WP:BIO -- Kendrick7^talk 21:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Slate.com published an article today by Timothy Noah where he discusses his wikipedia entry, and wikipedia's notability guideline: here. This is a procedural nomination more than anything. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noah is a rather accomplished journalist, having worked for a number of major publications. However, the lack of sources is a problem that needs to be addressed. --The Way 21:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the above-linked article, he makes a rather good case for his own non-notability (i.e., fails the primary guideline.) However, I abstain as I don't have time to research and verify that this is so. GassyGuy 22:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. should apply, even though seems most of his reviews are blogbased - and they usually don't agree with what he wrote. I did find a non-blog though by Stephen Schwartz, an author and journalist, the author of The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa'ud from Tradition to Terror. Noah does get quoted in mainstream articles like the Chicago Sun-Times Agathoclea 22:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't know, that source appears to violate WP:V#Sources of dubious reliability with articles like "Black Gang Bangers Destroy Vegas During NBA All-Star Weekend" and links to jihadwatch.org. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response The article Stephen Schwartz (journalist) will give a bit of background on the political background of the reviewer. My view here is that if people feel strong enaugh to write an article about someone they oppose/don't like/disagree with - it has more clout than 100s of I write nice about you when you write nice about me. Anyway the magazine seems to get used a lot as reference to various statements of a number of journalists. See also contributor list Agathoclea 23:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~Delete~~Keep:I was quite annoyed by his article (and even more by some of the comments people left about Wikipedia especially this one. He does meet my idea of notable, however, I can't find any non-blog reference that wasn't something he wrote except for this: [57] but this is neither multiple nor non-trivial. Here is the Google search I used to try to exclude any of his articles and some blogs. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed my decision despite what WP:BIO and WP:N may say. Remember, "When in doubt, Ignore all rules." Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a couple references and formatted the others. Nearly all of the information in the article is now verifiable in reliable sources. Noah writes regularly for Slate, among other major media outlets noted in the article. We really should work on not overusing notability as a criterion for deletion, especially when it's the sole criterion. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, but these sources only deal with the basic biographical facts in the lead section. The only sources for the rest of the article are his own articles. It appears that no one has written anything substantial about him. We don't have articles about every single columnist, why Noah? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, his cleaning woman now has the same number of non-trivial, independent articles about her as he does. Recury 22:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But has his cleaning lady written numerous articles for non-trivial publications? · j e r s y k o talk · 22:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above "We don't have articles about every single columnist, why Noah?" Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But is that a deletion criterion? That we don't have articles about every single columnist? We do have several other columnist articles, fwiw (though I don't believe that's particularly relevant to this discussion). · j e r s y k o talk · 23:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I hate to use the old argument of "way less notable articles are on wikipedia so this one should be kept" but it is valid in this case. Noah is a notable person with quite a few references. He writes for a varitey of sources and he has established himself in socitey. His personal thoughts and articles about Wikipedia should not even be in this discussion other than to point out his notability. The question of references has been addressed at this point so without a doubt his article should be kept. And maybe we should have a article about every national journlist.Trey 22:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should, but first, we have to get WP:N changed. Maybe a section for writers liek we have for porn stars? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The idea that Tim Noah would not be notable enough for Wikipedia is absurd, policy be damned. Bubble07 23:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Coredesat, author requested deletion. BryanG^(talk) 04:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern demon[edit]

Non-notable game, no independent sources, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Quite some Google hits, but none of those I checked was related to the game. Prod removed by author without comment. Delete. Huon 21:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonnotable, article reads like an ad or a fanpage. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:11Z

Violin in popular culture[edit]

I originally planned to merge this into Violin but after further review I realized it was just a list of movies (that I assume have violins in them?) Unencyclopedic. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate collection of trivia. —Cel ithemis 22:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list and directory which includes no information on the context of the violin either in the source material or in real life. Otto4711 22:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Articles like this (and even their sections in larger articles) are becoming the bane of wikipedia. -R. fiend 23:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Violin, at least until it becomes much larger. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete I would suggest making a category for this, but even that would be too trivial of a category. Perhaps a subpage to the main article of Violin? --Ozgod 03:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied and salted as persistent repost. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bavania[edit]

Non-Notable micronation. Previously deleted as expired PROD and speedily deleted severaltimes. Agathoclea 21:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I labeled it a a possible hoax. The only google hit for "Freeland of Bavan" was this article. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Due to numerous re-postings, this should probably be protected after deletion. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense, WP:NFT. Sandstein 22:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-02 09:01Z

Lists of names[edit]

(View AfD)

WP:WINAD. These articles are merely lists of names belonging to a particular language or culture (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so they have been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. There is strong precedent for this kind of deletion; recently, all lists of given names have been moved to Wiktionary and deleted. These are some of the remaining surname lists on Wikipedia.

See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman praenomina, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Modern Greek given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish given names Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swedish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latvian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kurdish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hispanic surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of hypocoristics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of counterparts of given names, etc.

Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 21:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all ~~2 deletes, 1 conditional delete, 1 (temporary) keep~~. Delete the Arora and Swedish lists now. Delete the Korean list after it has been transwikied (I couldn't find it in Wiktionary; would you please provide the link if it is already there?). I suggest nominating the Polish list separately as it has additional encyclopedic information (geographic distribution). I think a transwiki-delete might still be appropriate, but I think there ought to be some discussion of whether the information could potentially be used in the Polish name article or the individual surname articles (i.e., a selective merge). -- Black Falcon 23:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't see the the geographic breakdown as any different than a series of "list of surnames in Greater Poland," "list of surnames in Silesia," etc. And it seems like every time I nominate just one list, someone remarks that I should have done a batch nomination. No one is ever pleased. ;-) Dmcdevit·t 21:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not recall participating in the AfDs of those two articles, so I cannot comment. I actually prefer bundled nominations in these cases, but I thought the Polish list could potentially be useful for whomever is working on the Polish name or Nowak articles, and that's why I suggested a temporary keep. However, after checking the source at the bottom, I think it's easier to work with that, so this list becomes unnecessary. I have changed to "delete all". Black Falcon 23:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, wikt:Appendix:Korean surnames. Dmcdevit·t 21:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I've revised my comment accordingly. -- Black Falcon 23:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge into another article DavidR1991
- This isn't a vote. Would you care to offer any reasoning...? Dmcdevit·t 21:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:09Z

Ryan Fraser[edit]

Currently, I do not see anything notable about this person. So what if he works for the Department of Homeland Security and is a referee for the American Hockey League? And we have already established here, here, and here that the child of a notable person does not make one notable outright. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability and per the other examples. John Reaves (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. -R. fiend 23:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing ~~[{WP:REF]]~~ WP:BIO Bucketsofg 00:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails to meet the WP:BIO standards. --Ozgod 03:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Cox[edit]

Delete - a perpetually losing candidate whose article is entirely sourced by his campaign website and press releases. Ghits appear to be directories of candidates and position summaries derived from his press releases. Otto4711 22:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment - Um, this is an officially registered, running political candidate. You may argue that this article isn't sourced properly but an AfD process is WAY premature at this point, and smacks of political motivation, which I'm SURE it isn't. However, I must say that the fact (opinion, really) that someone may have no chance of winning, which I'm assuming the nominator means to imply by a "perpetual losing candidate" is not justification for deletion. If so, we will be deleting Dennis Kucinich immediately. - Nhprman ^List 00:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Kucinich is an elected member of the United States House of Representatives which confers notability. Cox can't get past a primary, which makes him a perpetual loser. The fact that he's running for president doesn't automatically confer notability. All sorts of fringe candidates file papers but it doesn't make them Wikipedia material. There is no third-party reliable coverage of the man or his candidacy that I can find and an article that is sourced only by the subject's website and press releases is unacceptable no matter who the subject is or what office he's running for. Otto4711 00:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I'm sorry, but a front page articlein the L.A. Times confers "notabiliy." Wall Street Journal editor Stephen Moore just mentioned him as a candidate, too. These aren't simply notes on a candidate's Website, they amount to coverage. Not blanket coverage like Obama, but it still goes to create notability. Perhaps the article simply needs to take the dozens of article links on the Website and link them directly, thus veryfying these articles really exist (for example, [58]. And Kucinich, be he an elected Congressman or an elected dog cather, has zero chance of winning the Dem. nomination, and is a perpetual loser by your own definition. He has no business listed with other candidates if this is the standard you're setting, although I realize we're actually discussing a more drastic measure - deletion of an article - and not just unlisting him, which is much more draconian. - Nhprman 15:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N requires multiple independent sources. And since you insist on dragging Kucinich into this despite his having no relevance to whether Cox should have an article, Kucinich has been elected to the Cleveland City Council, Mayor of Cleveland, served as Clerk of Courts which is usually an elected position and has been elected five times to the House. As compared to Cox whose own article indicates has never won a primary, let alone a local election, let alone a national election. If it gets you all riled up that I called Cox a "perpetually losing candidate" then fine, I withdraw the observation. The point still stands that based on his own self-sourced article and the one independent non-rehashed-press release source that has thus far been presented, he fails WP:N. Otto4711 16:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfully ignoring the "media" page of this guy's site, which lists dozens of NEWS articles (not "news releases," as you've been constantly saying) dating back a year is not playing fair, and is misleading. Please stop that. Ross Perot, between the time he announced and the time of the 1992 General Election, had never won an election, and in fact, had never even bothered to run. Your point? - Nhprman ^List 06:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and refrain from hurling false accusations about what I am or am not "ignoring." And it is not my responsibility to do the research to support this article. It is the responsibility of those who want to keep it to improve it to the point where it becomes acceptable under Wikipedia standards. Otto4711 13:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as Ross Perot goes, even though he, like Kucinich, has nothing to do with whether this article should exist, was a billionaire businessman before declaring his candidacy. Amassing a billion dollars confers notability in my book. If Cox has a billion dollars then I will happily withdraw my nomination. Otto4711 14:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a billionaire 1) is not a qualification for the presidency and 2) doesn't confer notability, even under the guideline's standards. - Nhprman ^List 05:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I'm not sure that I think the article on his presidential campaign is appropriate, given that his name has come up in some of the profiles (for example, [59]), I'd have to say keep, at least until further information develops. FrozenPurpleCube 04:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That reads like a rehash of a press release, which doesn't qualify as an independent reliable source. Otto4711 15:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An independent media outlet covering his press release counts for me as some evidence of his notability, at least at the present time. If say Time, or another such magazine doesn't cover him when it gets closer to the primary and they do a review of all the major candidates, then that might mean something, but since I don't know they haven't, and he does get his name in some papers, I would prefer not to act at this time. FrozenPurpleCube 18:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did a google news search for "John cox" president republican (I figure that was a pretty good way of weeding out the billion other john coxes in the world) and got 11 unique google hits, almost all of which mentioned him in passing, at least one of which didn't mention him at all, and most of which were local to Chicago (where he's from) or Iowa (the one place he's really campaigned). So we've got no real info from these sources other than that he's a "long-shot" (duh), and we seem to have nothing from any news source of national renown, which is odd for someone running for president of the nation. That's what I found on the internet, anyway. I'm not going to vote on this yet. If he really is only one of a handful of people to have filed the appropriate papers for running, then he might be worth keeping just for that, but if this turns out to be like the California recall election, in which everyone and his mother field the paperwork and gave it a shot, then he's probably deleteable. I guess the question is, what stops anyone from running? If there were a couple hundred yahoos wanting to take a shot at the governorship of California with no real chance of winning, I can't see why there wouldn't be 100 times more taking a no-chance run for the presidency, just so they can say "hey, I'm running for President!" What has set this guy apart? In any case, I think he should probably be removed from the 2008 election template for now. -R. fiend 15:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, just saw Nhprman's link, and that does seem to be a legitimate national story that is actually about the candidate (I didn't see any evidence it was front page, but I could have missed that, also not sure why googlenews didn't display this). However that aricle says "As of early September, 75 people had filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission declaring their intention to run for president," which seems to make Mr. Cox 1 out of 75 rather than 1 out of 10 or so (and since September that 75 has probably increased dramatically). Is there any reason why this guy is more encyclopedic than any of those other folks? -R. fiend 16:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beacuse he's actually campaigning, and not pretending to campaign? Because he's amassed dozens of news articles, making him, um, notable? Because he's included on nearly every list among those top 20 (check a Technorati search next time.) As for "long shot," Duncan Hunter, Mike Hucakbee, Tom Tancredo and even Sam Brownback are all often labeled as "long shots," and they are all elected officials, or formerly office-holders. What's the point bringing that up? This MUST NOT be about politics. Although I suspect it is (just a bit.) - Nhprman ^List 06:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I mentioned "long shot" is because of all the mentions I could find of him from news sources (not many) that was the only description of him I got. Basically no other words were said about him, other than his name. I realize that being a long shot does not mean he should be excluded (or else we wouldn't list anyone except Obama, Clinton, McCain, Guilliani, and perhaps about 3 others at this stage); I'm not arguing that. My question is, if this guy's only legitimate claim to fame is that he's running for President (unlike everyone else mentioned, who already have articles based on other accomplishments) why is he different from the 75 (now probably more like a few hundred) others? Is it because he's actively campaigning? Perhaps that is the main distiction. I'm not arguing against it, I'm just asking questions here. Are all those other's not campaigning? Do we know that? Does he have "dozens" of news articles about him, as you stated? I've seen one. Sure, I've seen his name mentioned with others, but just as a name on a list, no real info. I'm also cusious as to why he's listed more than these 75 others. Any chance it's an example of his name getting picked up haphazardly by one source, and then repeated by others? I really don't know, but there does seem to be a dearth of information about Mr. Cox that's not from his campaign. That's my main concern. And before you jump down my throat about this, keep in mind I haven't voted to delete the article, and I'm leaning towards keep right now; I just think this matter deserves a certain amount of scrutiny. I guess it boils down to two questions: 1. if this guy is not any more of a serious candidate than a hundred other folks, why is his name being mentioned substantially more than the rest? and 2. if he is a legitimate candidate, why don't we have any real information on him from reliable, neutral sources, with the exception of a single LA Times article? -R. fiend 06:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough crowd when an LA Times article isn't considered notable enough, but I see your point. You can find many articles about this guy on his MEDIA page (note: these are not "press releases" - that's a mischaracterization someone is making.) The fact that one article is linked from the article means it's a poorly done article, not a poor or unknown, non-notable candidate, and that alone shouldn't doom him. Yet, because it has few links, the candidate is being judged by it. Suffice it to say, he seems less trivial than the 75 others, but less known, obviously, than the top or 2nd teir of the GOP candidates. That may change. Let's wait, not rush to delete everyone we don't like being on WP, as some are suggesting. - Nhprman ^List 05:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit of a tough crowd, and wikipedia could use a few more users playing "hardball". But anyway, I looked at his media page and all I saw was 4 blogs and 2 radio interviews. I didn't see the many articles you spoke of, am I missing something? -R. fiend 14:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are, but you're not alone in overlooking it, apparently. What you're seeing seems to be the media page. Check this page, which is linked from the front page and includes NUMEROUS articles going back over a year. - Nhprman ^List 15:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Thanks. What the hell, without having actually read any of the news links, I'll go ahead and cast an official keep, not that it really matters. -R. fiend 15:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable perennial loser, just running does not make you notable for political activity.--LyonsTwp,IL. 19:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we need to include all declared candidates, because I cannot see what possible basis we have to distinguish beyond our own individual political judgment.DGG 03:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if Whacky McDoodle of Fumblebuck Montana files papers to get on his state's primary ballot, he should have an article regardless of whether he otherwise meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Should the hundreds of people whose vanity pages we delete every week all be allowed to stay if they announce their candidacy? Or should declared candidates have to meet the same standards everyone else does? Policies and guidelines are the basis we have to distinguish between notable and non-notable candidates, just like they're how we distinguish between notable and non-notable anything else. Otto4711 04:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Whacky McDoodle hasn't campaigned relentlessly in each of the three early primary/caucus states, and doesn't have DOZENS of news articles to his (fictional) name, as Cox does. In short, Cox apparently has not created a "vanity page" and your assessment seems dead wrong. This doesn't mean I'm saying he's going to win - let me stress that. That's utterly beside the point. This means he is NOTABLE, that he is being COVERED, that he is CAMPAIGNING in some place other than in his own mind, unlike the many, many of those you note, correctly, whom have simply filed papers. I would note the difference between a "guideline" and a "policy" (notability is the former) and the *huge* caveat in the header of the Notability page saying that it is not "in stone" and its meaning is in dispute. That little fact is frequently ignored by over-eager editors who apply this as some kind of strict, clearly-defined Policy. Rubbish. But even so, Cox fulfills the criteria, if only we would stop trying to zealously stamp out those we believe to be undeserving pretenders. I'm actually curious as to why this "pretender" has been singled out. - Nhprman ^List 06:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Cox has been the non-trivial subject of dozens of news stories (meaning coverage that is significantly above the level of "Also declared is...") then there should be no problem fully sourcing and even expanding this article. So far there has been one source of any substance added to the article and none of the information in the article is actually attributed to that source. The article is sourced entirely by the candidate's web page and self-generated press releases. I have no idea why you've tried repeatedly to make this about politics. I know next to nothing about the politics of this gentleman (which frankly is another failing of the article) and my nomination is based entirely on policy and guidelines. Otto4711 13:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've repeatedly made this about whether someone is viable or not, or whether they are "a loser" or a "long shot" or how much money they have does make it about politics, rather than policy. These are very subjective standards and have no business in this discussion. As noted below, a person can be notable for losing often (Stassen) and this man was a radio talk show host in Chicago. Notability right there. That this is a poor article is conceded. But can you point to a perfect article here, or are they ALL subject to deletion, since even stubs can be improved? Deletion is not the answer, improvement is. Let's spend our energy as editors improving, not running around deleting articles. - Nhprman ^List 05:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually, no I have not made this about whether someone is a viable candidate or not, despite your insistence on dragging in other cnadidates with no chance of winning as if they were in some way relevant to the discussion. I nominated the article because at the time it was nominated it was sourced by the candidate's website and by a press release. You got all hung up on the "perrenially losing candidate" phrase and completely ignored the fact that the article did not meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You're the one making this about political viability, not me. And as for your suggestion that I point to a "perfect article," I am not required to and the suggestion is ridiculous and has nothing to do with the article under discussion. Otto4711 17:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that this article needs improvements and an expansion. It's clear at this point that this is the consensus, and an outright deletion never made any sense here. I'll let the record stand on your numerous characterizations of the candidate's viability (i.e. comparing the candidate to a fictional "Whacky McDoodle of Fumblebuck Montana") as if that had anything to do with the article at hand here, either. - Nhprman ^List 19:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Comedy240 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." [60] - Nhprman ^List 16:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability has nothing to do with winning or loosing, and one can be notable for being the permanent looser too. The point is to have several non-trivial independent secondary sources. You got them your'in i.a.w. WP:BIO. Possible that WP:BIO is too inclusive, but that is not what we are discussing here Alf^Photoman 01:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought - If Mr. Cox's page is indeed deleted, then the page referring to a one Michael Charles Smith's page should as well be deleted since he is in a near same boat as Mr. Cox.--De Petagma Saru 03:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If X is deleted then Y has to be deleted too" is not a valid argument. If Smith's article meets policy and guidelines then it stays regardless of what happens to Cox's. Otto4711 04:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're both right - Nhprman ^List 05:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of media coverage per Nhprman, significant public exposure, well known, notable businessperson. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - surely this is a WP:SNOW candidate - David Gerard 20:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:SNOW per David Gerard and Nhprman's links --Silas Snider (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mainstream press coverage, notable enough. Georgewilliamherbert 21:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and has received mainstream press coverage. THe article should be improved, granted. --Delirium 22:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; plenty of sources. Trebor 22:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, has received significant press coverage. --GBVrallyCI 22:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand If he had not entered his hat into the Presidential race I would say otherwise to delete, but now the article is in need of expansion and a more detailed biography on the subject. --Ozgod 03:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A clear consensus for non-deletion seems to have been reached. This AfD should be closed at this point, as per WP:SNOW. - Nhprman ^List 19:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-01 07:09Z

Hoodrat[edit]

A silly neologistic unattributed dicdef. PROD was contested on the talk page, so here we go. Sandstein 22:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misogynistic neologism. Bucketsofg 23:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but ONLY as an unexpandable dicdef. Whether it's silly and whether it's misogynistic are irrelevant, as the word is a notable neologism. However, even a real article (as opposed to this crap) would be a stub that defines the word and nothing more. Hoodrat (or, more frequently, "hood rat") has been used by many authors and, especially, rappers- hell, there are a film and a book on sale at Amazon.com titled Hood Rat, and Skee-Lo's hit song "I Wish" used the term in 1995- but aside from listing people who have used the term, what else can be said? -- Kicking222 00:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the fact that the current article reads like a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Kyra_~(talk) 01:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm the prodder. More appropriate for Urban Dictionary, since this will never be anything more than a dicdef. --N Shar 04:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete N Shar beat me to the UD comment. Also, when did hood rat become a compound word? Do you pronounce this like Doctor Zoidberg pronounces robot? --Djrobgordon 05:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to concur with those have posted before me - wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. --Ozgod 03:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Aside from the dicdef issues, I can find no reliable sources that discuss the term (although there is apparently an unrelated movie by the same name which does have sources). JoshuaZ 08:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Window (computing). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:08Z

Properties window[edit]

non-notable stub article. There's no need for a collection of screenshots of three property windows (of which one isn't even a property window as such but rather a status bar). Darkstar 22:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not MAC OS X for Dummies. The feature isn't particularly innovative, which makes this page solely instructional. On the off chance this is kept, it needs a new name, since I can think of a dozen programs I use daily that have "properties windows." --Djrobgordon 05:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Window (computing). The article has a poor definition as Djrobgordon explained, and instead of a rename, anything written about these properties windows can go in Integrated development environment. Application-specific information like the fact about VBA should be added to the application's article. Even if the scope is broadened, listing and comparing all the different types of properties windows is not feasible. Pomte 08:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Djrobgordon. --MaNeMeBasat 12:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pomte. --Uncle Ed 01:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect - should be a subsection of the MAC OS X article as one of its functions - not important or detailed enough of a function to merit its own article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ozgod (talk • contribs) 03:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 2007-03-02 09:01Z

Daniel Amos (comedian)[edit]

the page contains no assertion of notability and search on google did not reveal any independent reliable sources of information on the subject of the article. Warfieldian 22:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 31 Your Local Television, the station Amos' films were purported to appear on, is the Aussie version of a cable access station. I couldn't find any sources, and without them, having your movie on cable access is about as notable as having it on YouTube.--Djrobgordon 05:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Briz31 appearance does not confer notability. Darkspots 04:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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?)} 23:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio second congressional district election, 2005/Minor candidates[edit]

The "/" seems to imply a "sub-page" which do not exist in the article space. But anyway, many off the less minor candidates have been deleted (Eric Minamyer, Tom Bemmes, Peter Fosset, Jeff Sinnard, etc.) so it would stand to reason that those guys who ran for the House 3 years ago and got even fewer votes should be too. These are guys who got a handful of votes in the primaries (sometimes in the double digits). Certainly not-notable. R. fiend 23:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable people who only ran in a primary don't deserve articles.--Tainter 23:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was all ready to make a crack about how Wikipedia is not the League of Women Voters, and then I noticed this article got all of its info from that group. Leave voter information to them. If any of these people were notable, they'd have their own articles, and if they affected the election in any meaningful fashion, they'll be mentioned in Ohio second congressional district election, 2005. --Djrobgordon 04:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rlevse 02:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World For World Organization (WFWO)[edit]

This looks too much like an advertisement for the World for World Organization. The page is primarily geared towards providing contact information for the organization. A Google search on the organization's name produced nothing except promotional material for the organization and announcements of events hosted by the organization. No independent parties have written about this organization, which indicates that the organization is non-notable. This article looks unsalvageable, so I advocate deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 23:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as it seems that having UNESCO consultative NGO status isn't trivial, but this would be difficult to meet WP:RS. --Dhartung | Talk 00:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - An anonymous user methodically blanked the page section-by-section. I am reverting the edits. Dr. Submillimeter 17:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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?)} 23:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various episodes of Avatar: The Last Airbender[edit]

These articles cite no source other than TV.com. The information from that site comes from a single person there, who has a "source" at Nickelodeon, whose identity he does no reveal. This is entirely unverifiable. Furthermore, the issue has been raised before with a delete consensus. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crossroads of Destiny, where the article was only recreated after confomation from more relible sources. I also feel obliged to point out that, in the past, several articles in this situation received WP:SNOW deletion based on the Crossroad's AfD , however, the tags I placed on these were removed by User:Pgk, and I decided taking it here would be more fruitful than arguing the issue . --Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm, apparently the source has turned out reliable in the past (given that an episode was deleted and then recreated when it was confirmed..),so I'm not sure I understand the deletion reason. We may not have access to all of the sources, but it being reported somewhere is still verifiable information. Even if the episode title were changed, I could see including the information in the retitled article. I do wish you'd waited for a response from the page's creator though. I see you messaged them about this AfD, but you could have talked first instead of going to an AfD anyway. Then if you'd convinced them, they could have nominated it for speed deletion instead. BTW, I don't consider the prior discussion to be precedent, participation in it was minimal. FrozenPurpleCube 04:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep — on the basis of past precedent. But really all of this type of material should be up on wiki_trivia or wiki_tv_episodes. — RJH (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Sorry, I missed the future episodes tag. Could these be merged into List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes as summaries of upcoming episodes? — RJH (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. These articles don't compare well in quality to the two main articles, Avatar: The Last Airbender, and List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes. The articles for the individual episodes that have actually appeared are also very well done. Those listed in this AfD have practically no information and no reliable sources anyway. I don't see the point of merging because there is nothing here but a title and an episode number. EdJohnston 03:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATTRIBUTION, not veriffiable beyond a leak. The Placebo Effect 23:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Kent; if someone creates an article on Student life at Kent University, it would make sense to merge this there. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:08Z

Kent University Conservative Association[edit]

Local student political group - doesn't seem encyclopedic or notable. See also previous AfD from 2005. Eastmain 01:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- Eastmain 02:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- Eastmain 02:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to the University article, or possibly to a new "student life at Kent University" article, since the university article is getting rather long. Unless unusually notable, student groups should be covered in university or college articles. --Brianyoumans 02:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent reliable sources demonstrating notability and permitting verifiability. This a minimum requirement of every article regardless of other considerations. --Shirahadasha 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per arguments of Brianyoumans and Shirahadasha. LordHarris 03:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- non notable Astrotrain 12:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable student group, no independent sources. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable student group.-- danntm ^T _C 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears only to have significance within the campus of the University, thus fails WP:ORG. Ohconfucius 08:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable soc. (Why isn't this speediable? It's failed an AfD before.) AndyJones 14:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After viewing the edit history log and seeing the edits largely come from one source whose only contributions have been this article, I believe this to be a vanity/promotion article.--Ozgod 03:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. cs 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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