Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 10 January 12 >

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 Speedy delete per A7 and CSD G13 (the "no, we simply don't cover this" criterion). Speedied 7 times now. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jake thro[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BIO and notability guidelines. Hang on reasons are pathetic. Was tagged for speedy but was contested, thus here. DoomsDay349 23:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy It's been speedied 6 times already. John Reaves 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contested yes, but not contested by an admin. Worse, contested by article creator. Let's just salt this thing and call it a day. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Steve Ross (artist) per discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Ross (artist); Steve Ross is now a disambiguation page. --ais523 10:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve Ross[edit]

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

Page has not grown following addition of merge tag so nominating for deletion. Article should be merged into Bob Ross Zerbey 20:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 23:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Mark Tinley[edit]

Mark Tinley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Checking the history, the page was created by the username named after the article, considering the person in question is not well known (checked a couple of albums he apparently worked on..i saw no mention of him) anyway, it is like an autobiography. I thinks its very suspicious he made it, with no sources or anything. Just a link to a spam site (first one) and a myspace page (second one) Is it junk? or someones poor idea of a biography? Fethroesforia 19:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to School District 38 Richmond. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spul'u'kwuks Elementary School[edit]

Spul'u'kwuks Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article was prod'ed by another member, with the reason stated as "School article with absolutely no notability asserted; the page is nothing more than a directory listing; only 86 total and 40 unique Google hits for the school's name, inc. WP and mirrors, and absolutely none of them are anything besides trivial mentions and directory listings." I'm posting it here not because I want it deleted but rather I want a proper deletion debate first. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. 274 Google hits ([1]). Bigtop 00:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No notability whatsoever.Ganfon 01:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominations. Wikipedia is not a directory. Unless this school becomes particularly notable.... --Dennisthe2 01:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is not noteworthy. Darkwhistle 02:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original prodder (note: I found this page using Special:Random; I wasn't targeting school articles). There is no notability of any kind asserted, and nothing on Google suggests otherwise. This is a simple directory listing, and there are no non-trivial reliable sources presented. -- Kicking222 03:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody's accusing you of targeting school articles, as far as I can tell. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability might be controversial, so I'm going with the utter lack of sources here. -Amarkov blahedits 03:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not even appear to meet guidelines under WP:SCHOOL --Haemo 05:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:SCHOOL and WP:V. SkierRMH 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • REDIRECT to Richmond, British Columbia per WP:SCHOOLS.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 10:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:SCHOOL. Darthgriz98 17:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think if we rewrite this article it can be proved useful. Many other elementry schools have articles and seem to be okay. Rasillon 20:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge into Schools in Richmond, British Columbia. There is no need for a separate article for every elementary and middle school in a city - especially when the only thing that can be said is "it exists". Perhaps a group article for such cities is more appropriate. Resolute 23:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um... and do you have sources which would make it verifiable? -Amarkov blahedits 03:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you will find plenty of references at Spul'u'kwuks Elementary School. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about per WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS? Try through those - and in particularly, WP:N. I think the concern isn't so much that the school is verifiable, but that the school is notable and that the notability is verifiable. --Dennisthe2 04:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, my concern is that the only information which is verifiable is some statistics, which is not enough for an article. -Amarkov blahedits 05:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is no consensus on notability for schools. In such cases, the only rule is that the article be verifiable and NPOV. None of the policies or guidelines you direct me to says that a verifiable and NPOV article on a school, even if one assumes notability is not established, should be deleted. The proposal at WP:SCHOOL recommends, at worst, to merge to the community or school district. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 01:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the lack of Google hits might be a result of the school's unusual name -- some people may spell the school's name slightly differently (ie. without the apostraphes). -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 02:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not opposed to merge/redirect. Shimeru 09:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe 18:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - There's plenty of precedent for keeping school articles, this is a stub, not a deletion candidate - with some expansion I'm sure it would be a fine article -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 19:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Richmond, British Columbia per the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline, current references meet verifiable standards so no objection to keeping it either. Yamaguchi先生 03:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Does not assert notability in any way. There is plenty of precedent for deleting useless stubs which this has been for over 6 months. At present, this is a directory listing, and so violates WP:NOT#DIR. Ohconfucius 05:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-direct to School District 38 Richmond, which is the school board which has jurisdiction over this school, until it becomes notable. A redirect is the recommended course of action under the proposed WP:SCHOOL, as opposed to a delete. Luke! 05:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to School District 38 Richmond per above and WP:LOCAL. The various proposed school-related guidelines also suggest merge/redirecting in situations like this. RFerreira 02:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect per commenters above. Zadernet 04:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Les Balsiger (2nd nomination)[edit]

Les Balsiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

An editor argues that this is an attack page. I disagree and vote Keep, given the news sources cited in the article. But we should take allegations that something is an attack page seriously, so I'm bringing it here. Note that this is a different Les Balsiger than the subject of the first AFD. NawlinWiki 00:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is an attack on this person by some one who is obviously Catholic and disagrees with him. One of the citations is a blog, which is hardly proof of anything and the other citations are all from religous organizations except one which was reporting and attack on this man. He is of no note and this all happened years ago. And if it is a different person the result will be that people who google the name will be confused, it is hardly a name like smith or jones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.211.55.195 (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Not a singe example is provided to demonstrate this is an attack. `'mikka 03:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral there was POV disparagement in the 'fifteen minutes of fame' opener which I have removed. --Steve (Slf67) talk 00:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Fifteen minues of fame" was just a cute wording not a disparagement; non-encyclopedic style anyway, so your deletion was sure OK. `'mikka 03:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the press coverage of this individual is sufficient to make the topic notable. As for POV concerns, those can be addressed, that is not sufficient justification for deletion. TSO1D 00:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is nothing 'slamming' this man in the article as it is currently written. Nashville Monkey 01:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the article itself could use a little clean-up, I don't view it as an attack page.Ganfon 01:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThis is old information from 1993 and is implying that he "led" a major attack on catholicism. We deleted a page about him before what makes this difference how does user Nawlinwiki "know' that is is not the same person. BillBates —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.81.43 (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • keep; verifiable and certainly the event was notable. `'mikka 03:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Placing an artricle for deletion with vote "keep" is not best approach IMO. A better solution would be to block the anon for trolling, if he fails to understand wikipedia policies or at least to register, so that it could be possible to tutor him in his talk page. `'mikka 03:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability and verifiability requirements met with non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable sources. Deletion is rarely the best option for WP:BLP or WP:NPOV issues. -- Satori Son 03:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As usual, I'm with Vic. This person was, given the sourcing, notable, and his actions were certainly verifiable. Remove information that violates BLP guidelines, but not sourced information. -- Kicking222 03:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability has been established and it is sourced. However, it is totally unbalanced, but POV can be addressed. -- Aylahs (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "campaign" (if you can call it that) is notable. I'm not sure, though, that there is enough for a reasonable article about Les Balsiger himself, though, as the only sources of information about him are newspaper articles telling about the campaign. It might be better to consider moving the article to a different name ... like the name of his organization or something. --BigDT 05:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment perhaps move it to his organization would be a better idea I agree with BigDT
  • Keep as per Ganfon. Icemuon 13:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep guy passes WP:BIO - AfD is not the place to bring content disputes. WilyD 14:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ... uh ... nominator is arguing keep, so surely something is wrong with what you wrote here. Do you mean Keep per nom? Or do you mean Delete for some hard to guess reason? WilyD 18:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think its quite a good article and perhaps if it can be restructered and properly contributed to, it can be kept. Rasillon 20:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is well-sourced and the subject is notable, I also agree that this is a rather unorthodox AfD - this isn't the place for content issues.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he seems notable enough. I made some changes in the article to make it more neutral in style. Steve Dufour 06:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with TSO1D above. highlunder 13:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not quite as well known as Fred Phelps but IIRC there are plenty of printed references to him and his activities. Dragomiloff 06:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • move, do not keep as is unless there is some nformation about the person. As he apparently was acting for an organisation, perhaps the article could be retitled to either "The Protestent" or "Printed Page Ministry". It is the actions not the man who seems to be notable. I cannot determine whether the splinter group with which he is affiliated has a name--it it does, that would be the best title. DGG 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Keep, with strong encouragement to merge with Al-Aqsa Intifada on the basis of Wikipedia:Content forking. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada[edit]

Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Forking of information which is either POV and unencyclopaedic, or should be merged to or already exists at Al-Aqsa Intifada. TewfikTalk 23:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is undoubtably a POV fork. I often want for such articles to be kept, but only for balance, not for POV pushing. --Ezeu 00:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Argument that it is a POV fork does not seem to hold, so withdrawing my comment. --Ezeu 14:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 6SJ7 01:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. This should be merged to or already exists at Al-Aqsa Intifada? That article doesn't even mention these allegations - actually, now that I think about it, I think Al-Aqsa Intifada itself is violating NPOV (I note that it's been tagged as such). Have a look for yourself. Do a search in that article for the phrases "war crime" and "allegation" and see what you get (excluding the link to this AfD'd article):
"war crime" : Not a single mention.
"allegation" : Mentioned a few times, but all in relation to allegations of Palestinian misconduct. We've got:
  • A link to "EU investigation into Allegations of Incitement to Violence in Palestinian Authority textbooks".
  • Some "false allegations of a massacre of thousands of Palestinians" that were later disproved
  • Photo caption: the shooting of a 12-year old Palestinian that was "surrounded by allegations of staging."
The subject matter - documented allegations - is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, we just need to make sure those allegations are addressed in a NPOV manner. The one concern I have about merging this into the main article is size - the main page is 69 KB already. If it's decided to combine all the offshoot articles back into the main one, and turn it into one massive NPOV article, I suppose that'd be fine, as long as other offshoots like Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, and The lynching in Ramallah are similarly merged back in. If it's decided that that'd make the main article too large, all the offshoots should be kept separate. Quack 688 11:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada -> currently contains only Palestinian massacres of Israelis, but is NPOV because it could contain Israeli massacres of Palestinians.
Allegations of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada -> currently contains only Palestinian allegations of Israeli war crimes, but is NPOV because it could contain Israeli allegations of Palestinian war crimes.
What's the difference between those two, exactly? Quack 688 23:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you think the content of List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada is one-sided. It doesn't contain "Israeli massacres of Palestinians" only because there were none during that time period AFAIK. If you think one is missing, then please add it. TewfikTalk 00:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's exactly my point. If this article is renamed to Allegations of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, then Israeli allegations of Palestinian war crimes could be added. Are there any such published allegations? If so, I'd be happy to see them listed. Quack 688 01:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine except that very little of the information in the entry is actually about "Allegations of war crimes..." - most of it is simply unrelated data being used to present a novel argument (OR style). There would be no "List of massacres..." if there was only one or two massacres, and I don't see this page as needing to exist if only one or two claims exist which could be dealt with on the main article. If however there is enough content to warrant a separate entry, then I would wholeheartedly agree. TewfikTalk 01:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Fair call on the OR. The article needs to find citations for its arguments, not just its facts. (i.e. if the article says, "Israel did X, and X is considered a war crime", it needs to find sources for both "Israel did X" and "X is considered a war crime".) That's still not a reason to delete the entire thing, though. Quack 688 04:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Why on earth was this also posted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam? Call me naïve, but is accusing Israel of war crimes now a component of the Islamic religion?Proabivouac 19:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went ahead and removed it. Which sorting do you think it should be listed on, if any? TewfikTalk 21:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, For some reason this was listed on the log for 5th Jan - relisting as may not have been widely seen--Docg 00:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and all above. Bigtop 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (pov fork is reason. Bigtop 19:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete pov fork.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Clean-up The information present is important to the topic. I don't think the article can be necessarily merged into Al-Aqsa Intifada and I think it is deserving of it's own article however it needs a strong clean-up effort if it is to remain on Wikipedia.Ganfon 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper nom Elizmr 02:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename to Israeli war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. The "Accusations" is pointless rhetoric that has no good precedent. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on - I think this article's content should be kept in some form, but there's no way it can be renamed like that. Look at Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (which has just survived its third AfD). It describes the hypothesis, but it doesn't say "this is what happened". Just to be clear, I'm not trying to compare these war crime allegations to a conspiracy theory. My point is that there's enough published material out there for us to outline the allegations of war crimes (by either side) in an NPOV manner. But it's not Wikipedia's place to say whether or not they were war crimes. The title "Israeli war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada" implies exactly that. Quack 688 03:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirbytime, I must agree that the word "accusations" is awkward and forced. How about, "Criticism of Israeli responses to Palestinian terrorism?"Proabivouac 06:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Israeli Massacres against innocent civilians" is a good one too. 72.88.146.173 06:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ask that the closing admin note that the rationales for 72.88.146.173, Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ, Nielswik, and TruthSpreaderreply are in opposition to WP:NPOV and be given the appropriate weight, since AfD is not a vote. TewfikTalk 15:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Typical Israeli. I didn't even "vote." 72.88.146.173 20:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would guess that this is because the war crimes are not disputed. Whether Israeli war crimes happened or not, you cannot deny that their existence is widely disputed. Thus, in the interest of NPOV, the article title should reflect that. -- Where 03:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does it have to do here? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 11:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article has over THIRTY SIXTY sources for an article of it's length. It's heavily sourced. Strong keep. Clearly a notable topic based on amount of sourcing. F.F.McGurk 14:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT. Admin, please userfy if someone deems to delete, for rewriting, and notify everyone of who gets it. F.F.McGurk 14:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC) F.F.McGurk 14:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on POV Fork argument: Hardly. The oldest version of this page is from 13:32, February 8, 2004. How is this a POV fork and of what exactly, that is slipped through almost three years of cracks and hundreds of people editing it? F.F.McGurk 14:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It did not have more than 50 editors, and age in any event does not make something less of a fork. As I mentioned before (and Quack 688 confirms), most of the references merely cite unrelated facts who are positioned to synthesise novel arguments (OR). TewfikTalk 15:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, or merge — Article has some definite neutrality/POV/propaganda issues that can be addressed. But as long as we're covering accusations from both sides, we should probably keep this. To me it just reads like a typical war-time scenario. — RJH (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Al-Aqsa Intifada (why do the names have to be so hard to spell! FirefoxMan 17:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important topic, and has citations to show notability. POV issues in any statements should be dealt with by editing. But the citations should be changed to inline sitations to allow seeing what they are without cicking on them and going to the site. Edison 20:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its more of a type of article that wikipedia doesn't need. Delete on sight to me. Rasillon 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Arkon 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nomination. All these complaints are all the fault of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, not Israel directly.--Sefringle 04:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this absolutely fits the definition of a POV fork. Perhaps some of the content can be merged as suggested above but this article and others of its type do not belong on wikipedia.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had a look at WP:POVFORK, and I'm still convinced that this isn't a POV fork. If anything, it's an article spinout due to size. There are two quotes in WP:POVFORK that I think are relevant:
There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article.
...
Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.
After reading that, one thing's clear - both articles are in violation of WP:POVFORK. This article is in violation as it doesn't present any Israeli rebuttals of these claims. Meanwhile, Al-Aqsa Intifada is also in violation, as it doesn't even mention the existence of these allegations (as I said at the start, the only "allegations" mentioned there are allegations of Palestinian misconduct, and the phrase "war crime" never appears.) Quack 688 06:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep on grounds that merge (which would be preferable) is not option given length of intifada article. any other npov etc problems can be dealt with by editing the article. it's name, given it's obvious controversy, shld be dealt with thru a rename request, not here.  ⇒ bsnowball  09:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as clear POV fork per above. Eusebeus 13:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is quite old. Where exactly did it POV fork off of, in 2004? Also this is, agreeing with previous people, a size fork. F.F.McGurk 13:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Forking' research for closing admin. OK, we have Al-Aqsa Intifada which is 70kb long--longer than recommended. New or different related material would be considered a SIZE fork. We have List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, created January 30, 2004. Its just a table. We have Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, created February 8, 2004, and 38kb which is just a bit too big for it's own article--it cannot all go back into Al-Aqsa Intifada. This smells definitely like a content/size fork, not a POV fork. If this is a POV fork, why is there no push to delete the matching (and poorly structured) article which lists crimes by Arabs? I call foul but want to AGF. Additionally, the matching articles that listed crimes by Arabs WERE nominated for deletion last year seen here. All were Keep. Precedent says this should be keep then as well? I dunno. F.F.McGurk 13:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Several editors have argued that the critical flaw of this article is original research. You can find no "accusations of war crimes", even the phrase "war crime" does not appear in the text. It's merely a list of episodes; the "accusations" come solely from the authors of the article. Beit Or 15:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Al-Aqsa Intifada. The allegations are significant and should be discussed, but they do not merit an article of their own. - ClemsonTiger 17:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename per Bsnowball. --Magabund 18:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Accusations of povfork hold no water for a near 3-year-old article. If there are POV issues within the article, then address and revise as appropriate. Tarc 20:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are plenty of errors that survive on Wikipedia - I've never heard of their age making them correct. That logic especially doesn't hold for those who will agree that the name was in error for just as long. TewfikTalk 22:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- strongly agree with Quack.
    • POV is not grounds for deletion.
    • I notice nominator has not made a single edit to the article's talk page -- the appropriate place to start to address a concern over POV. My comment to the nominator, if you don't first make an attempt to address a POV concern on the talk page, and jump right to a nomination for deletion, you put a huge strain on everyone else's ability to assume good faith. Please don't put such a strain on the rest of us. -- Geo Swan 23:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Strongly agree with Quack as well. -- Rei 00:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Extremely POV and unencyclopaedic title. --Mardavich 08:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
is Allied war crimes during World War II also an "extremely POV and unencyclopedic title"? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 10:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Merge any WP:RS into primary article(s). metaspheres 12:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I dont think it's a POV fork. Just look at the extensive article List of war crimes. This one isnt any different from the rest.--Zereshk 18:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Exactly! That is what makes this POV, since this isn't about some objectively agreed up "Israeli war crimes", but only allegations of such (and the article doesn't even include any of those!). TewfikTalk 02:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • week keep I agree that it is unbalanced and full of POVs, BUT! this accusation exists, so I think we can have this article and a section for rejecting the Accusations must be added. --Pejman47 19:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
changing my vote to Delete; it is a POV fork of the the main article--Pejman47 10:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What soliciting? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 09:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Jayjg (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a blatant soapbox pov fork. Guy Montag 04:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork Kuratowski's Ghost 11:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just to be clear, when I previously said that both this article and Al-Aqsa Intifada were violating WP:POVFORK, I wasn't suggesting that either be deleted. This is just a case where both articles need to be edited to be brought into line with policy. Tewfik is quite correct when he says that this article shouldn't be allowed to just present a list of facts regarding (blank), then make the argument that (blank) was a war crime. It needs to find sources which explicitly say that. However, judging by the number of Google hits that the phrase israeli "war crimes" gets, I feel confident that we can find several sources which not only list facts, but make explicit allegations about Israeli war crimes. Actually, the very first page that shows up on Google, BBC NEWS | Middle East | Amnesty slams Israel 'war crimes', is as good a place as any to start. The Amnesty International Report 2005 that it quotes from could also be used as a source. Another possible source is Israeli evades arrest at Heathrow over army war crime allegations, although that just deals with the actions of one Israeli general. Remember, we don't have to make any novel arguments ourselves. All we have to do is outline what existing sources say on the matter, both for and against. Quack 688 11:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork that combines a hodge-podge of accusations, statements, charts and numbers, while making very few specific claims of war crimes. Alansohn 17:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Crimson above. Just H 18:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RJH. Given the number of similar articles listing suicide bombers etc it is justifiable to have an article on Israeli actions. --Duke of Duchess Street 18:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per quack, swan, edison, etc. if there are some pov issues, fix them. afd is not a substitute for the normal editing process. that such accusations exist, and are notable, is unquestionable per article references. hence, it is a legitimate subject for an article, even if every accusation could be proven false. no valid grounds for deletion have been yet advanced. complaints in 2007 that a 2004 article is a "fork" is flimsy stuff indeed. Derex 01:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Derex, can you point me to any of the sources that actually refer to "war crimes"? Much appreciated. Jayjg (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
see quack post above. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 04:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources appear to be in the article though; instead they use dozens of other sources that say nothing about "war crimes". Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to an article name change to something more neutral. However, that's a garden-variety editing issue, not an AFD issue. Clearly there are documented and notable accusations of "bad things". What exactly you choose to call those "bad things" is an entirely different question than whether the article about accusations of "bad things" should be deleted. Derex 04:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there are, but they don't appear in this article, which inherently is POV because it only deals with one side and is primarily based on OR. TewfikTalk 05:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to confuse NPOV, which is policy, with balance, which is not. It is entirely possible to have an NPOV article dealing with allegations against only one party in a conflict. I would, by the same token, object to deletion of an article on allegations of Palestinian terror during the intifadah. There is no reason to combine two such articles into a single article except to promote a faux balance. Derex 06:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you review both WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK, as policy is quite clear about cases which are not simply the separation of two aspects of an argument due to space or technical constrictions, but rather the intentional presentation of only one set of arguments to argue a nonneutral position. Of course we mustn't forget that in this case said argument ("war crimes") is not even mentioned in the article, which is instead filled mostly with WP:OR. TewfikTalk 23:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we work together and improve it instead of deleting it? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 10:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently no allegations of war crimes in this article, so deleting it is improving it. That said, we should include criticism of both sides in the main article, and if there really is no room there, maintain a summary and move the detail to a new article. You are certainly invited to work together to add such criticism (of course in line with WP policies). TewfikTalk 17:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would it be proper to have an Accusations of Palestinian genocidal intent article? I would argue that if this article should be kept, then people should have no problems if I later create that article. Another nice article to have from the pro-Palestinian point of view would be Accusations of Israeli participation in the alleged global Jewish conspiracy. I think the question we face is "Is Wikipedia the place to comment on every argument (whether it be mainstream or extremest) for every issue under the sun, or is that not within its mission?". I'm not sure what the answer to that question is, in all honesty. -- Where 02:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The presence of one article does not necessarily validate the existence of another article. An article created merely to prove a point will not last. --Ezeu 02:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me clarify. This article is meant to cover pro-Palestine arguments. If we keep this, in order to be balanced, we should also allow articles covering pro-Israel arguments (such as Accusations of Palestinian genocidal intent). In addition, we should cover other pro-Palestine articles, such as Accusations of Israeli participation in the alleged global Jewish conspiracy, as we should not selectively cover extremist anti-Israel arguments. -- Where 13:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see what you mean. What I mean is that every article should carry its own weight. I mustn't be created merely on the premise that a POV article exists, therefore a counterPOV one must exist. If one deems an article to be POV, then one should edit it to remove POV, not create a new one with ones own POV. You can create any article you want, but it must meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. --Ezeu 20:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, you are right in that what I am saying is mostly irrelevant as to whether to keep or delete the article. Thus, I suppose I should have never said it here anyhow. Oh well. -- Where 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would agree in principle, but as of now there is no content accusing Israel on this article, and I imagine that any allegations regarding the Palestinians could fit in the main article. I would be equally concerned with creating a separate article not dictated by space etc. which would in practice only deal with the Palestinians. Remember that even such an article as you suggest would have to have its main points incorporated in al-Aqsa Intifada. TewfikTalk 23:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • note: jayjg removed a vote which he said to be a "banned editor" [2]. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 04:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If your faction contains a relatively large number of banned editors, as appears to be the case, whose fault is that? Additionally, please stop saying, "peace"; informed editors know the reason for this, and it is annoying.Proabivouac 06:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't belong to any faction. I didn't even know the so-called "banned" editor before this. And I don't see anything wrong with including "peace" in my post sign. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 06:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What Proabivouac discusses is not there anymore, but you can see evidence that it was there once here. -- Where 23:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is apparently a misunderstanding by an inexperienced editor. Anyway I don't see any problem there since it has been listed there for less than 7 hours (insignificant). And let's come back to the topic. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 10:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Accusations of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada so it can be NPOV and cover alleged war crimes on the part of both the Isaelis and the Palestinians. Examples of an alleged war crimes on the part of the Palestinians would be some militant/terrorist groups' alleged use of human shields or alleged use of civilian clothing while engaging in hostilities. -- Where 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur. --Ezeu 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as yet another attack page. The day we can even imagine a page like this in the Enyclopaedia Britannica is the day we should consider having one here. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is Britannica the benchmark? If so then this is too easy, delete. --Ezeu 06:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Democratic Party-Iranian fundraising controversy, it appears that there is a double-standard here - if articles like that can be deleted (in my opinion wrongly), then this article can be deleted for the very same reasons as that one. Where is the "reliable sources" here? Who is the judge of what accusation and allegation is "reliable" or "unreliable"? If we ask most people, they will say that any accusation or allegation is "unreliable"! If this article is kept, then this system is a nepotism where people gang up and vote delete on articles they hate and vote keep on articles they like making this completely pointless. If there are rules and regulations in place, then they should hold true for all articles, not just because of the preferences and prejudices of people. Whats worse is when they attack a person (making personally-motivated, hateful attacks, not calling someone a "liberal" or "right-winger" or "neocon" or something!), and that is what happened to me. This is an appalling behavior and that it is used in these processes is not right. At least with the article I wrote I attempted to invite others to provide counter sources, but instead they attack and ridicule me and vote keep on this types of articles. You can see their votes here, same people. Khodavand 05:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My experience is that useless articles are sometimes kept (by popular demand), but that the same articles (unless they improve substantially) eventually get deleted anyway – especially articles about contentious subjects (such as this one). The axe may well fall on this one, but if not, there is no need for doomsaying. --Ezeu 06:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with List of American Dad! episodes. Please discuss specifics of the merge on the here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of American Dad! episodes expanded[edit]

We already have List of American Dad! episodes. We don't need two. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom. Tagged. Bigtop 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed your speedy as this one may be kept, instead of the old one. --Steve (Slf67) talk 01:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, There is no need to have two articles for the same thing. Nevertheless, I actually like the format on this one better, so perhaps it could be merged with the former. TSO1D 00:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge "expanded" content to List of American Dad! episodes. Luke! 00:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need to have two articles. I oppose merging the extra content for two reasons: The information on the expanded article can be found in each individual article for the episodes, and the expanded format is too long. Think of what it'll look like when there are 3 seasons, or 4. The List of The Simpsons episodes also follows the current format. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 01:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above as a POV fork. Work out the appropriate level of detail on the talk page. --Steve (Slf67) talk 01:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Any vital information can be added to List of American Dad! episodes that's not even a merge.Ganfon 01:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Information already exists elsewhere and per nom. -- Aylahs (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Content Infinitely superior to the other version. Replace this content into the other article and merge any extra from the old. Then make this article a redirect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge seems obvious course of action here - PocklingtonDan 09:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of American Dad! episodes... though I would stronly suggest jettisoning the "3rd Season" info per WP:NOT a crystal ball.--Isotope23 16:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete move what needs to be moved, then delete. Darthgriz98 17:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per isotope FirefoxMan 17:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - content into the List of American Dad! episodes, but maybe remove the American Dad icons from the article. Its use again and again could violate WP:FAIR. --tgheretford (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 20:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this is just a more thorough treatment of List of American Dad! episodes.-- danntm T C 21:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No need for this. Eusebeus 13:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, if someone is interested in saving, otherwise delete. highlunder 13:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge with list of american dad episodes.RiseRobotRise 17:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Addhoc 23:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per above -- Selmo (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful. Completely unnecessary fork. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 20:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Long[edit]

Anton Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The organization he is head of was deleted via AfD, the individual doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO and the article doesn't appear to meet WP:V. There also appear to be WP:BLP issues, repeating unsubstantiated allegations of Satanism against a living person who is simply alleged to use the pseudonym which is the title of the article, even though the person so accused denies the allegation. Tunnels of Set 00:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Although not extreamly notable, the article is well referenced. He also doesnt seem to out-right offend WP:BIO either. However it wouldn't torture me to see it go.Ganfon 01:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If the organization isn't notable enough the keep, then it follows that an individual whose notability is tied to that organization should not be kept. -- Aylahs (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aylahs FirefoxMan 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 20:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per aylahs --Isolani 15:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this article is deleted, could a sentence be added to the article on David Myatt to cover the suggestion that the one is a pseudonym of the other ? WMMartin 15:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was del-eat. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoked Meatloaf[edit]

Smoked Meatloaf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non-notable subject matter Nashville Monkey 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Source is a forum post. Therefore, unverifiable —Dylan Lake 01:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a recipe. You can "verify" it by cooking it. Smoked meatloaf is becoming very, very popular among the competitive barbecue circiut in the United States. I would agree also to integrate it to the meatloaf article.--Paul McDonald 01:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - If it's a recipe, then it belongs on Wikibooks Cookbook. As it stands, this is just a stub about a non-notable food item. -- Kesh 02:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It's one line long and the only source is a forum as Dylan noted. This should go quickly.Ganfon 01:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or, if verified, merge and redirect to barbeque. Newyorkbrad 01:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT Bucketsofg 01:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. First, Wikipedia is not a recipe book; such facilities exist on Wikibooks, as I understand it. Even so, coming to my second point, the article, contrary to Paul McDonald's assertion, is not a recipe: as of my entry here, it describes it as a new favorite amongst barbecueniks, and a variation on meatloaf - and that's it. This is not a recipe, and in fact it's not even a definition. --Dennisthe2 02:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Short" -- does just being "short" constitute a bad article? I can remember many one-line entries in other encyclopedias
  • "source is a forum" -- are all forums automatically disqualified as sources?
  • "merge to barbecue" -- it isn't "barbecued" meatloaf, but "smoked" meatloaf - Smoking (cooking technique) might be more appropriate

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs) 02:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • "not a recipe" -- I didn't think it would be appropriate to copy what already existed on one page into another on Wikipedia
  • "not verified" -- what kind of "verification" would satisfy you at this point?--Paul McDonald 02:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with some clarifications. As said earlier, if a recipe were presented there, WP:NOT a recipe guide. Of course, that doesn't mean we never have articles on various types of foods-we most certainly do. What's necessary to establish notability, though, is exactly what it says in that guideline-multiple, non-trivial, and reliable sources. Forums, due to their anonymous and unverified nature, are not a reliable source-though sometimes a post on a forum can point you to better sources which would be considered reliable, I've had that happen more than once Googling for references. As to smoked meatloaf, let's say it really takes off. A couple of big, respectable cooking websites cover it, followed by some "food section" coverage in newspapers. Now we got what we need-multiple non-trivial reliable mentions. At that point, it's time to create an article! Hopefully, that makes some amount of sense out of it-the notability and sourcing guidelines can be tricky at first! Seraphimblade 05:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverified new food. One forum post is not a reliable source. JIP | Talk 06:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I gotta say, "you verify it by cooking it" is the funniest thing I've heard in awhile. JuJube 06:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Meatloaf. The source in the article doesn't constitute a reliable source, but as Seraphimblade mentioned above, it gets enough Google hits that it appears to be a somewhat common cooking method. The idea it is getting popular on the U.S. Competative BBQ circuit is not bourne out by the sources I see, so I'm not sure this has enough notability to warrent a separate article at this time. I've already added "smoked" as a cooking method to the Meatloaf page so this could just be redirected.--Isotope23 16:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Delete! per nom. FirefoxMan 17:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. You can add a sentence to meatloaf and/or smoking (cooking technique) if you so desire. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge to Meatloaf, add a sentence or two about it -   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 02:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and maybe redirect to meatloaf. Can't see this being a seperate article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The source that was added still does not satisfy WP:WEB, and the two external links aren't to independent sources (meaning that WP:V is still not met). --Coredesat 20:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IIchan[edit]

IIchan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Speedy deletion under A7 contested. No assertion of notability is made, article fails WP:WEB and WP:V. Should be deleted. RWR8189 01:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete unless... more sources are quickly added. As of now it doesnt have nearly enough sources to be argued as notable.Ganfon 01:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I tagged this as needing sources back in November and no attempts have been made to add sources. Just fyi. Wickethewok 03:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Little notability is asserted, and there is no third-party sourcing. I wouldn't speedy this, as Google hits lead me to believe that it could be possible to find reliable sources. -- Kicking222 03:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, should have been speedy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 14:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, I can't find any media mentions whatsoever. I can't find any non-blog mentions either. I searched for common newspaper names and IIchan too, nothing. I can't find any reputable non-blog articles, plus the whole article is WP:OR. With no sources it can't even be stubbed. --Quirex 22:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the prevailing sentiment should be reconsidered. There are 39,000 English-language ghits for llchan, most of them still live. Almost all of them are postings on various blogs, IRC chanels, and the like. About 5% refer to the boards themselves, and the rest to the content for them. I do not think it is reasonable to find much on this topic in other media.
It is very strange of WP not to accomodate the development of new media, published in whatever way that media is naturally published. We may need to evelop new criteria and this is where we should start. The concept of such software is surely notable--there are a number of related articles. This is a derivative of what seems to be the most widely used program, and notable as such
There is no problem finding material--the difficulty with V is only the nature of the sources. It is time WP recognized that this is 2007, not 2004. Books write about books, and blogs write about blogs. I've added a ref from what seems to be a reliable 3rd party online journal, and a good third party directory refered to elsewhere in WP. I think that solves the basic problem. Documentation of many of the details will come from appropriate sources for the subject, once WP learns to accept them.
I once more am grateful to an AfD for widening my education into previously unexplored areas, when the people who do know the area won't do the work of finding references. Now the rest of you take another look.DGG 10:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as notability does not seem to me to be clearly asserted. We need to know why this is different from any of its peers, and the article doesn't address this. WMMartin 16:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holidoze[edit]

Holidoze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article is likely no more than an ad. There is no discernible notability, it is the author's only edit, and it is written in a way that smacks of ad. Badgerzilla 01:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Advertising --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 02:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPAM—Mitaphane talk 03:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earnock High School Closure[edit]

Earnock High School Closure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

no assertion of notability for either the school or this event. — Swpb talk contribs 01:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Has no sources at all. I could possibly see this being included in an article on the school itself, but not by itself.Ganfon 01:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (I don't see it meeting any WP:CSD criteria) as non-notable events (schools are closed and demolished all the time, being structures with a finite lifetime, renovation even more common). If the old or the new school is notable, then this could be a note in that article. --Dhartung | Talk 02:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If an article on the school exists, its closure should be mentioned there. --Metropolitan90 05:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Metropolitan90. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 06:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Earnock High School if exists, else Delete. - PocklingtonDan 09:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if merged it should go to Calderside Academy, though that could probably bundled in this AfD as well because it is the same situation as the nominated article and they are related.--Isotope23 16:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a couple of relevant links... there is apparently an online petition to stop the school closure on ipetitions (can't link because it is blacklisted)... not that this constitutes a reliable source. Here is a mention on a parliment site. This mentions "Earnock High School, Hamilton" which has a website. I'm not Scottish, so I have no idea how Hamilton relates to South Lanarkshire geographically or politically, but I assume this is the same school. Regardless I don't think this article should stand as is. It should either be deleted, merged, or moved to an article on Earnock High School with sourced mention of the impending closure.--Isotope23 16:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earnock High Schools website can be found at: http://www.earnock.s-lanark.sch.uk/

  • Delete per bigtop and with funny behavior of annon. FirefoxMan 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has now been updated with sources —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.40.19.166 (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the notability of the school article was questionable, but I think that there's no reason to have an article for the closure of this school. TSO1D 21:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the closing of a school tends not to be notable.-- danntm T C 21:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now also nominated Calderside Academy for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calderside Academy — Swpb talk contribs 01:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The closure of a non-notable school will not, even five years from now, be notable. —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable: schools are closed all the time. WMMartin 16:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of characters in the Alien series. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science Officer Ash[edit]

Science Officer Ash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

Non notable secondary character with no references or sources. Daniel J. Leivick 01:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following secondary Aliens characters with similar formats.

He is a relevant character, who plays an important role, you obviously haven't seen Alien, DO NOT DELETE

  • It is interesting that you should say that as Alien is my favorite movie of all time, I have seen it more times than I have seen any other movie. But none of these characters are notable outside of the film, if they are the topics of any articles that assert there notability please reference it on the page for the character in question, I would definitely be interested.Daniel J. Leivick 02:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I can't justify a delete because there aren't really insignificant characters in Alien, but I'm not sure that Wikipedia is the right place for character stories. If anything, merge the characters with their respective films. --Dennisthe2 02:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I assume we are throwing in our fourpenneth on all 4 nominations here so.... General point: If anyone wants references and sources for anything then drop in the appropriate tag and someone will try and address it. Obviusly there are the fims bit, if you want one from a source other than the films, then Beautiful Monsters covers them all and there are other volumes for other films [3] - the first step is to ask for them though (no one has). I would also query their being defined as "non-notable secondary characters" in the proposal - they are important supporting characters in a major (even iconic) film. There are, potentially, non-notable members of the cast but they don't have an entry. Let's look at some of them: Kane has the most iconic scene in the film (in fact it is one of the most famous in cinema). Bishop plays an important role in the first 2 films and appears in the third (reappearing as another version of the android at the end) and appears as the man the design is based on in another film - surely a character whose appearances span 4 films (as well as appearing in a whole range of spin-off merchandise) has to tick the notable box. I could go on but I hope I have made my point. (Emperor 02:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • CommentThe reason I chose not to ask for sources was that I have a pretty good knowledge of Alien literature and the like, this is not to say that it is impossible that some of these article could be sourced, I would just be surprised. The problem is not that these characters are not important within the film (that is why they are mentioned in the plot summaries) but that there are no external sources referenced. In order to be notable in Wikipedia terms the character has to be the subject in multiple third party sources, non of these characters are. The subject of Beaurtiful Monsters is not Ash or Dallas but the Alien and Predator series.
  • Comment Well yes I doubt there are any actual books about the characters - the best you'll usually get are books on the films (or possibly some media studies papers - the Ripley entry also needs beefing up in the reference department with that in mind). The problem is we are in a bit of a Catch 22 - no one has bothered asking for references and the entries are damned for not providing them. There is a process and we seem to have skipped a stage. I doubt I could find enough references in the time requied for all of the entries. I also think it is unfortunate they appear to have been lumped together as less strong cases will drag down the keepers - I genuinely think it is a mistake throwing Bishop in with the others as his multiple film appearances should make it a dead cert if it had been proposed on its own. (Emperor 03:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete everyone of these offers nothing but a plot summary. None have any secondary sources. WP:NOT states: Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot.. WP:FICTION states: Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." These are the articles that should be built at avp.wikia.com. --maclean 02:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per above--SUIT42 02:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's simply unacceptable for articles to consist of only two factual statements followed by a large, undigested lump of storyline. Wikipedia is not a fan guide, nor should we rewrite every article about every film to shift focus from character to character. Postdlf 03:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have fictional biographies for many other characters including the Simpsons and American Dad. I hope we aren't going to throw them away in 30 years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • "Keep, because it's a fictional character"? Please address the particular merits of these articles and subjects. Postdlf 06:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Simpsons are irrelevant to this discussion" - It is entirely possible that the other fictional articles you mentioned should also be deleted. It may very well be pop culture information worth remembering well into the future - but the question here is whether Wikipedia is the right place for it. Much of the article appears to be plot summary of the Alien film, which is already provided in the main Alien article. I think this could be merged back to the main article with no great loss. Zaku kai 20:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Either into the movie itself, or a list of characters from the movie. I'm not especially troubled with the problem of sourcing these articles, these are notable movies, all of these characters are more than just a walk-on guy, but if you object to them having their own article, they should be well-described in the movie's page. FrozenPurpleCube 16:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some, merge some. Bishop is certainly not a minor character, and the article on him provides a good synthesis of a lot of detail from the multiple movies he appears in, so I'd !vote a strong keep for him. Since Ash is only in the one movie, his information could be merged, but he's fairly central to the plot and I think deserving of a separate article. For the others, I'd keep them if I ran the world, but would be happy to compromise on a merge to Alien or a new Alien characters article, since they're not as important. Pinball22 16:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a list of Minor characters in Alien with dramatically reduced plot summaries as per WP:FICT for minor characters. If any evidence of out-of-universe notability of any of the characters is found, consider recreating those articles separately. Cheers --Pak21 17:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That'd be a suitable compromise (I was always suprised there wasn't one but having some many character entries meant it wasn't worth creating one). Would it be worth making it a list of characters in the Alien movie series or just for the Alien film with longer character outlines (I'd slightly favour the latter). As per what I said above and Pinball's comments I think Bishop needs his own entry. I have done some digging and can expand the entry to look at the academic studies of him (as he touches on various aspects - I'll expand his entry soon). (Emperor 17:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep Bishop, merge the rest. The Proffesor 18:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've now updated the Bishop entry with 4 academic papers where Bishop is a central example for the various points they want to make. [4] (Emperor 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge to a list of minor characters in Alien. It is unencyclopedic to break up works of fiction in separate pages for each non-notable character, location, weapon, monster etc. Edison 20:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Bishop for lack of encyclopedic noteworthiness. These articles also fail to explain where their information comes from. Not all of this stuff is mentioned in the movie(s). For most of these characters, their history need only be covered by the Alien article. For Bishop, however, his article helps cover his treatment over multiple films and non-film sources. Doczilla 21:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Seperate articles for secondary characters are confusing. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all but Bishop (Alien) to a new characters list, e.g. List of characters in the Alien series, to be consistent with Category:Lists of fictional characters by series. (Reduce the amount of content somewhat, though.) However, Bishop's notable across several films, and has enough background information (including that "academic importance" section) to justify an independent article, so strong keep for him. Quack 688 01:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all (except Bishop) to list of List of characters in the Alien series per Quack 688. The Alien Quadrilogy seems notable enough for a list of characters. Strong keep for Bishop (Alien) as he appears in two films and is a very major character in Aliens (film). WJBscribe (WJB talk) 09:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Unencyclopedic trivia. Eusebeus 13:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge most, maybe keep Bishop per Quack 688. highlunder 13:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't see why this is even up for debate. List of Characters in the Alien series. Go!Darkwarriorblake 00:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedied Opabinia regalis 04:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Macrophilus brachyura[edit]

Macrophilus brachyura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete. A fictional animal created in a school science class. WP:NOT a free webhost for this class project. Violates WP:V, no WP:RS indicating notability outside of this classroom, etc., etc. Probably a foregone conclusion, but brought here anyway, since it really doesn't fall into any of the speedy categories. --Kinu t/c 01:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think the above post explains my sentiments. --Ox-Puller 02:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Looks like it'll be speedied anyway. --Wizardman 02:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. WP:NFT, but the note at the bottom of the article, in particular, seems to imply this is being used as webspace. Serpent's Choice 02:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete being used as webspace. sorry kids. --Tainter 04:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Nashville Monkey 04:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly 20:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apronym[edit]

Apronym (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Neologism. Good thing I sent it here because it kept being completely deleted by some random user. Looks like it violates WP:NEO, but we;ll see what the opinion is. Wizardman 01:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The word does not appear in dictionaries, but the phenomenon of apronyms is notable, and it should use that name until a better name is found. (By the same criteria, RAS syndrome is also a neologism. It's a good comparison bec. both articles are about unusual acronyms.) YechielMan 05:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comparison was coined in a magazine, while this was coined more recently on an internet forum. PLus keep WP:INN in mind.--Wizardman 05:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When the origin of a term is a form whose name includes the term, there is really very little question that the term is a neologism or protologism. That issue entirely aside, the article does not meet inclusion standards on the merits. There is no means to determine if an acronym is sufficiently "appropriate" to be considered. Because no third-party sources address this term, the topic inescapably fails WP:OR. Serpent's Choice 06:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously JuJube 07:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the pheonomenon is real, interesting, and notable. If it should be moved to another name, then so be it, but the phenomenon should be noted in an article somewhere, whatever its name - PocklingtonDan 09:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 17:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would anyone want to consider merging some of the content into acronym? YechielMan 18:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We went through the same with snow clone and eggcorn, neologism yes, but a recognized one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
eggcorn has lots of good sources; this does not. I am always a little wary when people say "this is well-known." Well-known by whom?--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A neologism created on a non-notable forum. The article makes all sorts of claims for the term, including the summary's false claim that the term is used in linguistics; the concept is of limited interest and extension. Googling reveals virtually no links that aren't to copies of the originating site or similar blogs and forums. At most this might be mentioned in Acronym. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. BuickCenturyDriver 23:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this is a discussion, not a vote. Would you give your reason for keeping (and, if possible, explain why you disagree with those who argue for its deletion)? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Bob 05:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. neologism. Eusebeus 13:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep this is a widely used term, as shown by the examples. There are obvious sources for the examples given, and we hardly have to prove that CAN-SPAM exists--though we do, since it has its own article documenting it. If a particular use is questioned, that one gets to be discussed on the article talk page. . If it has become widely used, it is notable. That's what notable means. The applicability of the term is proved by the two independendent sources, and that's what V means. Mel, that is why we disagree with the deletion. WP is not a fossil. DGG 10:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that there are not "two independent sources". Within the article, there are no independent sources, just multiple links to the website that created this neologism. There does exist one arguably independent source[5] using and (although I find the referencing of an Internet forum in a scholarly paper unusual!), but it does not discuss the term as required by WP:NEO, only using it in passing. This would qualify as a Wiktionary attestation as I understand it, but is not sufficient for Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. So far as I can tell, all other appearances online are in wikis, wiki mirrors, blogs, and other user-submitted sources without editorial control. Some of them even make the purpose of the term's use obvious.[6] "Plugging for [this] neologism", indeed. Serpent's Choice 11:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the examples show this term is in wide use, rather other facts about acronyms are twisted into examples used to prop up the neologism. Static Universe 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliably sourced... Addhoc 23:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from Wikipedia: we're not a dictionary. Offer it to Wiktionary, and if it meets their criteria for inclusion they can have it ( though I suspect it won't ! ). WMMartin 16:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of sources and failure to meet guidelines on neologisms.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability ::mikmt 01:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Note that there's even an apronym in Wikipedia: WP:PAIN. The word "pain" seems a propos of "personal attacks." (YechielMan) 129.98.212.64 03:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That sort of argument would also justify an article on Hawaiio-Greek portmanteaux. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nn neologism. Static Universe 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nn neologism. Move to wiktionary, it's an interesting article and term (if contraversial)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rurouni Kenshin. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sakabato[edit]

Sakabato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article seems to concern itself with a non-notable fictional object inserted as fancruft. The page contains no source citations, and seems to be extremely confused in general, even on the historical existence of the item. Ox-Puller 02:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 08:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Rurouni Kenshin. The Japanese wikipedia has an article on this, but it doesn't say much more than what has been translated already. The Japanese wikipedia entry also has a mergeto tag suggesting the same thing, although it is being contested on the grounds that the sword makes appearances outside of that series. Neier 08:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Neier. Edison 20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overzealous and misleading cruft. The first sentence in the English article says: "A sakabatō is a real type of Japanese sword." The first sentence in the Japanese article says: "A sakabatō is a fictional sword." Need I say more? TomorrowTime 08:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both are apparently true; not a historical sword, but a real sword available in modern times. -Amatulic 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason I proposed deletion is (and I'm saying this in connection to Oroshi's post as well) that fans will keep warping this entry to suit their own ideas as long as this particular weapon is mentioned in an article, unless somebody with a keen eye keeps watch and reverts every single fan entry about noble samurai who decided not to kill (huh?). See Ninjaken and Ninjato, for instance - I don't have enough knowledge to get those two in order, nor do I have the energy to fight hordes of neo-ninja with no respect for actual history. TomorrowTime 19:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Neier. Maikeru 05:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Rurouni Kenshin, and mention it in Katana. There are some references to the fact that this type of sword is real, if not historically, then at least currently. ([7] as well as several eBay auctions) -Amatulic 23:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Rurouni Kenshin, whilst making clear that it is a fictional creation. I would argue against mentioning it in Katana, as it's not a katana - any actual 'sakabatō' are just fan memorabilia. One might as well put bokken under the same heading, as it has more in common with real Japanese swords than a 'sakabatō' does: bokken are actually used in Japanese martial arts! The general consensus on Sword Forum International[8] is that the 'sakabatō' is a fiction, and while cheap decorative replicas can be bought, they are not fully functional and could not be used in martial arts. The claim on the Japanese wiki of a pineapple being cut in half validating the blade's efficacy is laughable to anyone familiar with real test cutting. Also, the traditional way of making katana precludes having a cutting edge on the back, as the sword bends naturally towards the blunt soft-steel side during the cooling stage of the forging process. Oroshi 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only suggested a mention in katana because I originally went there to find information about the sakabato, not knowing the name "sakabato" at the time. I am sure others will do the same. It seems to be a common enough question in other forums, that the katana article should at least mention it briefly by way of disclaimer somewhere.
    • Fascinating forum you pointed out. Reading a few pages into it, it seems that traditional forging processes (even simple things like a higher-temp quench) can be used to reverse-curve a katana blade, and some have been forged by forum participants. But the consensus is that these blades aren't historical, aren't practical for sword fighting, although some swordsmiths in Japan reasonably would have experimented with such a design before abandoning it. -Amatulic 21:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect, largely per Oroshi's reasoning, but also because doesn't appear to be referenced well enough to stand as an article in its own right. WMMartin 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, not a suitable redirect. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 20:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I walk Alone (song)[edit]

I walk Alone (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Unsourced, already exists at Boulevard of Broken Dreams. Pieguy48 02:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I've heard this song before. BuickCenturyDriver 02:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This doesn't address a single thing the nominator brought up. --Wafulz 03:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Boulevard of Broken Dreams (Green Day song). --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Wafultz makes a good point below - change to Delete --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Redirect The article already exists under it's proper name. See: Boulevard of Broken Dreams (Green Day song).Ganfon 03:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking back on Wafulz's point, I too will have to side with deleting' this article.Ganfon 17:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, same as above. --Wafulz 03:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, delete as an unlikely search term. Nobody is going to search up "I walk Alone (song)" (especially with the brackets and the capitalization). --Wafulz 03:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely search term, the name isn't actually used anywhere. And what's with the "mistakenly marked explicit" part? "Fucked" is enough to get the warning. -Amarkov blahedits 03:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Nobody will ever search for this. Ever. Obviously, there's also nothing to merge into the BoBD article. -- Kicking222 03:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:CSD, specifically Redirect criteria 3. This is about as unlikely a search term for Boulevard of Broken Dreams as can exist. Cheers, Lankybugger 04:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JuJube 07:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Umm, yes, people will search for this. Considering that "I walk alone" is repeated as the chorus of the song many times, it is more than likely that people will think that is the name of this song. I've gone ahead and boldly redirected to the existing article. --- RockMFR 08:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd just like to point out that I doubt people will be looking for I walk Alone (song) specifically. I imagine that they would either capitalize the first letter in each word or just capitalize the I in the title. It's pretty unlikely they'll not capitalize walk but then do it for Alone. So while I don't object to a redirect for "I walk alone" or "I Walk Alone" (as both would be common search terms), this random capitalization is NOT common. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Which is where this discussion could get catapulted over to WP:RFD if it doesn't satisfy WP:CSD#R3! Bubba HoTep 14:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as already rightly done by RockMFR. In my travels sorting album and song articles for WP:ALBUM, I would have done so anyway. Bubba HoTep 12:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no one would search for anything with "(song)" after it. Maybe a topnote at I Walk Alone, which is about a 1948 film. Recury 17:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no use as a separate article and useless as a redirect --Pak21 17:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this is just a article full of junk - useless. Jordanhatch 20:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlikely redirect. Pointless article. Maxamegalon2000 06:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary as an article or redirect. —ShadowHalo 04:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was complex.

This article and the issue of syndication as distribution has been the nexus of a tremendous amount of discussion:

Deletion discussions: Nominations 1 2 3 4 Review 1
A&B in guideline creation discussions: 1 2 2a 3
Arbitration resulting from previous deletion discussions: 1
Syndication discussion: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Following these lengthy discussion, and noting that guidelines and policies are descriptive not proscriptive, it's not unreasonable to view this deletion discussion as a referendum on the question "Does syndication satisfy the content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators criterion of the Wikipedia:Notability (web) guideline?"

Clearly the consensus is that it does not. Some suggestions exist for merging or redirecting to its syndicate,Dayfree Press but these are not supported by consensus. Delete.

brenneman 03:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Able and Baker (5th nomination)[edit]

Able and Baker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — (View AfD)

If you ever wondered how GNAA got up to 18 AfD's, here's how. The 4th nomination was speedily kept by a participating admin, but the decision was overturned at deletion review where a new nomination was asked for. So we're now up to #5. Oh, the article is about a webcomic and this is a procedural nomination, so I have no opinion other than that this should run its allocated 5 days, or otherwise it'll end up at DRV again. ~ trialsanderrors 02:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It is not the responsibility of people who want it deleted to show beyond the shadow of reasonable (and unreasonable) doubt that no sources exist now, existed before, or ever will exist. It's the responsibility of people who want it kept to provide sources, and they have not. It's been quite long enough. -Amarkov blahedits 03:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's absolutely no notability asserted, and absolutely no third-party sourcing. If somebody can establish importance in the next five days, I'd be happy to change my !vote. However, I doubt that's going to happen. -- Kicking222 04:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no notability established and zero third-party sources. Naconkantari 04:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. There is no assertion of notability, and as noted above, no coverage in reliable sources.--RWR8189 04:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not give a reason to believe that the comic satisfies WP:WEB. I agree that this nomination should be allowed to run a full 5 days. --Metropolitan90 05:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless sources can be provided that it meets WP:WEB (my poke around found nothing) --Haemo 05:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom users above Nashville Monkey 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment per nom? Trialsanderrors listed this as a procedural listing, meaning there is no nom opinion. Metros232 15:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • well then if you want to get anal about it then it's just a friggin Delete vote... isn't it? Nashville Monkey 01:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment well considering that AFD isn't a vote and is actually a consensus builder...Metros232 13:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Could you possibly give it a rest? and maybe consider being constructive by placing yor opinion as to the article itself and not other user's choices of words? Just a suggestion. Nashville Monkey 19:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Could you possibly not call other established users trolls? Metros232 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Amarkov   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 01:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB and general lack of reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everybody. I at least looked at the page and the website referred to. Can't say why this should be in an encyclopedia. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 19:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason that there is a majority keep at Old South Road, which has no third party sources, yet this is being !voted majority delete for the exact same reasons? Which rules are we supposed to be following here, because it gives the outward appearance as a double standard to delete this and keep some sub-trivial article from Lord of the Rings just because WP:WELIKEIT. Yamaguchi先生 03:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should follow policy. Just because people want to keep one page for bad reasons does not mean that we should keep another one. You should point that out of the AFD for the page in question and you could consider appealing to deleteion review if you think the page was kept againts Wikipedia policies. In case you are wondering DRV can also be used to contest keep decisions. To rilteate we should not be following WP:ILIKEIT or we are going to have AFD 6 any time now. --70.48.110.117 05:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly systemic bias. Though as I pointed out in the Merge "vote" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old South Road, lage, active fandoms like Tolkien actually produce third-party published works covering the minutia of their worlds so that alot of Tolkien-cruft meets the primary notability criterion by being covered in multiple independent works. Eluchil404 06:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no new information presented since previous deletion debates, no changes to notability policy. Recommend censure of those who feel that it is appropriate to continue using AfD until one gets the desired result without actually changing their arguments at all. Phil Sandifer 20:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this doesn't seem so cut and dry. 2 of the discussions resulted in delete, 1 was keep, and 1 was speedy keep which went to DRV where it was overturned and relisted now.--RWR8189 20:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before we do that, we should censure the people who kept recreating the article until an AfD resulted in keep. Would you like that? -Amarkov

blahedits 22:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so many people keep recreating, it could also be a clue as to notability, of course :-) Kim Bruning 23:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Then try unprotecting the GNAA article: it must be notable, since people keep recreating it, right? :-) bogdan 23:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the GNAA they were actively working to subvert wikipedia. I don't think the same can be said of Able and Baker (what with them being fictional creatures and all :-P ) Kim Bruning 23:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phil: I've seen several people ask you to insert some claim of notability into the article itself. It might be a good idea to provide that data in the article itself. Could you quickly do so? Thank you! :-) Kim Bruning 23:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been done for ages, though I've clarified it in the article. The problem isn't that the article doesn't assert notability - it's that people with no knowledge of the larger subject (webcomics) are making judgments of notability, and people are treating this as a democracy in that "two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch" sort of way. Phil Sandifer 23:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the problem is more that the article has no reliable sources. -Amarkov blahedits 23:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that the definition of reliable sources being applied to articles like this is useless, and has nothing to do with reliability. The sources being used for this article would be considered reliable for any reputable study of the subject. They are what would be used for scholarship and journalism about the subject. But this whole debate has nothing to do with reliability, and everything to do with using the word "reliable" to mean "notable," which is misleading and wrong. Phil Sandifer 01:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to find any kind of claim to notability or any references in the current revision of the article. Perhaps they have been lost during previous edits? Could you (re-)state them? --Kim Bruning 23:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah wait, you made an edit just now. Hmm, I'm still not entirely sure how that makes the comic notable. Would you care to explain? Thanks! :-) Kim Bruning 00:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Have a look now and see if that helps. Phil Sandifer 01:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a statement of notability now. Kim Bruning 05:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this comic is in no way notiable FirefoxMan 22:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; No assertion of notability. No reliable sources that verify notability.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect - If this AFD isn't given 5 days then it will mirror the GNAA AFD pretty well. This article should be deleted but someone should make a neat article (or just redirect to Animals in space) about notable space simians Able and Baker who are notable and have many Reliable Sources [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Previous AFD commentators have pointed out a general failure in meeting WP:WEB and WP:RS. I searched google, google news, google archives etc and found no media mentions for the webcomic itself. Also I searched Jim Burgess and found no media references to the comic author. We should redirect to Animals_in_space. --TrollHistorian 22:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or just write an article about the actual monkeys. Either way, this has to go. -Amarkov blahedits 22:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A good idea, but I think Monkeys in space would be a slightly better target. Able and Baker were both monkeys. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record: GNAA managed to make it up to 18 nominations because basically a number of bureaucracy-fans didn't give a hoot that GNAA was damaging wikipedia, as long as people followed their own precious process. (As I discovered during one fine overnighter, until eventually several stewards dropped by and terminated the gnaa-nomic alliance for that night at least). Many moons later, finally someone decided to ignore all rules and just zap the article. Game over! ;-)
In fact, I'm feeling a lot of "process process process" vibes right now:
Discussion with the previous closing admin? What's that?
Go talk with him! He might actually provide some kind of reasoning!
This article has previously been fine since 2005 and has had many contributions from many contributors. Perhaps it could be improved somehow? --Kim Bruning 00:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it has no Reliable Sources, it can't be improved. And getting many edits is not a proof of notability: see Gay Nigger Association of America, which had 2722 edits. bogdan 11:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's why I've asked Phil Sandifer (who is apparently a subject matter expert) to find some. If he knows his stuff, it shouldn't be too hard to do :-) . As to GNAA, isn't that what I said? :-P It got kept for bureaucratic and/or conflict prevention reasons for quite a while, until someone just deleted it per IAR. --Kim Bruning 17:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions made after additional information about notability 05:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

(move your statement here if you have indeed reviewed the article)

  • Tentative keep, looks like the article now does claim notability, at the least. Kim Bruning 05:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Awaiting response from Phil Sandifer (or perhaps one of the article authors) Kim Bruning 17:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no desire to go find mine, so still endorse my original delete !vote. This is going to have to be relisted. -Amarkov blahedits 05:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How can we improve the article further? Kim Bruning 05:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability's fine; it wasn't really my problem in the first place. My problem is that there are no reliable sources (for that matter, no sources at all outside of the official website). -Amarkov blahedits 05:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, notability isn't fine; nothing shows that this specific strip is notable. -Amarkov blahedits 05:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I have read the additional claim to notability, and I agree it makes a claim to notability, but the article still has zero independent sources. Keeping in mind that everyone who is involved in the world of webcomics as a creator, reader, or critic has access to the Internet, I don't think it's asking too much to require independent sources to establish notability of this comic under WP:WEB. I don't think we need a re-listing; the supporters of this article had ample warning that independent sources were needed. --Metropolitan90 05:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote has not changed, regardless of claim of notability it fails to meet WP:WEB and back that claim up with something verifiable and reliable. --TrollHistorian 05:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Delete, per my above view. Please don't change the format of an AFD in the middle of it. Naconkantari 05:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto above users, you should know better than to change or modify an Afd during it's process. You want my opinion? It's still ↑ up there where it belongs. Nashville Monkey 08:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When an article is up for deletion, it would be unfair if people couldn't actully change the article to fix the problems as people mention them. It's an aspect of consensus. :-) Kim Bruning 17:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where are the sources? Why haven't any been found after all this time? WarpstarRider 09:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no WP:RS or WP:V bogdan 09:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The evidence for keeping it is that it has a notable publisher. Is everything from a particular publisher notable? Is it being asserted that everything they do is good? What Ive been looking for is numbers about readership or whatever passses for it on the subject. Or sources with critical attention. None have been offered. If it existed, we could evaluate it. As far as I can tell, its only source of critical attention is this discussion. DGG 10:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again - I continue to be baffled by the willingness of people who seem to have little knowledge of the subject to declare what a reliable source is and what the notability standards are, even when people who are familiar with the subject and (in my case) working academically on the subject assert otherwise. AfD increasingly resembles two wolves and a sheep trying to decide what to have for dinner. Phil Sandifer 13:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the claim to notability is still not yet obvious. Apparently people still require reliable source(s) to back up why this comic is notable. See the opinions of other people above for how this could be achieved. Also, a reasoning as to why it is reliable might also be welcome, as many wikipedians are not webcomics experts. Could you provide that? --Kim Bruning 17:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - basically, there are two types of webcomics. The first are independent ones - self-published, either hosted on the writer's own webspace or on a free webcomic host. These comics are sometimes notable - indeed, Penny Arcade, which would be a strong contender for "if we include only one webcomic, this must be it..." falls into this category. Then there's the second category - comics that have been picked up by one of what one might call the webcomic syndicates (Though syndicate is an odd term, since there's not always the sort of external publication that one gets from a newspaper syndicate). These syndicates are picked by editors who are respected figures in the webcomics community, and create a sort of brand identity of webcomics. Keenspot and the Modern Tales set are probably the two most important, but also on the list is Dayfree Press, which has some of the most important strips going on in webcomics - Questionable Content, Dinosaur Comics, and Girly. The editor of Dayfree Press, for example, was named one of the 25 big names in webcomics in 2004 by Comixpedia - one of the major places one goes if one is looking for information about the larger webcomics community. (Websnark and The Webcomics Review are the two other biggies at present.) Able and Baker is a member of Dayfree, and has thus been identified by an important figure in webcomics as an important webcomic, and has become part of a significant brand identity in the webcomics world. Ergo it is a notable topic in the coverage of webcomics. Phil Sandifer 17:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is picked up by Dayfree Press, which is indeed a notable "syndicate". That does mean that it has been identified as an important webcomic. That does not mean that the particular webcomic is notable, or that the particular comic has reliable sources. -Amarkov blahedits 17:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the comic is a reliable primary source. The Dayfree website would also be a reliable primary source. I'm not sure I see the problem here. As for notability, that the comic was picked up by a notable syndicate ought, I should think, make it notable. It was, after all, judged significant by a notable figure in the field (the editor). Phil Sandifer 18:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... no. Every scientist Lloyd Cross collaborated with isn't notable, every game Nintendo published isn't notable, and every comic strip Dayfree Press picks up isn't notable. Notability must be established seperately for a seperate article. -Amarkov blahedits 18:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Academic collaboration is a stranger issue, since grad student/professor collaboration is very important in the sciences, which raises a special case. I would, however, imagine that every game published by Nintendo would pass AfD. Phil Sandifer 18:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a secondary source which confirms Dayfree press does indeed host it? Can you provide a secondary source for any of the character descriptions in the comic? Can you even provide secondary sources about the author himself? --TrollHistorian 19:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, are you seriously suggesting that Dayfree isn't a reliable source on what it hosts? Phil Sandifer 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said secondary sources. The fact that none of the article has citations or references to anything but the author's site and the host's site is a serious issue. We need reliable secondary sources WP:RS, the only good a Dayfree link is for holding up the verifiability. --TrollHistorian 21:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Not knowing this area of publishing, I ask you seriously if you think everything published/distributed by Dayfree has been notable? everything? There must be very few publishing entitiies of any sort of whom this can be said.DGG 20:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep please if this is syndicated by dayfree press that is notable enough for me Yuckfoo 18:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - that something exists doesn't mean it automatically gets into wikipedia.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (no change of vote) there's still no sources, so problems with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:WEB still exist. I'm inclined to think that if after all this time and effort no sources have been found, it's probably because they don't exist. It certainly isn't due to lack of attention to the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(The above is a duplicate !vote reiterating comments made above)--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article as it stands now is a perfect example of what happens with articles about non-notable fictional works; there's nothing but plot summary. Unless you can say something substantial about it, or cite some secondary source, there isn't a legitimate piece of article content to be had. The fact that it's published in a syndicate can be reflected in a list of comics published by that syndicate, and it doesn't really take more than one line there to give a decent summary of what it is. the rest is just getting into a level of detail unverifiable by secondary sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I assure you, none of the problems of this article are unique to non-notable fictional works. Phil Sandifer 23:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Olde English Bulldogge[edit]

Winston Olde English Bulldogge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Ye Winston Old English Bulldogge was speedily deleted, ostensibly as a breed failing to assert notability, but dog breeds don't have to pass WP:CSD#A7 so the deletion was overturned at deletion review and the discussion now moves here. Note: Please heed WP:CANVASS. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the history of the breed is located here Headphonos 03:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the total lack of verifiable information and lack of available sourcing. Currently the article has no assertion of notability and the only source is a homepage for the breed. The AKC doesn't register this as a breed, and probably consider them to be nothing more than mixes with consistent characteristics. Searching for the term Winston Olde English Bulldogge brings the Wikipedia article and Wikipedia mirrors as the first results, and the search also returns results for Old English Bulldog, making it almost impossible to differentiate without checking each and every source. If this has been contested so hard, the editor doing the fighting should have produced some sources by now. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lankybugger, try "'Winston Olde English Bulldogge' -wikipedia" in Google to get all non-Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirror hits; this gets 426 hits, none of which belong to a major kennel club or other reliable source on dogs. Thus, the Winston Bulldogge fails the importants policies of WP:V and WP:RS, so it has to go. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A paragraph in another article would suffice. Xiner (talk, email) 20:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable type of dog. Edison 20:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of being the principal subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the sole breeder. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I searched and searched for this breed while I was waiting for the Deletion Review process to end, and found nothing that indicated to me that the article should be kept. I also searched for this breed while developing my perspective on the Olde English Bulldogge and the Wilkinson Bulldog, respectively kept and deleted recently per AfD. Regards, Keesiewonder 10:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is a "dog peddlers dog" and the citations are to more dog peddlers touting their wares. User:PBurns3711 15 January 2007
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to Galaxy class starship (Star Trek). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Yamato (Star Trek)[edit]

USS Yamato (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Completing incomplete AfD by anon user -- non-notable ship, worthwhile content summarized on ship's class page; page should redirect to that class page. --EEMeltonIV 11:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what you want, withdraw this nomination, and make a redirect yourself. FrozenPurpleCube 04:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding. I've done it twice. This seems an apt way for this annoying anon user from complaining that it needs to go through AfD. So, *shrug* might as well. --EEMeltonIV 11:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable Star Trek ship, important appearances in two canon episodes. JIP | Talk 06:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone had redirected this to Galaxy class starship, and then an anon came along and claimed that it had to be AFDed first. This is false. Turn back into a redirect. This is an incidental ship, and 90% of the content of the article is a plot summary of the episodes in which it is seen. Very little is known about the ship per se, and what is known can be perfectly well covered in a single paragraph in Galaxy class starship. Morwen - Talk 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands, the article is completely unsourced. Iffen someone wants to fix that, I'm not opposed to keeping then .... WilyD 14:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: all encyclopedic content is already in Galaxy class starship and useless as a redirect (that's what USS Yamato is for) --Pak21 17:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Pak21. The article also doesnt feature any additional sources or important information. Overall, poorly put together.Ganfon 17:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pak21. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect, non-notable fictional ship, no substantial coverage in reliable real-world sources. Sandstein 22:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this with Star Trek. BuickCenturyDriver 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Has enough information for a page, first Galaxy ship to be destroyed/lost, canon in two episodes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.167.255.231 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep Important enough for a page. Not every ship mentioned in Trek is as important, but this ship got two episodes with one basically fully devoted to her.--David Foster 20:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Galaxy class starship (Star Trek). There was no need for this article to be AfDed in the first place, as the AfD started due to a misinformed anon thinking an article has to be deleted before being made a redirect. Redxiv 21:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect, but do not keep. Not notable enough in its own right- a ship that appears in two episodes is pretty fancrufty, especially without reliable sources to establish notability. -- Kicking222 14:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Galaxy Class Starship as above. Kyaa the Catlord 00:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge - this is not good: little real-world assertion of notability, severe problems with WP:V, WP:OR, WP:FICT, WP:RS. Trekkiecruft and Gundamcruft? All the same to me. Moreschi Deletion! 14:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Galaxy class starship (Star Trek) per above comments. RFerreira 19:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a dedicated Trekkie/Trekker ( call me what you want ), but I do feel we're getting over-enthusiastic in our coverage of Trek. David Foster is wrong when he says that the ship is important because it appeared in a couple of episodes: no-one is ever going to say something like "Do you remember that episode with the USS Yamato ?". What they might say is "Do you remember the episode with Nagilum ?", and when they look for Nagilum here they'll get directed to the appropriate episode. We have to distinguish between the notable and the merely crufty. I'm in favour of a Merge and Redirect per RFerreira. WMMartin 16:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - it's a notable ship - but not article worthy :-( thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Notable, but for a whole page? Probably not, but include some facts about her in the merge.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:--65.103.153.18 05:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)|--65.103.153.18 05:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:--65.103.153.18 05:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/--65.103.153.18 05:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)|contribs]]).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 reliable sources were found.. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 21:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advance Wars By Web (second nomination)[edit]

Advance Wars By Web (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The game was already deleted a while ago but I don't know if the content is similar. Either way, the current article is not verifiable through reliable sources and doesn't meet WP:WEB. Nothing from Google Wafulz 03:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like how you can say "Nothing from google" when when I do a search it comes up with "Results 1 - 10 of about 38,400 for "Advance Wars by Web". (0.25 seconds)" Some of the fun links I found from it:

I'm sorry but I'm a bit new to this, are you saying despite having over 38,000 results on google and approximately 32,000 registered users on the website doesn't make it "notable"? Painezor 10:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment if you look at WP:RS you'll see wikipedia doesn't give blogs much credit at all. Since anyone can trivially write and publish a blog entry blogs usually don't meet WP:RS. So you should argue that these aren't blogs and show us evidence they are reputable sources, then integrate them into the article. --Quirex 22:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no good reason to delete an article about a popular website like this. - MTC 15:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. By "nothing from Google" I meant I couldn't find multiple non-trivial independent sources. I never once mentioned notability. The two links you've provided look to be minor gaming sites- one doesn't even have information, it just basically says "this is my favourite game" in a blurb. --Wafulz 18:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless someone is going to provide some non-trivial references, WP:WEB is a good reason. The second URL above, incidentally, implies copyright violation - if correct, the link should be removed even if the article is not. CiaranG 18:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all. Xiner (talk, email) 20:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB. Eusebeus 13:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ... as for failing WP:WEB I direct you to the 38,000 :). Still having a look around for the WP:RS thingy, it would help if I had a clue. Painezor 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment what part of WP:WEB does it pass? I can find no media mentions, and no reliable secondary sources. You need 2 or more reliable secondary sources to pass WP:WEB or you need 1 notable web award or someone has to include this pages content elsewhere. Perhaps you want to try WP:SOFTWARE. Can you find any non-blog coverage of the game? --Quirex 22:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 23:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Doctrine[edit]

Discovery Doctrine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Completely unsourced, appears to be an essay of some kind, or other original research --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. —Cryptic 06:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain (internet)[edit]

Public domain (internet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

too short to be a article Tooshorty 02:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (although "too short" is not really a deletion argument) since almost all uses of "public domain" at IANA's website are the usual understood intellectual property meaning.[14] -- and there are no occurences of "private domain" at all. This is simply a misunderstanding of some kind. --Dhartung | Talk 02:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agreed that there is some sort of fundamental misunderstanding here. The author appears to take "public domain" to mean "place where you can post content", but then compares this to a Generic top-level domain. I don't think there's an article here. Wickethewok 03:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dicdef of a term that isn't used this way. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per above--SUIT42 04:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy something so bad it must be a troll. (The author is so proud of it that he cites it on his RfA.) -- Hoary 05:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above, and I read the RfA. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very poor definition of public domain, lacking in sources. (aeropagitica) 06:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiHistory[edit]

WikiHistory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wiki failing WP:WEB. No reliable sources of information about WikiHistory. It doesn't seem to have been around too long and doesn't have many entries. PROD was removed by article creator, so its been brought here. Delete. Wickethewok 03:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Per the deletion policies, the Wikihistory page is just as encyclopedic as any other page, does not defame anyone, contains information about a significant Wiki (over 1500 pages). There is no policy for how long a resource has been around.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedcoombs (talk • contribs)
  • Please read WP:WEB, as I suggested to you on the talk page. It outlines a couple of the basic guidelines for web site articles. Your website does not meet them. Wickethewok 16:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 17:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't make the grade yet. Nuttah68 17:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XXL Magazine's XXL Albums[edit]

XXL Magazine's XXL Albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This appears to be a list of albums a particular magazine gave a particular rating; Wikipedia should not be a database for all critical reviews of everything (because where do you stop?). This posting was previously speedy deleted as a copyvio, but while I think the cover gallery fails to qualify as fair use here, I don't think the list in this article is itself a copyright infringement; the magazine didn't make the list (as far as I know), it instead made a series of choices that can simply be documented in list form. This list is akin more to a list of films Roger Ebert gave thumbs up, rather than Roger Ebert's Top Ten best films of 2006. Anyway, we should delete it based on the topic to give it finality. Postdlf 02:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added to this AFD XXL List of Reviewed Albums, the intended parent for the above, which looks like it is to be just a list of every album ever reviewed by XXL. At a minimum, the separate list of albums rated "XXL" (it's the highest rating as well as the magazine title) should be merged back there, but both should be deleted. Postdlf 05:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just a list of albums without actual content. Wikipedia is not a list repository. JIP | Talk 06:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete could cascade into an unmaintainable list. Bubba HoTep 12:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 17:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete There doesn't seem any discussion about deleting a similar list of ratings from The Source magazineList of The Source-rated albums. If one is acceptable so should the other. User:BryanCUFF 18:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mat Dickie[edit]

Mat Dickie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article has been prodded twice and its been removed once by an anon IP and once by its creator. As diligent as this game designer is, I do not think he meets WP's criteria for verifiability as the subject lacks reliable sources. Google searches for "Mat Dickie" yield 140 hits, almost nothing I would consider reliable. The article cites 2 sources; however one is his own website and the other, from Scunthorpe Telegraph, is more about his dealings with D12 and Michael Jackson rather than his accomplishments as a game designer. I also suspect WP:VAIN as the creator has only edited this article. Whether that is true or not, I don't believe this subject meets any criteria for WP:BIO. Mitaphane talk 03:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as both non-notable and unverifiable, per the above.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With only one source, and not a particularly relevant one at that, it doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Side note - if you're not sure if this is vanity, it's perhaps not wise to make such an accusation. The text doesn't seem particularly POV to me, for the most part. CiaranG 13:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, particularly with reference to concerns on sources, which look poor to me. WMMartin 16:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to Street Fighter (video game). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of major Street Fighter characters[edit]

List of major Street Fighter characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Aside from the fact that this article's title is a complete MISNOMER (none of these characters are major in any way other than being fighters), it's more of a list of trivia than an encyclopedic list og characters. Jonny2x4 03:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Whether this is kept or not, the Trivia sections are full of OR and, well, trivia, and should be nuked. Wickethewok 03:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR; there is no criteria which defines "major" in the world of SF. Ironically, in terms of SF's story, these characters are minor, hence the reason why "they do not have enough information about them to have their own articles." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitaphane (talk • contribs)
  • Delete All of the useful information should be taken over to the Street Fighter (video game), since all of these "major" characters are from the first Street Fighter game. That pretty much m4akes them non-notable, since the Street Fighter series didn't gain prominence until Street Fighter II. Cheers, Lankybugger 04:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with Street Fighter per above. JIP | Talk 06:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Street Fighter (video game); none of these characters are notable for much more than trivia. Yes, even Retsu. JuJube 07:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Street Fighter (video game) - lack of criteria for inclusion & most seem minor players. SkierRMH 07:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per JuJube and SkierRMH. BuickCenturyDriver 23:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 06:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No criteria for 'major' characters of a relatively overlooked video game. Current article is fancruft, and presumably contains original research. --Scottie theNerd 09:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as nominator. Combination 10:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Street Fighter (video game). As mentioned, Street Fightert didn't gain prominence until Street Fighter 2. --Alan Au 17:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Street Fighter (video game) - If something has to be done about the article, at least this is the better solution. (BackLash 05:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Most of the revelant non-trivia information was present in the SF1 article before you created the article. Jonny2x4 17:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Street Fighter (video game). Street Fighter II has had a great influence on our society. To remove the minor characters simply because they didn't appear in as many games as others would be absurd. Also, to remove the minor characters would do the series no justice. I say merge them with the first game.
  • Rename to List of minor Street Fighter characters. The Star Wars articles have lots of "List of minor Jedi characters" and "List of minor clones" pages. Things like original research should be removed, but that results in a clean-up tag, not a page destruction. Kimera757 00:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that theres already an article titled List of minor Street Fighter characters, which itself is also a misnomer considering that it's really a list of NPCs mixed with supporting characters from other media versions of Street Fighter. Jonny2x4 17:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems like that page doesn't exist. It could have been renamed, had it "lived". Kimera757 01:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Street Fighter (video game), but that leaves the problem of what to do with Q's entry then which is smack dab in the middle of it all.--Kung Fu Man 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. The article name is misleading; it should be "minor" not "major."Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge--D-Boy 21:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and cleanup, though with caveats, first the article's title should be re-named, as per suggestions on this AFD. I would re-name it, but I don't know what an appropriate name would be. Second that the bias in this article is cleaned up, and if it is not, no bias against a re-nomination in a few weeks. If this is done right, concerns over size issues on Muhammad can be dealt with. I leave the name change up to talk on the talk page. Cheers!. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 21:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Muhammad in the West[edit]

Image of Muhammad in the West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Obvious POV fork of the article on the Prophet Muhammad. Any useful information can be incorporated into the article on the Prophet Muhammad itself. Rumpelstiltskin223 03:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what does "The West" mean exactly? "West of whom"? I know that it is generally used to mean Europeans/North Americans but the term is not encyclopedic enough to warrant inclusion in the title. Title should be more specific. To many people, Arabs are also "Westerners" as are Russians although Russians say "Westerners" for other Europeans.Rumpelstiltskin223 03:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rumpelstiltskin223, for future AfDs, please notify the user who has created the page. I've updated the page and add more information. --Aminz 04:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge - back into Muhammad per the above. Article is almost entirely written from one source, and is short enough that anything useful can be merged back. I am a big fan of the philosophy that that sub-articles should not be created until there is enough NPOV material on a sub-topic that for reasons of space a split is necessary. This article doesn't meet that standard. - Merzbow 03:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is not a POV fork but a main stub article created very recently. Encyclopedia Britannica has a detailed article on this very topic. See [15]. The book "Muhammad in Europe" for example is also on the very topic. [16] The sources used are also all reliable sources. --Aminz 04:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Merzbow. Aminz initially wrote the respective section in Muhammad in a POV manner, and when the section was NPOVed by other ediotrs, he copied his initial version of the section into this article. This is a clear POV fork. Beit Or 07:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A POV fork. There is no good reason the verifiable and NPOV content of this article cannot be covered in the main article under a heading such as "Non-Muslim views of Muhammad." If a separate article ever becomes justified, such a title would be a much better name for it than "Image of Muhammad in the West," for reasons given above. Nick Graves 07:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a POV fork. Please check the page. --Aminz 07:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aminz, I have a lot of respect for you, but this article is very POV - making statements like "the misunderstandings about Muhammad, were brought on by the Crusades and were kept up by Christian and other authorities" like they were fact, and other statements. Most of the wording you use in this article was rejected by other editors when you inserted it into Islam and Muhammad, but you're putting the same wording back up here. - Merzbow 08:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merzbow, thanks for your kind words. please see this by Bernard Lewis [17]. (starting from "The west too...")
Muhammad was once viewed as a demon, Lewis says. After refomations and after the crusades, he was viewed as a self-seeking imposter. Lewis says: "The modern historian will not readily believe that so great and significant a movement was started by a self-seeking imposter." Now, either Modern scholars or Medieval ones were misunderstanding?
Merzbow, I can send you the journal article from which I took "the misunderstandings about Muhammad, were brought on by the Crusades and were kept up by Christian and other authorities". At least it is a POV. I am fine with attributing it. --Aminz 08:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see the article - the phrase would have to be attributed and reworded to make it clear what "the misunderstandings" were specifically that he thinks were brought on. - Merzbow 08:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this attempt to have Aminz personal and biased version of a section in the Muhammad article published elsewhere. -- Karl Meier 08:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Image of Muhammad in west has already been discussed in Encyclopedias and this topic definitely deserves space on wikipedia. TruthSpreaderreply 09:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And you believe that the fact that the subject might be notable, makes it a good idea to keep what is nothing more than a POV fork of a section in the Muhammad article? -- Karl Meier 09:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to "Understanding of Islam in the West" or similar - although article contents as definitely POV at the moment this is an important topic - the Danish cartoon controversy, for example, shows the different attitudes and understandings between East and West on matters of Islam. I think the current article is too specific and POV but could be expanded into something much more worthwhile. - PocklingtonDan 09:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Muhammad article is too long anyway, this topic could be expanded and does not duplicate it. --BozMo talk 10:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think article has potential of getting expand. Muhammad article is already too long we can keep the start of article in Muhammad and expand it here. --- ALM 10:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Rename For two main reasons 1. Encyclopaedia Britannica has an article on this topic 2. The information merits a separate article but with a rename. --- Palestine48 10:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has potential. I'm not sure about renaming to "Understanding of Islam in the West". That's a vast topic, and would encompass everything from the 6th Century to 9-11. It might be better to have an article striktly focused on how the Prophet himself has been viewed rather than Islam and Muslims in general. -Docg 10:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Use of the term "The West" in the context of this article is unencyclopedic, due to its ambiguity, and because the terminology is POV-centric. What is "The West"? And, more importantly, who defines it? Is it the US, the Americas, Europe? Does it include Australia, even though that continent is geographically east? What about the large portion of Russia that is part of the Asian continent? Are Israelis "Westerners"? What about Palestinians living in the same region? Why separate the views of eastern non-Muslims (Indians, Chinese, Japanese, etc.) from those of western non-Muslims? What about the views of Muslims who live in "The West"? Are these not "Western" views of Muhammad? A much clearer, less POV-centric, more encyclopedic title for this article would be "Non-Muslim views of Muhammad." If the article is kept, a summary paragraph will still need to be included in the Muhammad article. Nick Graves 18:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping a summary paragraph with a pointer to longer article is quite normal. As for the 'West', it is a bit vague, but not unencyclopedic. It is used for short hand in many academic discussions to mean Europe, America and those part of the world sharing much of their their cultural assumptions (so yes Australia and NZ etc.). THe nations that would once largely have been seen as predominantly Christian. As for Muslims in the West, there's no explicit reason why they shouldn't be included, although probably only in so far as their views might be distinguished from other Islamic views of the prophet (I don't know whether they can be or not).--Docg 18:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently does not define what it means by "The West." If the term is commonly used in academic discussions to mean Europe and culturally related countries, that ought to be clarified and works cited to support the distinction. I found that Non-Islamic views of Muhammad already exists, and this article is redundant with that one. What is the justification for keeping this separate article? Nick Graves 18:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should see how Britannica Encyclopedia is using that. In medieval times, it refers to Europe I think. This article focuses on the views about Muhammad as they historically developed and explaining the reasons behind this development etc etc. Non-Islamic views of Muhammad presents different sample views of different scholars but not in a systematic way. --Aminz 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that article currently consists mostly of a list of quotes, which is a weakness. However, the namespace is a natural home for the contents of this article. Nick Graves 03:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge to Depictions of Muhammad.--Sefringle 04:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any reasons behind your recommendation here? Also, please note that image in the title of this article refers to views or opinions about Muhammad, not pictures or visual depictions of Muhammad. The article you suggest as a target for merging is not appropriate for this article. Nick Graves 05:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I generally try to avoid political, religious, and political-religions articles, but I have to say, all these articles that keep getting created (like this one) are just serving to make wikipedia ever more a publisher of original thought, essays, and synthesis, however "encyclopedic" the article's title makes the page sound.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can be POV but it is not OR. --Aminz 09:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The section for which this article is supposedly an expansion is actually entitled "Medieval Christian views of Muhammad"--that's a huge disconnect. I would have to agree with Dmz5. This article is a synthesis of views of various authors (heavily weighted toward Muslim scholars), and thus constitutes original research. A more apt name for the article in its present state might be Muslim views about the image of Muhammad in the West. Nick Graves 06:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand why somebody calls it POV. There are different POV about him in the west. We can't merge it in the main article(Prophet Muhammad) because that article is long and this is not a main issue. So we should make a new article.--Sa.vakilian 07:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The title certainly isn't a problem. The famous scholar Maxime Rodinson has a chapter on "The Western Image and Western Studies of Islam" in the Oxford University Press book The Legacy of Islam. It's the article itself that is the trouble. It's incredibly POV and inaccurate in its current state. Using just one source for this kind of thing is never a good idea. It is perfectly possible to have an article on this subject. Whether that means delete and wait for someone with better info to recreate, I don't know. --Folantin 09:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then please use the sources to include other POVs as well. --Aminz 09:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't have the time or the resources at the moment. Currently this piece is little more than opinion-mongering. How about some mentions of Dante, Edward Gibbon or Thomas Carlyle and their very different takes on Mohammed? --Folantin 09:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article doesn't touch post-medieval times. The work of Thomas Carlyle should be mentioned as it was a break-through. --Aminz 10:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • stong keep and rename to Christians view of Muhammad, making it a sub-article to Non-Islamic views of Muhammad. Having this much content on the christian view would seriously unbalance the Non-Islamic views article, that article already having to much christian views material compared to other religions and non-religions. So, merge the chritian views of the non-Muslim view article to this article, and make a short summary there. I am going to be bold and do that, except for the renaming part. --Striver - talk 14:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about the North Korean views of Muhammad?--Patchouli 21:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not, just fix enough material to make it worth an article.--Striver - talk 21:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Well sourced and nicely written.--Patchouli 21:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Doc. metaspheres 12:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Beit Or, POV fork. --Magabund 23:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a special aspect is not a POV fork. That there was once a negative image in the west is not POV; first of all it's objectively true, and it can perfectly well be used equally to show the ethnocentricity of W Europe. DGG 10:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The fact remains that this is incredibly POV as it stands. There is no attempt to explain why such a negative image arose. Western contacts with Islam hardly began with the Crusades. Heraclius and the Battle of Poitiers, anyone? As I've said, it also has little about later attitudes, particularly those of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment figures (e.g. Voltaire's highly ambivalent attitude towards Islam and Mohammed). At the moment it is an extremely crude, black-and-white propagandistic piece, the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. There's a quotation from Jerry Vines, but no reference to Louis Massignon (there is a longish Wikipedia article on the latter).Using this article to "show the ethnocentricity of W Europe" is hardly going to solve the POV problems here. --Folantin 11:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Folantin, you are right. The article lacks the views of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment people and most importantly the view of Modern scholars. Please help. It is 100% justified to add POV tag to the article. --Aminz 11:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'm relying on memory and I don't have the resources to hand at the moment, except for that Rodinson chapter, which is good but relatively short. It also deals with the image of Islam as a whole in the West, rather than Muhammed in particular, and it makes no mention of Carlyle, who is probably going to be a key figure in any article with this title.
However, I will attempt to do what I can for the moment. I can also recommend a few sources which those with access to a university library may be able to use to fill out this article. I'll make any further comments on its talk page. --Folantin 13:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Important comment:The article Userspace Folantin2 has been created in article space, claiming to be a sub-page of this article. J Milburn 14:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • OK, I've fixed that now. --Folantin 15:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. "Any useful information can be incorporated into the article on the Prophet Muhammad itself", incase you haven't noticed, the Muhammad article is getting waay too big.Bless sins 15:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I suggest renaming to "Western views of Muhammad".Bless sins 15:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepInteresting topic that deserves coverage--CltFn 13:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as "Western" not "Christian" is in the title I plan to expand this to cover figures such as Voltaire, Gibbon and Carlyle who were Western but not really practising Christians. --Folantin 13:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why lump Christian views of Islam together with those of secularists and humanists, while excluding those of Hindus and Buddhists? Christians have a lot more beliefs in common with Muslims than they do with secular humanists. This distinction between the West and the East really makes no sense in the context of this article, and is quite arbitrary. And what about Jewish views. Do they come from the "East" or the "West"? Nick Graves 22:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The use of "West" in the title is not arbitrary since major scholars like Rodinson use it. See also: Islam and the West by Bernard Lewis, The War for Muslim Minds: Islam and the West by Gilles Kepel, Islam, the West and Challenges of Modernity by Tariq Ramadan, The West, Islam and Islamism by Caroline Cox and John Marks, Islam and the West: Conflict or Cooperation? by Amin Saikal, Islam and the Medieval West by Stanley Ferber, and - above all - Islam and the West: The Making of an Image by Norman Daniel and Image of the Prophet Muhammad in the West by Jabal Muhammad Buaben. You can look "West" up in a dictionary: it means European civilisation and its offshoots. Voltaire, Gibbon, Carlyle et al. emerged from the same culture as Dante and Peter the Venerable and this article should examine the shifting attitudes of Westerners towards Muhammad (it is often very difficult to assess just how Christian, agnostic or atheist some of the major Western figures are after the Enlightenment). Hindus and Buddhists have had a completely different historical experiences of Islam so their attitudes towards Muhammad should have separate articles. --Folantin 09:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete* as per nom. (There could possibly be an article on this but this is not it. ) Str1977 (smile back) 10:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV Saying the truth 16:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. -Docg 00:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Mabuse's Kaleido-Scope[edit]

Dr. Mabuse's Kaleido-Scope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Contested prod: non-notable "academic media blog". Zetawoof(ζ) 03:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Nashville Monkey 06:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A student blog. Claims to have been cited... by other blogs. the wub "?!" 11:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep disclaimer: article's author. No offense, but I'm having a hard time seeing how these users know what constitutes a "non-notable" blog in this field jsperb 07:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It's a fair question; the guideline on notability can be found at WP:N. Generally, the guideline is not specific to any particular field. The key is whether there are non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of the subject itself.--Kubigula (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article currently stands. I am prepared to revisit if sources can be added.--Kubigula (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability can arise once the blog is getting recognition outside its own self-pollinating garden. This doesn't seem to be happening with this one yet. WMMartin 16:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to White-tailed Deer. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White deer[edit]

White deer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prod patrol bumping from Prod for more consensus. Prod nominator's concern was "no content, just taxobox, trivia, and links". I found it, wasn't sure what to do, and left a long note on the talk page. I asked for another prod patroller to look; the first to do so wasn't sure what to do either. I can't quickly see if there is either 1) a species or variant known by this name, or 2) a common mutation referenced in scientific literature (either would merit a keep) or just 3) a few herds of different deer species that have white mutations and are marginally notable therefore, but nobody ever discusses more than their local herd. Please treat as a technical nomination with no opinion from me. GRBerry 03:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD has been listed at Talk:Deer. GRBerry 03:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or preferably redirect to a better explanation somewhere else (I was the prod nominator). There's no such animal, as far as I can tell--the various populations are different species. Thus, the taxobox is actually somewhat misleading, since it suggests that this is a species. Obviously, a proper article could be written on Deer albinism or some such, but that article doesn't exist yet. This one doesn't either--it has no content at all. Chick Bowen 04:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This page, from the first reference, makes it pretty clear that "white deer" are simply carriers of an unusual recessive gene. White-tailed Deer already describes this (fifth paragraph under "Range and population"), so there's nothing to merge here. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Turnip. I'm the second Prod patroller, and I wasn't sure - it's got the potential to be good, but it's also got all sorts of markings for for delete. Therefore, I'm not voting but I thought I ought to stand with GRBerry. --RedHillian 07:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no reason given for considering white deer notable enough for their own article (contrast with White elephant, which is significant for cultural and linguistic reasons). This is just another example of albinism, which exists in many species, and white deer aren't particularly notable except as curiosities. Taxobox is also misleading, as there are several species of deer. A white deer is not a separate species. Nick Graves 07:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to white-tailed deer since it is discussed in that article per Zetawoof. Serpent's Choice 13:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons given. I like the redirect idea too, since someone might reasonable type that when they want a white-tailed deer, and either way they learn that a white deer is not a unique species (and hey this could be a "Did you know" feature!.Obina 19:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. This would make a nice sub-section of that article (the white deer at Seneca Army Depot have been the subject of quite a lot of media coverage). --- RockMFR 04:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect not a seperate species. Might be worth merging the picture. --Salix alba (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If we knew the species of the pictured deer, I'd do it in a flash. I've just now asked at the poster's commons talk page; it might be worth doing so on their page here as well. GRBerry 19:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From what he told me it seemed like he didn't know. I suspect it's an albinistic Fallow Deer (a species in which albinism is common), but I'm not positive. Chick Bowen 04:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep white deer are important in mythology (though not as much as white elephants) and "albinism in deer" is not a good rename because not all white deer are albinos. There are also special laws dealing with white deer. An article should not be deleted merely because it needs massive clean-up. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted by User:Jimfbleak as an advertisement. WarpstarRider 08:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Schools and Colleges[edit]

International Association of Schools and Colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable organization; Ghits - WP and Primary sources = 0. Attempt to reintroduce information regarding deleted articles Linda Christas/Linda Christas International Schoool; see [18] and [19] for more information. Robertissimo 04:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • An international educational association that doesn't google outside its own website? Nah, delete.--Docg 10:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh joy! another AfD round of Linda Christas whack-a-mole! surely it can be speedied the third time round? Pete.Hurd 04:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as reposted spam. —Cryptic 07:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. -Docg 00:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beer pong variations[edit]

Beer pong variations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Adequately covered at Beer pong, WP:NOT a game/howto guide. Seraphimblade 04:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this article after a merge of any "important" items with Beer pong. Nashville Monkey 04:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This information originally was in the Beer pong article, but was moved to a separate article after a discussion on the talk page. I agree that this article reaches no significant intellectual heights (and needs some grammatical cleanup as well) but Beer pong, believe it or not, is listed as a good article. The information in this article is (probably) relevant but would make the main article too long -- some (like myself) would argue that it is too long the way it is. If anything, the material on variations in the original article should be merged into this article. Seventypercent 05:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide, also this list is difficult to maintain and attracts non-notable newly invented variants, likely to fail WP:NFT. JIP | Talk 06:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notable and referenced variations can be covered on the main page. These are neither. This cruft was correctly removed from the main article to make it better. It should not be moved back en masse. Being removed does not make it deserving of its own article.Obina 19:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reference, and cleanup As Obina said, this page was created to get rid of the many unreferenced and probably non-notable versions of this game from the main beer pong page. If we can find references for some of the ones on here, then it's worth keeping. That's a big IF however. --AW 20:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Obina. Edison 20:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This says it all: "This page was created to get rid of the many unreferenced and probably non-notable versions of this game from the main page." If anything, this could be userfied until someone can determine if any of the items are worthwhile; at that point, those items can be merged back into the main page. This article is useless.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom... Addhoc 23:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ::mikmt 00:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. -Docg 01:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BattleMaster (second nomination)[edit]

BattleMaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The first nomination was kept because the game exists- this was literally the only argument presented. I could not find any secondary sources to verify anything. Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Google turns up no secondary sources (I had to filter out a board game). Everything I found was a forum or submit-a-review type website. Wafulz 04:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - does not appear to meet WP:WEB standards. I couldn't find anything either. Prove me wrong people! --Haemo 05:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a game, it's been around for 5 years now. I can't really see how WP:WEB rules are broken since this is more of a video game than a website. Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia for having the article. Shrumster 08:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability. If anyone thinks otherwise, they need to quickly establish notability with verifiable sources in the article. Wryspy 11:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 06:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability asserted and sourced. --Alan Au 17:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe most of it is verifiable using the game itself as the source, but it doesn't seem to pass notability muster. — brighterorange (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:WEB. Gameogre isn't notable enough to be a source, and searches turn up nothing. I'm not sure if having a wiki makes it notable either Da Big Bozz 16:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is worth keeping since it is a game with a substantial number of players and which has its own Battlemaster wiki, I know it exists since I have had an account on it twice although I do not at the moment.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Age[edit]

Castle Age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Webgame in open beta. I couldn't find reliable sources for verification. Nothing from Google, doesn't meet WP:WEB Wafulz 04:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - does not meet standards under WP:WEB. I checked around too, and it looks like it's totally unknown outside of its community. --Haemo 05:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted under WP:CSD A1. A very short article, without context, about a non-word. (Content was: "Zhoulotskunosprok" is something that MS Speech Recognition recognizes in English that is not a word. This works in MS Office 2003.") - Smerdis of Tlön 15:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zhoulotskunosprok[edit]

Zhoulotskunosprok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Give me a break. This probably qualifies for a speedy of some category, but I'm not sure which one. A contested prod, see the talk page. Salad Days 05:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - horrible article, and WP:OR. --Haemo 05:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely idiosyncratic non-topic. --Metropolitan90 05:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete patent nonsense Nashville Monkey 06:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. JIP | Talk 06:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trash. JuJube 07:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. G1, A1 or A3, depending on your particular interpretations of the criteria. Serpent's Choice 07:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to Aquinas College, Perth. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aquinians series[edit]

This afd concerns a mind-numbing assortment of trivial articles about a school in Western Australia. Please note this discussion is not about the school articles; rather it concerns the spin-offs.

Violates WP:NOT in too many ways to mention; suggest the author buys some webspace for this. Delete all --Peta 05:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems to have been through afd before - but I think this needs to be revisited. --Peta 05:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree this needs a revisit. The parent article is currently being peer reviewed here and many of the comments left by reviewers have suggested merging this info back into that article. I'm struggling to find anything encyclopaedic or notable in any of these sub-articles, so I say merge and delete all. —Moondyne 08:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Aquinas College, Perth. Hesperian 11:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think that they should be kept - i have asked for certain ones to be AfD and reduced the number of daughter articles. If you refer to User:Gnangarra/Aquinas - this is where i got the idea of he daughter articles from. Now...if you were to say AfD the House System page (which has been listed AfD but doesnt appear above) then you would have to AfD the page on Scotch College, Perth which lists its school's houses. The boarding page is especially significant as boarding was the foundation of the school. If you are to delete the pages - then fucking merge them back into the article - all the info on there is bloody valuable. Thanks Smbarnzy 12:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - I think that each individual page should be considered on an individual basis, not as a whole. This would increase the chances of articles being deleted. But, do as you please. Thanks Smbarnzy 12:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment all these daughter articles don't contain much non-trivial information. --Peta 21:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as already pointed out, trivia and a prime example of WP:NOT. If the is anything salvagable merge that back to the school article. Nuttah68 19:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Aquinas College, Perth. Edison 20:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - none of this is notable enough to exist as a stand-alone article. Perhaps Harvard and Oxford can support such "daughter articles," but not every high school in the world.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't the sport one be without a comma because otherwise it's inconsistent with all the other ones? DanielT5 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopaedic and indiscriminate. There is too much unencyclopaedic detail, which I suspect even the school would not put on its own website. Best place for this is a book on the school, and we could point a wiki link at it. Alternatively Merge back to Aquinas College, Perth and severely prune. Ohconfucius 05:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments of Huon at first AFD (linked above by Peta). All subjects fail WP:N. No merge, because Wikipedia articles should be built on secondary sources. The information in these articles is verified, and likely verifiable, only through primary sources. Pan Dan 16:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT - this page is largely built on primary sources, but it is all verified by secondary sources, so if it came down to a delete or merge, then it should be merged. Smbarnzy 05:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused. What's the difference between "built on" and "verified by"? Also, what secondary (i.e. external) sources verify the information in the articles? The sources cited all look like primary (internal) sources. Pan Dan 17:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - there is no dif. Heritage council of WA, Australian boarding staff assocation, city of south perth, sth pth municipal heritage inventory framework, Trinity College, City of South Perth council meetings, Mt Henry peninsula foreshore mgmt plan 02, the West Australian newpaper, and the PSA (Public Schools Association) are non primary sources listed in the article. they verify alot of the information in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smbarnzy (talk • contribs) 12:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • The Heritage Council and ABSA pages are trivial, refer not to any of the topics of these articles but to Aquinas College generally, and don't verify any of the information in these articles. I can't access the South Perth gov't page, so I can't tell what information it verifies, but it's only one ref in one article and I'm not sure what encyclopedic information city council meeting transcripts could convey anyway. I don't see the other sources you refer to listed in the articles. Pan Dan 15:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • An article I'm working on at the moment depends quite heavily on council minutes, which are available via State Records or if recent enough via the council themselves. WP:OR says we can't draw *conclusions* from primary facts (gazettals etc) beyond stating the fact itself, but the official published council minutes and unpublished minute books often do go heavily into the whys and wherefores, casting light on why a decision was made and what factors were highest in their consideration, so provide a reliable source by which to derive these assertions. May not be relevant to this article but a point nonetheless. Orderinchaos78 03:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Merge: merge key facts, but there is no need to keep any of the trivial lists/details as stated above. Danski14 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge some articles I have just had a skim over all the articles related to this disscussion and am at present indisposed to help, but I can make the suggestion that the boarding and house sustem articles be merged. It is defintly a problem that needs resolving, but once the Aquinas college main article is reviewed the reviewers will almost definitaly request more description and precise info which is where these articles can be merged (excuse my spelling errors, I am in a hurry) Yungur 12:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into main article, per above reasoning. And prune the dead wood. WMMartin 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Street Fighter characters[edit]

List of minor Street Fighter characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article is just a list of NPCs and supporting characters from various adaptations. If it doesn't get deleted, it the very least it should be renamed and moved to List of Street Fighter NPCs. Jonny2x4 05:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a list repository. JIP | Talk 06:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure why characters that are almost always relegated to background cameos need to be mentioned here. JuJube 07:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft/fancruft. SkierRMH 07:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 06:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Combination 10:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. At the very least, merge into a broader article. --Alan Au 17:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect all to Public Schools Association. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PSA Waterpolo and other sports[edit]

Results for an inter-school sporting competition in Western Australia.

Delete per WP:NOT. --Peta 05:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please try to use the preloaded AfD link next time. ~ trialsanderrors 11:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There's a BA research paper floating around entitled "The Public Schools Association of Western Australia as an Exclusive Sporting Body" (Carter, 1977), and PSA Cricket is part of the developmental pathway for the Western Warriors, according to this website. Therefore I am persuaded that the PSA's sporting activities are sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion. Whether or not they should be spread across so many pages is another matter; I would not object to a merger. Hesperian 11:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this sounds more like an argument to move it to wikisource. Wikipedia is not a repository of trivial data or any source material. --Peta 23:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - To persons associated with youth sports in Western Australia. The PSA would have to be the most highly regarded youth sports league in WA. It would be to the detriment of wikipedia not having it as part of their enctclopedia. Possibly not having them across so many pages is a fesable option. Possible just having one article with all of the sports and their relevant info on there regarding history, previous winners on that one page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smbarnzy (talk • contribs) 12:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge all into Public Schools Association. Too granular with separate articles. —Moondyne 12:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not the place for an article on inter school sports results, let alone articles on individual events. Nuttah68 20:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into Public Schools Association.Edison 20:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I agree with User:PDH that this is just a trivial data dump, and it certainly shouldn't be spread across so many pages.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the league is highly notable in Western Australia.--HamedogTalk|@ 12:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Eusebeus 13:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but merge per above. It's too disparate to have separate articles. --SunStar Nettalk 13:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All. We're not a directory, an almanac or a comprehensive record of every sports result in human history. This is the kind of article that makes other encyclopedias laugh at us. WMMartin 16:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS. -Docg 01:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agonised over this. And changed my mind twice. But there is no consensus to delete. It seems that the existence of the thing is verifiable. Thus the barebones of WP:V are satisfied. What isn't satisfied, is reliable sources that indicate notability. But ultimately WP:N and WP:WEB are guidelines. They indicate what wikipedia tends to keep or delete. They are descriptive not prescriptive. Unlike WP:V and WP:NPOV they do not trump consensus. It may well be, that this is the type of thing wikipedia tends to delete. It may well be that keeping it is inconsistent. But, that consideration is not enough to force a deletion in the absence of consensus. Brenneman made a good case, and frustratingly, many of the keepers focused on the re-nomination rather than refuting its reasoning (bad!). But, on the other hand, I take Pschemp's point (and she did give reasons) that many of the keepers have previously given reasons. Brenneman's case for deletion is very strong, but the article does not appear to breach WP:V, and so it comes down to consensus. Brenneman has been unable to persuade a consensus of Wikipedians that the article should be deleted--Docg 01:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Group-Office[edit]

Group-Office (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — (View AfD)

This has been nominated and deleted, deletion reviewed and restored, renominated, opened and closed a few times by non-admins, and closed as keep:

To recap (e.g. cut-and-paste) the arguments from the various venues:
Keep
  • Over 1000 forum members[citation needed] & over <1000|120,000> downloads [20]
  • First office suite to be run entirely off the web[citation needed]
  • Don't see the harm in keeping it
  • Subject to independent review of software: [21]
  • Notable[citation needed] and verifiable
Delete / refutation of keep arguments
  • {notabaility}
  • Review consist at least in part of user submitted reviews etc. [22]
  • Where are the PC Week/Computer Shopper/Datamation/<respectablish ITzine of your choice here> references ?
  • Nothing in Google news, 166 vanilla Goggle hits [no] non-trivial coverage from a third party.
  • 146,791 downloads, the 968th most downloaded item at SourceForge, 150 above the Scrolling Game Development Kit but 150 behind Reaper, a "An OpenGL based 3D-game, emphasizing stunning graphics and interesting algorithms. Similiar to Rogue Squadron."

The listing on freshmeat was also mentioned, but looking at the Freshmeat Popularity: 11.29% (Rank 163) this places it pretty far down the list, noting that Ghost for Linux and bash programmable completion are numbers 50 and 49 and are both red links. (Caveat of course that that a poor metric.) Running at near the same levels of popularity on Freshmeat are xscreensaver at 162 and GQview at 158. Damned with faint praise indeed.

While this article has been vocally defended on several occasions, the baseline for bothWikipedia:Notability (software) and Wikipedia:Notability is the identical phrase "multiple non-trivial published works" which have yet to be provided. The relevant questions appear to be:

  • Do these download figure mean anything,
  • Is the single osnews piece enough/reliable/nontrivial, and
  • Are there other sources that have not been provided?

I feel very strongly that the answers are no, no, and no, and this should be deleted despite the howls of protest unless firm, reliable information can be provided to demonstrate otherwise. Ring the bell, take the gloves off, let the flaming begin.

I've also pinged Redvers and Pschemp as the two most outspoken members of the previous nomination.

brenneman 05:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- This nomination is damn near a violation of POINT and another complete waste of people's time. Surely wikipedia has better things to do than hash this out again. [23] is an independent review from a site which is peer reviewed. Also from Dave Souza the first time - "in May 2004 the online suite was described as "Group-Office 2.2 is such a software entity that is accessible through a web browser and strives to take all of the independent "business office" applications (email, calendars, etc) off the desktop and onto a central location." on Open Source Industry Australia and as "Group-Office 2.2 Pro uses your web browser for the client software." on librenix which links to the previously cited source." pschemp | talk 13:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving on from the ad hominum considering I notified you of this nomination:
    1. Even if we accept that the single osnews piece is from a reliable source, it is not the required multiple published work.
    2. The os news review is by Bob Minvielle (Google) whom appears to be just a guy who wrote in according to their Style Guide: How to Submit Articles, which doesn't appear to match the concept of peer review as I know it.
    3. The review is on a small on-line forum, which is a far-cry from, for example, being reviewed in Wired. There are lots or reviews on OSnews and I don't think you're suggesting that we have articles on all of them.
    4. The Open Source Industry Australia is a de facto press release for the above review, consisting of a forty word precis and a link to OS news. That's forty words out of 1,500, which I am staggered by suggestion that it's anything other than a trivial mention.
    I'm sure that I sound like a broken record here what with asking that the guidelines be followed an all, but I'm simply not seeing the required coverage to demonstrate notability: I'm seeing an article built out of a single review and a lot of passion. It's entirely possible that I'm totally ignorant, but the way to change that is by presenting more facts. This article has been done over this three times now and I still see just the one.
    brenneman 23:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above FirefoxMan 17:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an utter non-techie (and non-other things that also often crop up on AfDs) I also must look only at the policy involved. Nom (and response above) makes a persuasive case that this simply does not meet the guidelines.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: While I'm not personally sure of the notability of the subject, I would like to register my beleif that process should be respected unless there was clearly an error. As I can see valid points both ways, I have no opinion, however. Wintermut3 06:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • note to the above note Someone expressed some confusion with my statement, so I guess I should clarify. I guess I can see how this may be seen as non-notable. However, it has passed an overturn at deletion review, and has apparently been nominated a few times since. This indicates to me that there is no clear community consensus on the topic, and that this is likely a content dispute that might be better worked out on a talk page than a deletion debate. Once something has been through the ringer once, I feel it is usually superfluous to re-nominate, though I can understand in this case there is some confusion over the actual consensus, so I don't hold any prejudice against the nominator, the topic may indeed be questionable enough that it warrents debate. The above statement was intended to state my belief that without a substantial reason for changing our collective minds, we should let it stand, otherwise we run the risk of endless AfD rounds that could get tiresome. Again, that's the general principle, in this case I'm not sure which takes precidence, a questionably notable topic or the prior case history. Wintermut3 06:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what you're saying, but in general I try to keep in mind that wikipedia's idea of "consensus" is often the comments of less than a dozen editors. Lots of stuff gets nominated and the discussion gets flooded by people from a message board, or policy gets blatantly ignored, or an admin closes too early, etc. etc. I have nominated several tenacious articles for deletion that had survived multiple previous attempts and I'll probably do it again.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know exactly what you mean, many times I've been rather stunned by the weight given to WP:ILIKEIT votes when determining 'consensus'. And as a further comment, I hope you don't interpret my comment above as overly critical of the nomination, I can definately see where you're coming from. Wintermut3 07:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep per all the arguments given previously. Is this article now going to be nominated every three weeks? Are people happy about this, or do you feel that time is being taken away from your other endeavours? BTW, I promised to quit over this, and I have. Best wishes, Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incredibly strong KEEP What is wrong with us that we want to thrash out the same issue over and over? I think I smell something rotten in the state of Denmark. What do the editors who keep nominating this for deletion have to GAIN from deleting this? Sounds VERY mysterious to me. Once I can understand. Twice a bit iffy. But THREE times in short succession? I am outraged. I cannot believe this. What is the value of attacking someone who means well and who is trying to provide some valuable information about a product people obviously use? I often use Wikipedia as a trusted source to find out a little bit about different software packages. Sure there can be advertising contamination, but the nature of Wikipedia means that it is far less and far more balanced than many other sources; in fact than almost any other source. This really reeks. And I am disgusted that we would be trying to drive away productive members of our community. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Please reconsider what you are doing. Are you really that bent on destructive actions?--Filll 18:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a disinterested party, I am wondering why Wikipedia's rules and policies even permit an article to be renominated for deletion less than two months after a previous AfD vote was closed with a keep. At best, this nomination is questionable; at worst, it is destructive and disruptive. IMO those who are in favor of deleting this article should accept and respect the consensus of the most recent AfD for the time being. The time is definitely not ripe for a new nomination. --Tkynerd 19:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and salt The appropriateness of the article is obvious. N is clear from the number of the users, aand there are no problems reported with V. The article still had some traces of advertising language, and I removed some. Perhaps other supports can add some of the many reviews instead of just talking about them. Let's improve the article so nobody is absurd enough to try this again. Samsara, come back, you are not without friends. DGG 22:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This nomination is an abuse of Afd, as it is being used in place of the non-existant Wikipedia:Keep review. John Vandenberg 00:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyper strong keep for all the reasons above. TruthCrusader 01:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with less rhetoric; Aaron didn't nominate this just out of spite. But this poor little article - which may just be our most inline-cited software article of its size - has been subject to so much excess bureaucracy that a new nomination was clearly going to achieve nothing but a waste of time. Opabinia regalis 02:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am absolutley unapologetic over renominating this article. It has no serious claim to notability, no citations from reliable sources, and despite it's many rounds through deletion discussions appears to continue to be defended based upon totally spurious grounds:
  • "I promised to quit"
  • "product people obviously use"
  • "this nomination is questionable"
  • "number of the users"
  • "abuse of Afd"
  • "keep"s without rational X 2
Simply having a lot of inline citations doesn't solve the problem that this "little piece of software" appears from the evidence presented to be less article-worthy that "Reaper, a An OpenGL based 3D-game, emphasizing stunning graphics and interesting algorithms." or "GQview, an image viewer for X windows." If there were serious arguments presented that this satisfied our well-established guidelines, than this could concieveable come down to "consensus" via counting noses. But there are not, just a lot of shrieking. There has been very little effort to even rebut the deletion arguments, mostly just they are ignored. There may be some people involved here who should be ashamed, but it bloody well isn't me.
brenneman 23:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep .. dave souza, talk 23:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with salt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd ask that the tone of the two spam notices I made (one to each of the main contenders for deletion and keepation) be compared to the two "OMG KEEP THIS!" canvassing notes: [24][25], and that the last two naked "keep" votes are perhaps responding to "marshall[ing of] forces" [26]. - brenneman 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You almost had me considering whether you might be right about the article itself, until you signally failed to WP:AGF with this last addition (not to mention that it amounts to an ad hominem attack, something you accused someone else of above). I, in turn, can no longer WP:AGF about this renomination. It's just ridiculous. --Tkynerd 01:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you bloody kidding me? I'm the one who's failed to assume good faith? Yeah, it's my "commercially motivated interests" that are coming to the fore here, nothing at all to do with sources, citations, or the bloody writing on the wall: It's not failing to assume good faith when someone throws a hissy fit and then a couple of blow-in voters just happen to use the talk page of the person who throws the hissy fit. - brenneman 01:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that requires comment. --Tkynerd 01:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Over the AGF line, brenneman. Glad you asked for a review of this at AN/I, because it's warranted.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The accusations against the nominator are patently absurd. Given that virtually ever keep comment has accused him of bad faith without even offering a defense of the article, accusing him of bad faith for pointing out vote canvasing is quite an insult. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A) It may be a little early to renominate this. B) While Mr. Brenneman may come off a tad too overzealous in this discussion, I can certainly understand his frustrations, as he presented a perfectly valid argument for deletion only to be met with several unfair statements and accusations regarding the deletion. C) This appears to be something that is being retained per "I like it," which I'm starting to notice isn't really all that uncommon, however D) I abstain from officially opining because I think what's needed here is for everyone to just step back, allow this article to have sufficient time to develop before renomination, on the condition that E) Rather than simply asserting how notable this is and waving hands at the deletion, perhaps people can work to improve and source the article per Wikipedia policy. If this is done, then there will not be a need for further nominations ever. If this is not done, however, then F) I resent the idea of "salting" this as it really goes in the face of ideas about bold editing, changing consensus, and, though perhaps biased, does not give due credit to someone with a very good history of sensible Wikipedia editing. GassyGuy 02:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds reasonable (especially the part about allowing the article to develop). I don't actually know what "salting" means, and Wiki doesn't cough it up, so I'm not sure what that fuss is about - apologizing for using a term without knowing its usage, that was stupid - I've seen it used when something keeps coming back, again and again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Salting is usually meant as a form of page protection. I've never seen it use for keep pages before; it usually refers to the page that happens after something has been deleted multiple times. It results in that page that says something like "Wikipedia does not have an article on..." etc. I'm assuming in this case, it's meant as eliminating the possibility of ever renominating this. That possibility should be eliminated by addressing the nominator's concerns within the next several months, not by imposing some sort of arbitrary protection, in my opinion. GassyGuy 02:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems straightforward. "I like it! I like it!" doesn't trump basic verifiability from reliable sources, and the "keep-because-enough-people-said-'I like it! I like it!'-very-recently" rationales are pure bureaucratic nitpicking. --Calton | Talk 05:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only on the grounds that it is an insult to Wikipedia methology to nominate an article sp soon after a previous AfD. Heck, if you want to do something why not get onto all those articles about Nokia mobile phones? --Michael Johnson 05:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just about every above reason to keep is invalid and based on either 'I like it', or 'it's been nomninated before!!!'. The topic lacks any evidence of notability, lacking multiple non-trivial references as per WP:WEB. The hand-wringing about 'oh my god, it's been nominated before!! RECENTLY!! are irrelevant. Two months ago is not particularly recent when the article is so fundamentally lacking in evidence for its assertions of notability, and voting 'keep' on procedural grounds because of this is disruptive, and ignorant of Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability (see that little message at the bottom of the editing window?) The article was only restored at DRV because DRV is a purely head-counting exercise, so is easily subverted, and this has some very dedicated people who want it kept regardless of basic fundamental policy. Proto::► 10:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above for failing the notability guidelines. Wikipedia is driven by consensus, NOT voting, and the "keepers" have not provided a single stitch of evidence indicating notability and verifiabilty per the required guidelines. Per Proto above, WP:ILIKEIT, hand-waving and arguing the process are not valid keep reasons. Zunaid©® 12:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: I'm loath to do this, but in light of the previous AfD closures may I remind the closing admin that !votes that do not provide good reasoning based on relevant policies and guidelines should be discounted when determining consensus. Zunaid©® 12:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Afd 2.0 failed to address the "where is the independent reporting" issue. Nothing has changed. Given the vast volume of dead-tree trade press, to fail to come up with anything on the gnews archive is something of an achievement. Groupware, as a subject, is (or was when I read them) widely discussed in said sources. Nobody is asking for a {{shrubbery}} here. WP:N's multiple-independent-sources is the same yardstick we apply to garage bands, up & coming comedians, etc, etc, and is in line with WP:V. That there are worse articles - and there are, even limiting ourselves to the narrow field of FOSS PHP-driven groupware - doesn't make any difference: WP:INN. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm surprised that so many references on the article are not in English. Surely it should be possible to find something to back this up in the English language - this is the English language Wikipedia after all. I'm not persuauded that this article is properly verified and is based on reliable sources. Usually I would suggest giving an article some space to develop but for an articles 3rd nomination this is a pretty serious problem - these weaknesses should have been ironed out after the first nomination. Spartaz 15:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm the person who added those non-english sources last night, and I agree that more english sources are needed. However this software is predominantly used in Japan and Europe. Also, "group office" isnt a useful search term in english. So I specifically investigated its notability in the non-english world when I realised that most of the public installations (roughly identified using google) were in other countries. IMO a Japanese zdnet article should be considered as reliable as the English equivalent, and the fact that the page is in Japanese makes it only slighly less verifiable, as machine translation ensures you are seeing a pretty honest interpretation of the article. These source prove that the features listed in the English documentation from group-office.com is reliable. John Vandenberg 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Personally I find foreign language links excluding and if I can't read something I can't take its contents into account. Maybe the links are good arguments for inclusion in the JP wiki but I don't believe that every article on every wiki is equally notable everywhere. Spartaz 17:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes the proposed WP:SOFTWARE by item #2 due to its distribution by the FSF, and its inclusion in Gentoo, Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, and Ubuntu distributions. It would be kind of retarded if we approved that page... then had to recreate all pages that pass its standards afterwards. Also according to Alexa rankings it is the 8th most popular web application. Here's the top 8 as listed:
    1. www.phplist.com
    2. www.horde.org
    3. phorum.org
    4. openwebmail.org
    5. ip-to-country.webhosting.info
    6. www.phpshop.org
    7. www.achievo.org
    8. www.group-office.com
  •  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: when I read WP:SOFTWARE, I dont see Gentoo listed, and I havent found evidence that it is distributed by the other distro's. Im not sure what directory.fsf.org/group-office.html means; I dont think it means it is included in a distro. Do you have evidence that it is packaged by another distro? Also, do you have a link to demonstrate the Alexa ranking? John Vandenberg 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence of major distro inclusion = keep
    Absence of evidence of major distro inclusion = delete+salt    .
    The sole policy-based claims of notability that means anything in all the above seems to be that Alexa reports it as #8, and that it's included in various major linux distros (per WP:SOFTWARE examples of major distros include Debian, Fedora, etc). No evidence is presented for either of these statements so far. Alexa itself is not a neutral source. Although listing on Alexa may be evidence of usage, it's unclear if Alexa mention alone, unsupported by other evidence, is a sufficient evidence for notability. Likewise, if it is included within the named major distributions, can someone paste a few links to the relevant major distro package inclusion listings and then this AFD will pretty much be done. If that's not possible, and lacking evidence of these then I have to agree that Group Office doesn't look at all notable outside its own fan-base and one minor review elsewhere. (And as an aside, references to "Incredibly strong keep" and "Hyper-strong keep" suggest that the responses concerned include emotive views rather than policy based views, tending to support the nominator's interpretation.) Without evidence that this view is significantly wrong, then it looks like it should be deleted - probably with salt since with 3 heated nominations and much ardor for the package, article recreation must be considered a possibility. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried Debian here, Red Hat here, and Slackware here. It's always possible that I'm being incredibly stupid, but clearly my results don't match so far. I could carry on, but laziness is one of the three cardinal virtues (L. Wall, attr.). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've archived the over-long software inclusion guideline talk page and pulled back out the relevent sections on distribution. The existing talk seems to indicate that this section neither has consensus support nor is a particularly good idea. If anyone wants to join in at Talk:Notability software:Distributions that would be great. - brenneman 00:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Where's the WP:RS? SirFozzie 23:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FirefoxMan --Oakshade 04:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On balance, I'm a very weak Delete, largely because when I try to follow up the references I don't seem to find enough independent reliable sources. If you can show me more clearly and distinctly where the references are, I'll gladly change my opinion. WMMartin 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while perhaps it was rather soon to renominate a controversial article for deletion, !voting keep simply on those grounds is not productive. If this AfD fails and the article gets nominated again in 6 weeks, I absolutely guarantee that a number of people will cover up their lack of reasoning for keeping by saying "Keep - it passed an AfD just 6 weeks ago." We shouldn't have to wait 6 months in between AfDs in the attempt to get rid of articles that don't meet policy but have vocal fan bases. This is how some articles end up with 18 AfDs.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That sounds like a beef either with the AfD process itself or with the way it was handled in the second nomination for this article. Your apparent assumption is that the second AfD was closed by the numbers rather than by following policy and consensus ("don't meet policy but have vocal fan bases"). Besides failing to WP:AGF on the part of the closing admin, I think this assumption is factually incorrect as well. --Tkynerd 17:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into it, but I couldn't even count the times I have seen AfDs closed based entirely on vote counts, especially when there is excessive verbiage as there arguably is here. Note that I am not the only one who felt the need to make a comment to the effect of "admins, PLEASE read all the discussion." This is not assuming bad faith on their parts, and I wish you wouldn't keep jumping to that citation, as accusing someone of making a mistake or misusing policy is not the same as accusing them of bad faith. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you wouldn't keep assuming that an AfD was mishandled just because it didn't go the way you think it should have. Obviously saying someone made a mistake isn't assuming bad faith, but saying someone misused policy is. And closing an AfD based on numbers can't really be a simple mistake; you're accusing the admin of not doing his or her job. --Tkynerd 18:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment on renominationI would like to ask the nominator whether, in case this nomination loses, he intends to try again, and if so, when. A article with 18 nominations has been mentioned--what is it?DGG 18:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article in question was the Gay Nigger Association of America. I will continue to nominate articles for deletion that fail to satisfy the inclusion guidelines, knowing both that consensus can change and that deletion discussions are a rough tool at best: Facile, unpredictable, and governed mostly by who shows up and shouts. - brenneman 21:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the new sources added:
    • The Japanese source reads (via maching translation) like a press release:
      Wise knot September 13th, the bundle doing the Japanese edition of open source groupware "Group-Office" in the rental server of the same company, started offer. Furthermore, the same company supports the management of the Japanesecommunity "Group-Office JAPAN " of Group-Office, offers also inclusive support service.

      Group-Office is the groupware of the open source which Holland Intermesh developed. The function which such as schedule management is equal to the general groupware and task management, address register and management of file sharing is had. We to correspond to 27 languages, information joint ownership between plural languages is possible. When access right is set every group, monistic management and security of information it can be compatible. Because it is the open source, you can expect also the depression effect of operational cost as for the license additional purchase and the like which accompanies the increase of the user without necessity.

      Furthermore, presently in the community development of facility reservation function is being advanced. In addition concerning function, it keeps developing the community on the center.
    There is no authorship listed, and while it's a different guideline than the (proposed) software one previously discussed, the (accepted) guideline for companies specifically excludes unattributed press releases.
    • The Dutch source reads (via maching translation) again like a press release:
      If you are in search to a manner (with others) everywhere in the world where Internet is at your agenda, your e-mail and your list of addresses is possible, Group-Office are a very well solution. Group-Office (GO) are an online parcel with several office functions, such as a calendar, task list, address overview, webbased e mailprogramma, jointly files and bookmarks share, wiki, etc. GO have been based on PHP, this means that your GO on every web server can install support with PHP. This has every hostingprovider nearly standard to stands. Nowadays you can get hosting already as from a tientje per year, and its own field name costs 15 euro per year. Look once on www.webhosters.nl. for an comparison

      How do you go work? Firstly unpack you the file with a programme such as 7-Zip. You can the bests the unpacked map groupoffice-com-2.13 hernoemen to something simple such as go. Then you must this map in his whole uploaden to your web server by means of FTP (for example with Filezilla). You shuts with your browser to http://jedomein.naam/go. Vervolgens get you a number of questions which you must pass through. When you have this done, GO have been installed. Further information finds you in this simple nederlandstalige guide.
brenneman 21:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a waste. WP:Notability is a guideline, not a be all end all policy that requires endless wonkism about the nuances of its interpretation. WP:N-Software is still only a proposed guideline and one that not everyone agrees with. This article has mutiple non-trivial sources period. The broader view is that this article contributes to Wikipedia's purpose by providing useful, notable, verifiable knowledge. Is it the most earth shatteringly important knowledge that human kind needs? No, but neither are the feeding habits of Pokemon. Many of the plain keep votes here were given with reason and explanation on the previous discussions and knowing the history, it is rather obvious that asking people to comment yet again on a topic already hashed out multiple times is going to cause some hard feelings. Good faith nomination or not, this is a typical and understandable human response. Wikipedia is written by people, not robots without feeling. The bottom line is that this is improving Wikipedia and I have seen no evidence that it isn't or that it is harming the project in any way. Wikilawyer all you want about it, but if this project can't see the forest for the trees it has some serious issues. pschemp | talk 22:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 23:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Giliberto[edit]

Sal Giliberto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article doesn't seem to establish any solid notability beyond that Sal Giliberto has refereed some matches on the indys. Where has his career led him to warrant a Wikipedia article. And being that the article was written by "Sal the Ref" which obviously means it was written by Sal Giliberto himself, it could be considered fancruft as well. Rabidwolf2bean 06:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted as WP:CSD#G4 by User:Jimfbleak. Oh, and please don't speedy-tag articles already at AfD. There's enough admins monitoring the new listings. ~ trialsanderrors 11:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Taco Bell items[edit]

List of Taco Bell items (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A contested prod, which practically defines listcruft. Salad Days 06:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Majorly 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Cheney[edit]

Russell Cheney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy; contains (buried within) assertions of notability--paintings included at MFA in Boston for example. Still, no sources, not really written as enyclopedia articles. Procedural nom; no vote. Chick Bowen 06:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This looks like a complete copy and paste from an obituary. Subject is probably notable enough due to his art career (published about at least here by Oxford Uni Press) and relationship with F. O. Matthiessen, but the entire article needs to be rewritten for an encyclopedic treatment. So, move to userspace or delete. -SpuriousQ 01:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe it can be salvaged. There's a good source for the relationship with Matthiessen in the latter's article, though if Cheney's just copies the same info I don't really see the point of that. The other option would be a redirect to F.O.M. Chick Bowen 01:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I went through and tried to clean it up. It's still in bad shape, but I don't mind if it stays. -SpuriousQ 13:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'keep. and tag for expansion. Speedy for no assertion of notability cannot be used if there is anything to indicate notability, and it seems to be clear that there is. DGG 10:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No objection if anyone wants to move some of this material to the F. O. Matthiessen article. I could not find any mention of Russell Cheney paintings in the permanent collection of the Museum of Fine Arts, using their website. The current article is too weak to keep around in hopes it will get better. (Web research seems unlikely to find out much about this man; he died in 1945). No objection to re-creating the article later if reliable sources are found. EdJohnston 17:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - added some references. Salvageable. Addhoc 12:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am glad to see printed references being added, but do you know what they actually say about Russell Cheney? The requirements for artists are covered by WP:BIO:

Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field.

The first reference you cite (Susan Howe) can be searched on Amazon; it does not (at first glance) appear to discuss Cheney's paintings. With the actual book one could be sure. EdJohnston 04:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - someone could be notable for reasons other than work - for example their love life. I'll add some links... Addhoc 12:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merged to Kath & Kim

Fountain Lakes Shopping Centre[edit]

Speedy Delete Redirect Fictional shopping centre from a TV series with no useful information which is already on three different articles in Wikipedia. Changed to re-direct. (Forgot all about re-directing) --Lakeyboy 05:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of events known as crises[edit]

List of events known as crises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Del. A classical example of an indiscriminate collection of information, bundling together Software crisis, Iran hostage crisis, Abdication Crisis of Edward VIII and whats not. What next pointless list will be: List of events known as uprising, ...as revolt, ...as dawn? `'mikka 06:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - truly bizarre and pointless. If this was a dictionary, defining different types of crisis would make sense. Having these in a single encyclopedia article? Downright weird. - PocklingtonDan 09:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Known by whom as a crisis? No way of making this list useful or reasonably discriminate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all subjective lists--Docg 10:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless and subjective list. Wryspy 11:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:LIST, useful for navigation, et cetera. Claims this list is subjective is not only false, but utterly bizzare. I'm perplexed. WilyD 14:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wouldn't doing a Wiki-search come up with the same results? Maybe. Bubba HoTep 15:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the inclusion criterion is subjective, then all the articles linked would need to be deleted. The list is of blue links and is a navigation device, not a new article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's pretty random whether a particular event gets termed a "crisis" or something else. I remember during 1982 the BBC News used to report regularly about the "Falklands Crisis" and then suddenly started referring to it as the "Falklands War" once the shooting had started. If I was writing a dictionary definition, I would define a crisis as any state of events where vital interests are at risk and where a particular decision would have profound and immediate consequences. That could encompass almost every war, stock market crash, transportation disaster etc. Sam Blacketer 21:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:LIST states that lists should be used if they group similar subjects and aid navigation. I do not believe this to be the case here. Although the topics enclosed in the list all have the word crisis in their title, their subject matters diverge greatly. As a result, the list includes topics ranging from Suez crisis to Energy crisis. TSO1D 21:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:PocklingtonDan and User:Wryspy.   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 01:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have to agree that the grouping here is relatively arbitrary, based as it is only on the use of the word "crisis" in the title of the article. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In indiscriminate collection based on the inconsistent use of a word in a title. Maxamegalon2000 06:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TSO1D. Crisis? What Crisis?. Ohconfucius 07:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not subjective, but clearly indiscriminate. The designation of events as "crises" in popular use is subjective, and the grouping of such events is more "linguistic trickery" than anything else. Choess 06:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indiscriminate list. WMMartin 16:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as a non-notable web-based game, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 22:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of Tyrants[edit]

Rise of Tyrants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Doesn't meet WP:WEB; I can find no mention of this browser game in a reliable, published source. About three quarters of the 186 unique ghits have nothing to do with the game. Astoundingly, this has been kept before, on the basis of such comments as "notability is not a deletion criterion" and a very lackluster appearance on a handful of topsites. —Cryptic 06:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. CiaranG 14:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of available sourcing and notability. Lack of any sort of notability is a deletion criterion. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly 20:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphis (lichen)[edit]

Looks like a lecturer using Wikipedia as a free host to store notes for his students. So far from being a proper article that we might as well rub it out and wait for someone to start again. -- RHaworth 06:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Nashville Monkey 07:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOT ("A How to...") – Bubba HoTep 15:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, without prejudice: fairly obviously a worthwhile subject. Our coverage of lichen species is so sparse, though, that I'd be tempted to keep this, even though it is hardly encyclopedic in its current form. Perhaps it should be userfied at User:Garengaston and the author invited to rework it into encyclopedia style. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rather disagree with the above. The nominator is, I suspect, right in his suspicions about a lecturer getting free hosting. But that's not the point: the question is "Is this article about a notable subject for which we can find references, and which can be covered in an NPOV way ?" I'm inclined to say "yes", so on that basis I'm plumping for Keep, but with a tag for a substantial Cleanup, including removal of any OR and "How To" elements. The author should be encouraged to do some of the cleaning himself - he might even persuade his students to help, and maybe to improve our coverage of other lichen, for some extra credit ( I believe we have a way of handling this ). WMMartin 17:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a couple of small changes to the first couple of paragraphs of the article, to show how it might be re-cast. Still needs lots of work. Anyone know how to do a "taxobox" ? WMMartin 17:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per original nomination, without prejudice against re-creation if it can be made encyclopedic. The submitter must surely be aware that just throwing in some not-well-organized information about a single genus isn't going to fit smoothly into existing categories. It's the meshing with what's here already that needs doing, and hasn't been attempted at all. EdJohnston 17:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 22:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouverture Facile[edit]

Ouverture Facile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:WEB considerably; there are no trival works attributed to this website. Also my fail WP:NFT; the most it can be is a fad. Sr13 (T|C) Editor review 06:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete utter failure of WP:WEB--RWR8189 07:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the "is it more notable than my socks ?" test. WMMartin 17:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of Anti-Semitism[edit]

Misuse of Anti-Semitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article is a POV fork of the "Criticism" section of New antisemitism Beit Or 07:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article is (almost) entirely a quote which has existed in New antisemitism (footnote #31 at present) since at least September 14, 2006 (going back ~500 edits). One quote doesn't make an article, and there is nothing to merge. Gimmetrow 07:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as of now -- the burden of proof is on Xsp85 to show that this would be capable of significant expansion that would add worthwhile perspectives not contained in the relevant sections of the New antisemitism article, and that in fact such expansion is at least moderately likely to occur... AnonMoos 10:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the burden is on someone to provide some original research, synthesis, and ideas in the form of an essay to establish a "new perspective" on an issue that is already fraught with same.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gimmetrow. Akihabara 12:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article is essentially one quote and the title is inherently bias.--Jersey Devil 15:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Silly title implies there are "proper" uses of antisemitism. Edison 20:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, the article is a POV fork, with inherent bias. TSO1D 21:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Edison. I hoped to learn how to use antisemitism properly, but no such luck. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above GabrielF 16:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Mardavich 08:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; also, since the article consists almost entirely of a single lengthy verbatim quote, there's hardly NPOV article content in it to delete anyway. -- The Anome 08:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. metaspheres 12:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect to Norman Finkelstein. IZAK 07:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. .V. (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. The raw vote total is 7-3 Delete, with one Merge. That's a point against keeping the article. The Keep arguments are not really very strong. It's a pretty good article, but it does seem to drift into Original Research territory, and no convincing proof that the topic is not a low-notability neologism is offered. Herostratus 18:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryaniverse[edit]

Ryaniverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The only part of it which is not blatant original research is the list of Tom Clancy novels and is redundant with the author article. The term itself does not seem all that notable. Google finds 43 unique hits. Most of them are some copy of the wikipedia article and the rest come from forums or blog comments. (see Google search without the first four words of the article)[27]. Pascal.Tesson 07:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this is hyper fancruft, more suitable for a blog or fansite.--Nydas(Talk) 10:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR, speculative, opinion, unreferenced (most likely unreferencable) fancruft --Mnemeson 10:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for OR, POV, unsourced fancruft. Doczilla 21:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The term "Ryanverse" (not Ryaniverse) is, if I am not mistaken, even written on the back of one of Tom Clancy's books (The Teeth of the Tiger, if I'm not mistaken). This term is used to describe Clancy books that involve Jack Ryan. Also note this page here from one of the premier sites dealing with Tom Clancy. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't doubt that it may be used in the past, possibly invented by a clever blogger or even Clancy's people. Regardless, it remains a neologism that is not supported by any reliable sources nor referenced in any scholarly works. It fails half a dozen alphabet soup guidelines by a country mile. Delete - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so it's a typo of a neologism. But let's assume that the page was under the correct name "Ryanverse". Now how notable is that neologism? Google comes up with 126 unique relevant hits. That's better than the dismal results for Ryaniverse but it's still unacceptably low imho, especially since few if any can be considered as reliable sources. Now of course Google searches don't mean much but it's interesting to compare this with the 259 000 hits you get for "Jack Ryan" + clancy. This strongly indicates that the term "Ryanverse" hasn't caught on, despite being pushed, as Sharkface seems to suggests, by Clancy's editors. All this notwithstanding, the article is still a combination of original research and material already extensively covered in Jack Ryan or Tom Clancy. Pascal.Tesson 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sharkface's comment, if true, only proves that the term exists. Not that it is notable or, furthermore, that it has been written about in multiple non-trivial sources that discuss the word itself, per the guidelines on articles about neologisms.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic fancruft. Eusebeus 13:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I discovered this item for the first time today and found it interesting. Introductory elements could possibly be rewritten. --ScMeGr 21:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It's interesting" is not a qualification for inclusion. Even if introductory elements could be added, it would undoubtedly be original research (i.e. what some editors think about the Ryanverse) because there are, as yet, no sources offered. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge on the condition that the term does actually occur on the back of a Tom Clancy novel, as claimed. Otherwise, delete. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is all unsourced. So what part of it should be merged (and to where?) -maclean 00:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above "it's a typo of a neologism". --maclean 00:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plent of other fictional universes in Wikipedia. This is just as legitimate as the others. The character "Jack Ryan" is a famous literary figure and so are his adventures. Therefore, the article has significance. -- Crevaner 14:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "no comment" participants may want to look at WP:INN. Sandstein 22:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mosh Pit Mike[edit]

Mosh Pit Mike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Can't see much notability as far as this guy goes. Apparently he's the first pro wrestling promoter in New Mexico although I don't know accurate that is. When the sources are myspace and the promotion's web site, you gotta question the verifiability Orstroeebski 07:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No comment I figure I really shouldn't be given a voice in this debate, given that I created the article. I think Mosh Pit Mike's appearance on the West Texas Wrestling Legends (WTWL) page makes the inclusion of Mosh Pit Mike necessary. If we start by deleting this page, we would have to delete the page of every wrestler listed in the federation, and if we do that, we might as well delete the entire thing, and that's just not fair. Lastly, the AmarilloPWF.com page linked as a source is something that wrestlers do NOT have access to, and it is managed and edited by the webmaster. Hmmm.. I know I said lastly, But I feel like I should clear something up. Mosh Pit Mike is by NO MEANS the first wrestling promoter in New Mexico. The business goes back what, sixty years? But Mosh Pit Mike, along with Hobo Hank and Thunder started the first & only wrestling school/federation based solely in New Mexico. I had read an Albuquerque Journal article about it a while back, but I just can't seem to find it online anymore. Wow, that was long winded, and I apologize if you read the whole thing ;) Burquelo 19:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Oh man! Here I go again, continuing with the long windedness. I also feel that user Orstrobeeski has a personal grudge against me. If he were to be putting deletion notices in all wrestler pages, I would accept it as a substantial challenge. But look at CJ Summers. This page cites no sources whatsoever, except for the wrestler's personal website. There are no federation websites which suggest he even exists, yet Orstrobeeski simply removed links instead of nominating the article for deletion. Personal attacks are fine, I'm a big boy, but I think it's unfair when it impacts a wiki.[reply]

Delete Unless Sourced If the article doesn't get real sources soon, it should go. However if it does, I can see keeping this article around. If the claims in it are in fact true than I would have to credit it as being notable, however right now this appears to be mostly original research.Ganfon 21:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do NOT Delete: The nomination for deletion on this wiki page is an outrage. Mosh Pit Mike is a professional wrestler that I have seen with my own eyes perform for West Texas Wrestling Legends in Amarillo, TX. The AmarilloPWF.com website is not ran by anyone other than WTWL Management and The WTWL Webmaster. While Mosh Pit Mike is on The WTWL roster, he is not the promoter and has no access to editing AmarilloPWF.com in anyway. Being apart of The WTWL, I know that the information on Mike's wikipedia page is 100% accurate and I can say that Mosh Pit Mike has performed at every WTWL show since his debut in November 2006. This page belongs on wiki just as much as any other wrestlers page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brett420x (talk • contribs) 22:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speeeedily deleted as blatant copyvio ~ trialsanderrors 10:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dating software[edit]

Dating software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

contested db-spam. It really reads like original research and would need a major rewrite, and an article with the same name was deleted after an AfD last march (is it the same article?), Delete -- lucasbfr talk 08:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - phenomenon is notable but the curent article is a how-to and thus not suitable content. Suggest redirect to somethign suitable until someone rewrites with more appropriate content. - PocklingtonDan 09:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is written in a how-to-make-a-dating-site way and not an encyclopedic way. Googling parts of the text appears to indicate that this is a copyvio from a dating blog, but I cannot find the website with the exact text. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as vandalism. The picture says it all. ~ trialsanderrors 09:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John James Budinsky[edit]

John James Budinsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Complete bollocks, created by a brand-new user Thebunsk (talk · contribs) who's created a fair amount of nonsense on his first day (Ian "The Chizzler" Chisholm, the NSFW Image:Chizzler.jpg, Rick Dewell, etc). Calton | Talk 08:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as non-notable, blatant advert. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BinWeevils[edit]

BinWeevils (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Bin Weevils (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Also nominate copy of article, Bin Weevils. Concerns of WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:SOCK, WP:RS, WP:N. Here is what happened with BinWeevils:

  • Spaking new WP:SPA editor User:Binweevils appeared, created an article. Has no other editing interests.
  • 20 minutes later another new editor User:Biotricon appeared, continued on the article. Has no other editing interests.
  • 45 minutes later another new editor User:Jameseditor appeared, continued on the article. Has no other editing interests.
  • 30 minutes later anonymous new editor User:194.74.156.114 appeared, continued on the article. Has no other editing interests. IP address resolves to prism-server.prism-e.com. Prism Entertainment is the company that sells the service that is advertised in the article.

I suggest this be deleted. Maybe later a real editor who is not a sock puppet farm of the marketing department of Prism Entertainment creates a real sourced non-spam article about this, explaining notability per WP:WEB. Weregerbil 10:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week Keep - Certainly needs rewriting to be less commercial and more NPOV, but I think it is probably notable in the same way as Inselkamf etc, seems to have a fair few mentions on google - PocklingtonDan 10:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nickelodeon UK. The cartoons are notable as part of Nick UK, but this article is just spam for a NN website with an vanishingly tiny Alexa rank of 4,739,916 and a mere 11,000 ghits (which would count hits for the cartoons as well) ... the only part of WP:WEB this meets is due to its association with Nick UK, apparently otherwise it's an abysmal failure. Tubezone 12:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Tubezone, as the only notability to be found is through Nick UK. -- Kicking222 14:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very interesting to hear all of your comments about this Wiki page, which you are making out to sound as if it is some "Shocking" website with explicit details and so should be removed! When really it's just an extremely popular kids website and if anyone was wanting to find out more about this site, then Wiki would be the place to look for details. Re-directing to Nick as suggested above, is a pointless idea, as Nick only host a link to the Bin Weevils website. Whilst they own 50% of the site, they are more of a silent partner and are only involved in showing the Bin Weevils cartoons. Which i have provided a link from my wiki page to the Nick UK page. So it would be like suggesting NeoPets should be redirected to Viacom because they own NeoPets. So, let's remove the deletion tag, as im not trying to advertise this site. The site already has over 300,000 users signed up. It is merely an information page just like all the other pages on Wiki. Rather than everyone getting carried away on here and continue the deletion debate, i am more than happy to welcome someone to try and sort my page out so it fits in better with the Wiki standards as i am not so familiar with Wiki. Many Thanks

  • Keep per Weregerbil et al. overeaction if ever I've seen it- Please note: Don't bite the newbies--Ganju 17.20, 11 January 2007 (GMT)
  • Comment NeoPets: 5,920,000 ghits, Alexa rank of 145. My comments above may be harsh, and partly my personal humble opinion, but I think they're accurate in terms of whether this site qualifies as notable per WP standards. Tubezone 21:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One of the authors, User:Jameseditor, states above that the site has 300,000 users signed up. It would be a great help to this debate (and it would help me !vote ) if there were a 3rd party reference to this fact. NeoPets has been around for 8 years and has 3rd party sources. Wikipedia is not here to be a place to look for details for a commercial website. It is an encylopedia to provide concise information on topics that are already notable and verifyable. This debate is not making out this is a shocking website - the concerns expressed by the nominator were among others notability WP:N and reliable sources WP:RS. While it is fair not to bite the newbies, I think these issues need to be addressed. Once we address these two points, we can help make the page a neutral point of view as Jameseditor asks.Obina 21:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Bell O'Toole[edit]

Wendy Bell O'Toole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable Burghboy80 10:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - seems borderline notable as a minor celebrity, but i'm not going to shed any tears if the article gets deleted - PocklingtonDan 10:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, regional Emmys are not sufficient for notability (hundreds are handed out each year). The Edward R. Murrow award -- not this one -- is given to a station, not an individual reporter.[28] --Dhartung | Talk 16:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I don't think editors should make judgments on which major awards are really major awards. It's not an honorary plaque from a high school or Rotary Club, it's an Emmy. Just because hundreds are handed out doesn't make it so much less notable. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Can't agree with Dhartung: a verifiable award (and a source - as provided here - is most useful) is an indicator of notability. Three regional Emmy awards is sufficient evidence that a subject has made a notable contribution in their field. (I would suggest two may suffice.) Eludium-q36 18:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nomination for deletion is lacking, as this person does appear to meet WP:BIO as a minor celeb. RFerreira 19:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: in addition, she was a correspondent to a nationally broadcast program. Calwatch 10:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly 21:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sani Flush[edit]

Sani Flush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Is there ever really going to be anything encyclopedic to note about this product? - DeleteAsstBot (on behalf of IP: 81.174.157.135) 10:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Reckitt Benckiser. Nothing of value in this article. Bubba HoTep 12:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the products on the Reckitt Benckiser article have passable stubs, some even have quite long articles. I wonder why someone never bothered to expand this (and only this) one? Bubba hotep 08:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well known product sold for decades. 86,000 Google hits. I believe this article could be improved. Edison 20:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Edison. --TeaDrinker 20:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In answer to the nom, yes, there is, and it asserts it just fine. --Dennisthe2 00:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Granted, the article needs a bit of work.... --Dennisthe2 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edison, this article has potential, and lots of good articles start out like this, per WP:AfD   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 01:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lots of articles start this way. This article started this way 8 months ago and hasn't been touched since.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, and redirect. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 20:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Crane[edit]

Pretty Crane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete article on off-screen character that has never been seen and, as the article itself says, is rarely mentioned on the show Passions. Redirect either to Ivy Winthrop (the character's mother) or to Passions. Wryspy 11:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly 21:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curlywurlymegathingy[edit]

Curlywurlymegathingy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
Curlywhirlymegathingy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable dessert, article provides no context other than "it's available at many pubs in the UK". Was prod'ded and confirmed by another author before an anon removed the prod without comment. JuJube 11:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article clearly states that the list of ingredients is from the menu of the Pubs in question. A photo of the menu can be obtained if it makes things any easier? Chris, 11 January 2007
  • Added duplicate article. JuJube 11:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 33 Google hits indicates that this desert is not so widespread. The article consists of a list of ingredients (Wikipedia is not a recipe) and an unsourced passage on an informal contest held by college students with no widespread attention or notability whatsoever (Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NFT – "...is served at a number of pub restaurants across the UK" but only goes on to mention one (in Grantham). Bubba HoTep 12:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonnotablethingy. ... discospinster talk 14:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you mean by 'unsourced' passage, when it was written by one of the people in question? Chris 15:57, 11 January 2007
    • Yes, that is rather the problem. We are an encyclopedia, or at least we are trying to be. Do you think it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to contain coverage of eating games invented by you and your friends? Answer should be no. delete (in current state) I rather doubt we can find any reliable sources on the pudding in question, but if we can then not opposed to a recreation. Morwen - Talk 16:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I'm only asking the question. I'm pretty new to wikipedia (well, editing articles and such), and it wasn't me who created the article in the first place, just checking what is allowed and what isn't. I find it difficult to believe that there isn't any information in wikipedia that is from someone's knowledge rather than a 'source'. Chris 17:36, 11 January 2007
      • The fact that there is an eating game associated with the dessert should not have a negative effect on whether that dessert is eligable or not. If the dessert is reasonably widespread, and can be shown to be, then should this not factor? Dave 18:12 11 Janurary 2007 (UTC)
        • This is indeed what I said. Morwen - Talk 08:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see WP:V and WP:RS for Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and reliable sources respectively. This is what is meant by "unsourced" in this context. Bubba HoTep 16:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional references added. Dave. 23:59, 11 January 2007 UTC
    • The first is a web page that makes no mention at all of this subject. The second is a PDF of a restaurant's menu. It supports none of the content of this article, such as the eating competition. It doesn't even support the part of the article that discusses how this dessert has evolved. Per our Wikipedia:No original research policy, Wikipedia is not for documenting the previously undocumented. If you wish to have histories of this eating competition and this dessert included in Wikipedia, then those histories must have already been researched and documented, and that documentation published, outside of Wikipedia. The place for publishing documentation for things that have not been documented before is a book, a journal article, or a web site, not here. Uncle G 16:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information Bwithh 10:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion. The actual policy that this falls foul of is Wikipedia:No original research. Uncle G 16:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 22:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babak Farahi[edit]

Babak Farahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The only notable thing about this person seems to be being the founder and CEO of Multivision — and that's all the page says about him. I sugest a redirect to a (to be created) page on that company Lars T. 11:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete ~ trialsanderrors 12:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Moron Patrol (2nd nomination)[edit]

International Moron Patrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Massively detailed description of a webcomic. Can't find evidence for copyvio, and a prior deletion was a bit too long ago for a WP:CSD#G4—recreated content, so here it is for discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Unlikely search term; pointless to redirect. "Merging" can be done directly from IMDb, of which it was mostly a copyvio anyway. Sandstein 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kusoh no Kikai-tachi no Naka no Hakai no Hatsumei[edit]

Kusoh no Kikai-tachi no Naka no Hakai no Hatsumei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A film that has been shown only in one museum in Japan. Is that a claim to notability? Google hits in the double digits for both English and Japanese titles (which might not mean a thing of course, but other than the IMDb link the article is unsourced). ~ trialsanderrors 12:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 13:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Short films by animation companies shown only in their parks/museums seem to be plentiful on Wikipedia (Captain EO, The Timekeeper, and others) but, that is not enough justification to keep this article. I have added the kanji to the article, of which google hits around 200 articles. The Japanese wikipedia template for Ghibli (ja:Template:スタジオジブリ・宮崎駿) shows a similarly named short film (Imaginary Flying Machines (空想の空飛ぶ機械達, Kūsō no soratobu kikaitachi)), (and presumably also only shown at the Ghibli museum), which has a Japanese article. That template seems very thorough, and has red links for a couple of shorts, but no mention of this movie at all. The lack of a Ja: article for this one short film is what tips the balance to delete in my opinion. If it can be determined that those two are the same film, my vote will change. Neier 13:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the strength of my vote based on the comments below. Neier 08:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect since Anno was not originally linked, I didn't know he had an article to merge to. It makes sense to mention this film in his article. I think I am done changing my votes, now. Neier 03:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Informed comments, weak keep. I live a stone's throw from the Ghibli museum and have been there. On any particular day they are showing one short film exclusive to the museum, all of them the works of the very famous Hayao Miyazaki (Nausica, Spirited Away, Laputa, The Monster Princess). I have seen one, called Mei to Koneko no Basu (Mei and the little cat bus). It kicked ass. But since they are only shown at the museum, they are not terribly famous even here in West Tokyo. Most Japanese in Tokyo (to say nothing of elsewhere) are unaware that they exist at all (though many have heard of the museum). I am voting weak keep because there are no POV issues or anything like that, and it seems a shame to delete such a harmless article about one of these really great short films. But... to be honest, it is not really notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drake Dun (talk • contribs) 17:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Factual details, reluctant delete. Okay, I read Japanese so I did some digging around upon the suggestion of Neiei (below) and I found a description of the film at http://www.ne.jp/asahi/bibliotheca/studium/animonth/animonth-0212.html. This *is* the correct title of the film. The film was made by a guy associated only peripherally with Studio Ghibli and is not ordinary Studio Ghibli type work (he describes it as "dark"). It did not show in the theater at the Ghibli Museum, but in a "film box" in the corner of a room they have on the second floor devoted to temporary exhibits. I have been there and am not sure exactly what he is referring to with "film box", but the museum has a lot of anachronistic devices, including boxes you can look into and watch films on by running the frames yourself using a hand crank. It may be to one of these that the guy is referring. He complains about wanting to watch it on a bigger screen. The article is from 2002, so given the fact that the film was shown in the room for limited time exhibits, it is almost definitely gone now. It was not there when I went in 2006. Considering that the notability of even the main films in the star theater is rather dubious, I think this clearly fails the criteria for notability.. so I must reluctantly vote delete. Drake Dun 07:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind keeping if the article can create a little bit more context (and can be sourced). Right now it's just a bare rewrite of the IMDb entry. ~ trialsanderrors 19:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mei, and the other shorts are listed in the Japanese template I posted above. I highly suspect that this movie is a mistranslated title of the other one, because IMDB's Ghibli page lists all of the other shorts except "Imaginary Flying Machines", and the Ja: template lists all but this one. If they are the same, then, the article can be expanded via translation from the Ja: wikipedia, if nothing else. But, based on the paucity of info on this and the IMDB page about it, I can't see for sure that it is the same. Someone with better Japanese than me may be able to take one of the google matches for this title and dredge up more detail. Neier 21:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable film with apparently no published reviews, shown only at one place. Edison 20:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article could be improved.--CJ King 21:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Hideaki Anno. The director is notable and his article discusses many of the projects he's been involved in, but leaves this one out. I agree that this can't stand alone and that the Studio Ghibli viewings don't confer notability here, but I think some information can be retained. (Also, note that the current phrasing seems to plaigiarize the IMDb page.) Dekimasu 09:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Yeanold Viskersenn 01:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is only one, very poor "keep" comment remaining above. The others have been retracted. --Kunzite 18:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete　A film produced as part of a museum exhibit is not really something that meets notability criteria. Museums, aquariums, zoos, libraries, and theme parks produce these things all of the time. Even though the Film notability guidelines are inactive, it misses all of the critera. IMDB is a place that accepts submissions from anyone around the world. I've seen stage shows get erroneously listed as movies. We should not accept them as a reliable source for information. Now, it may be perfectly good material to flesh out the author's biogrpahy. "「天空の城ラピュタと空想科学の機械達展」でこぢんまりと映像展示されていたもの。こぢんまりし過ぎです。どうしてミニシアターでやってくれないのでしょうか。かなりアニメしてるのに。内容に関しては、『空想の空とぶ機械達』が濃かっただけに、かなり普通っぽく思えてしまいます。展示全体の中では良いアクセントになってはいますが。" [29] --Kunzite 18:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm assuming that this is really a vote to redirect, then. I am not sure why we would be willfully discarding a useful redirect here. Dekimasu 12:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Edison... Addhoc 23:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete nn redirect to Director's page. Nashville Monkey 22:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as an unsourced article, WP:NOT refers. (aeropagitica) 22:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Cup[edit]

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

This name was used for two proposed tournaments neither of which ever took place and have been abandoned. The second such tournament took place in a slightly different format under the name Nations Cup. There is no content on Rainbow Cup that would be relevant to the Nations Cup article. GordyB 12:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds like a Delete unless someone sources it. ~ trialsanderrors 16:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY KEEP per WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. -Docg 18:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America (3rd nomination)[edit]

Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

For same reasons that US Democratic Party-Iranian fundraising controversy is being put up for deletion (as per corresponding deletion votes by liberally oriented votestackers). If that one goes, so does this one. See WP:BIAS and WP:NPOV - no single POV should hold sway and so far we are seeing an anti-American, pro-liberal bias here and selective deletion of articles. Khodavand 12:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Close Its been less than a month since the last AfD. Nothing has changed. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 13:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per WP:SNOW. Passed Afd with flying colours less than a month ago. Article is a spin-off of List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state and is heavily sourced. Nomination seems to be a WP:POINT concerning editor's issues with unrelated articles.--Zleitzen 14:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep For above. Also. This is the 3rd nom. Renaming. See article talk... F.F.McGurk 14:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how you deleted my reasons - that's vandalism. Anyway its also funny how you vote to delete the allegations against the US Democratic Party. Do I see a cabal of leftist/liberal editors here??? Votestacking, anyone??? Khodavand 18:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Rename -- ideology and AfD processes aside, the title is confusing -- is the article referring to allegations by the U.S of others' state terrorism ... or allegations by others of U.S.-sponsored state terrorism? The answer, of course, is the latter. The "See Also" section has a link to U.S. list of state sponsors of international terrorism but I think that should also be included in some sort of disambiguation statement with link at the top of this article. Perhaps a better title here would be "Allegations of U.S.-sponsored state terrorism" or "Allegations of U.S. government-sponsored terrorism". As for my "speedy keep" recommendation, that's based on the short interval since the last AfD. Unless there was a process problem the last time (sockpuppetry, votestacking, etc.), I think it's wrong to push another AfD so soon. (If there was a process problem last time that's not mentioned here, please spell it out and I will reconsider). --A. B. (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- for convenience, here are relevant links to the article, previous AfDs and associated talk pages:
--A. B. (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I was just in the process of unwatching this page, I never really thought much of this page in many respects, truth be told, and now a third deletion. Looks like I have to watch the page again, more drama. This page needs major work, but people's ideologies block any progress, one way or the other.
    As long as this article has this name, it will be a lightning rod of controversy. I tried to change the name a million times, but Herding cats makes me want to slit my wrists. Nuclear once said he would never allow me to change the name, but he has recently changed in surprising ways. Maybe we can get a name change.
    SUGGESTED COMPRIMISE: I don't suppose User:Khodavand would close the AfD if we can agree on a name change? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rutabaga Not likley to be deleted. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For instance above user votes to speedy delete the article I mention below. Amazing. Again, WP:BIAS. You guys could try to at least not be so transparent. Khodavand 18:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to reasons stated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Democratic Party-Iranian fundraising controversy these types of articles are not allowed on WP. They want strongly to delete that article but I see similar people here voting strongly to keep this one. This is called WP:BIAS - you can't have it both ways folks. Khodavand 18:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Khodavand, the only connection I can see between that article and this, is you. These articles are in no way similar, and do not form a 'type' of article.... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 18:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes they are. Both are about allegations. Yours is a straw man argument. Give it up and admit that if you accept their argument on that AfD, then this one has to go too. Also if you say that article is OR, then this article is ridiculously in violation of WP:NOR. Khodavand 18:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly 20:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polisetty[edit]

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

Contested prod. Page about a family/clan without any reliable sources or references (tagged since a long time). No sign of notability as a family. It's just a family/clan -- not even a caste. Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 12:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Majorly 21:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idris Tawfiq[edit]

Idris Tawfiq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This person is not notable (WP:BLP). Notability is not established within this article, and this article only exists to say this person converted to Islam. The page also has no reliable sources. Sefringle 02:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, profiled in Irish Times[30], not much else. Potentially notable but almost all results fail WP:RS as written by him or NN publications such as blogs. --Dhartung | Talk 16:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Islamonline.net is notable and The Middle East Times is quoted in the BBC article, and if it can be established that he writes for them...--Striver - talk 10:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "writes a weekly article in Egyptian Mail, Egypt’s oldest English-language newspaper, and Sawt Al-Azhar, the newspaper of Al-Azhar University" sounds notable if it can be verified, but i can't personally be bothered. --Striver - talk 10:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to me that there are no restrictions on the number of pages wikipedia can have. --Aminz 05:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This seems like a marginally notable person, and should not be deleted on the basis of the evidence presented so far. International notable persons do require a bit of extra research to establish facts and notability, but if the facts in the article so far can be verified, the person is probably notable (though in a minor way). Remember, Wikipedia should adhere to a worldwide view. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mermaid. Addhoc 19:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Bless sins 03:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly 20:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Tranmer[edit]

Jim Tranmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This article may not meet Wikipedia notability standards, and provides little context

T Dietrich 18:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Very few google hits, even fewer outside of wiki mirrors [31]. I read some of the URL listed in the aritcle, but don't see any notability there. Basically he was locked up for drug trafficking, and somehow has an article because he acted weird in court and was a member of an unusual religious sect. --Fang Aili talk 22:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Research A dearth of G-hits is not grounds for deletion. Per guidelines we need multiple sources; we have one so I sugges that we research this before kicking it to the curb. --Kevin Murray 00:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the only reason that makes the man different from other smuglers is that he is a Coptic priest and given that among priest are also common criminals that does not make him notable Alf photoman 00:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just another MJ smuggler, and there's no shortage of those. Most don't warrant more than a column inch. This one appears to warrant maybe an inch and a half. Ohconfucius 05:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge with Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church Nashville Monkey 22:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
although that article as well should probably be deleted. Nashville Monkey 22:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:V; that also precludes a redirect. Sandstein 22:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long Night[edit]

Long Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Apparently some scheme used by the ever-sneaky Zeus to seduce women by darkening the sky. I would normally have a quick www search to back this up, but plugging "long night" into a search engine could lead anywhere. There's no references or any claim to notability - OK, so the author tells us that Shakespeare also mentions "long night", but he mentions many things that don't warrant an article. This page has been here since 2002, so is bloody old. And possibly salvagable. Maybe a redirect to The Long Night is required, maybe a link to equinox or winter solstice. But probs delete Montchav 23:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Go ahead and redirect. I did find the term used for his seduction of Hercules' mom, but it was to make the night longer for more fun rather than to preven Hera from catching him. an example. But it seems the term isn't always used for this story, and it was hard to find so there is no real evidence the term is notable in this context. So I would think the page could be redirected and the story added to hercules or zeus pages. After 5 years hard to think this stub will grow.Obina 21:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If after deleting, someone wants to redirect, then no objection... Addhoc 17:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep afd was formatted oddly and not listed on article properly, see here for additional deletion discussion. Re-nom whenever but keep things better organized if you do. W.marsh 17:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McGuinn[edit]

Mark McGuinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nom & vote...
Del on this apparently n-n musician w/ G-test result

277 of about 572 for "Mark McGuinn" singer

I've not tried to learn musician-notability criteria, but this sounds pretty damn slim. And doesn't the low count of engagements (On his own site -- 1st lk added in response to ProD-- "There are no interviews or appearances scheduled at this time", and likewise no tours; 5 gigs in the last 7 months, per what, following his lk, purports to be his agent's his "artist events" page) suggest a career either failing or not seriously pursued?
--Jerzy•t 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Seems notable - over 12 solid search results pages on Google - but it reads like a fan blog full of platitudes. Name one musician that wouldn't claim to have a "unique sound and powerful songs". His "releases" also need to be adequately referenced.--Rupertchaucer 15:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ishaq Al-Fayyad[edit]

Mohammad Ishaq Al-Fayyad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Mohammad Ishaq Al-Fayyad is not notable (by Wikipedia standards) according to WP:BIO. Agha Nader 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. No assertion of notability, and so tagged. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd remain neutral until further evidence is given of his own notability, rather than the notability of Grand Ayatollah. As far as I can see, the most of the news articles here are either discussing the group itself or just briefly mention him. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 18:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 50 Google News Archive results for "najaf fayyad". He is one of three grand ayatollahs in Iraq (the rest are almost exclusively in Iran).[32]; he is outranked only by Sistani, and appears to have an independent following. Brief Slate profile. --Dhartung | Talk 16:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Grand Ayatollah is generally notable. This one is a key Shia leader in Iraq. I've added a couple of sources to the article. ScottW 16:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the speedy response. But being a Grand Ayatollah does not make one notable on its own. Please refer to WP:BIO. Please relate your response to the criteria on notability. Agha Nader 16:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Agha Nader[reply]

  • Keep. He appears to satisfy the central criterion of WP:BIO: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.". He has been the primary subject in features from well-established sources: (1)USA TODAY, and (2)Slate magazine. Thus, he qualifies under the primary criterion. In addition to this, he has received numerous mentions elsewhere regarding major issues in Iraq, and apparently has outstanding scholarly credentials as a Grand Ayatollah. This might be expected, considering that he managed to become a Grand Ayatollah, which is in itself a notable rank in Shia Islam. This nomination has done much good in encouraging expansion of the article, and I think that it should continue to be expanded. The Behnam 20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to read your response. This is because you always provide an unbiased view when addressing Article for Deletion nominations. I can elaborate on this latter. I also wish to thank you for your acknowledgment of the good that has come from this nomination. You are incorrect in saying he has been the "primary subject in features from well-established sources". Has he been the "primary subject"? Or has he been mentioned in passing? I believe it is the latter. Do you have any evidence that he has been the "primary subject" of these publications? Otherwise this is just your opinion and will be regarded as such. You state, "he managed to become a Grand Ayatollah, which is in itself a notable rank in Shia Islam". I completely agree that the rank of Grand Ayatollah is a "notable rank in Shia Islam". It is imperatave that you, or any other editor, do not confuse this with qualifying as notable in Wikipedia. I mention this because his notability with regards to Wikipedia is in question, not his notability in Shia Islam. You state "This might be expected, considering that he managed to become a Grand Ayatollah, which is in itself a notable rank in Shia Islam". Your expectations or analysis as to why he has been mentioned in some publications is irrelevant, and thus unnecessary. Agha Nader 21:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Agha Nader[reply]
Again, try reading the sources I provided. The USA TODAY article is about him, and he is also heavily discussed in the Slate article. If you really need me to paste passages from these sources because you cannot see this yourself, I am able to do so, though it seems absurd. After all, if you cannot see his significance by reading the articles, I don't know why me pasting here will work any better. None of these are simply trivial mentions of him in passing; rather, they discuss him and his views specifically. The note about "expected" was simply a transition to one of the supplementary points(as scholarly discourse is an important to becoming higher rank), the point about his position in the highest rank of a major religion. In any case, the main point is that he satisfies the central criterion of WP:BIO. The Behnam 21:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, I have read the USA TODAY article. How is he heavily discussed? He is only mentioned as an introduction to the main point of the article. The subject that is "heavily discussed " is clearly voting in Iraqi election, not Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad. Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad was not mentioned in 13 of the 15 paragraphs in the USA TODAY article. He wasn't even named in 14 of the 15 paragraphs. How is he the primary subject if he isn't mentioned in the body paragraphs? Please provide sourced that have Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad as the "primary subject". It is clear to me he has been only addressed in passing. What is your definition of "heavily discussed"? As you know, the criteria for notability that you site, requires him to be the "primary subject". All the article says about Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad is that he doesn't believe in the separation of religion and state. USA TODAY says of Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad, "A high-ranking Shiite cleric who helped a coalition of religious parties to apparent victory in Iraq's elections eight days ago said Sunday that the new constitution must embody Islamic law. 'We will accept no compromise,' said a statement by Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad, one of the three top Shiite clerics who serve beneath the most senior religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Al-Fayad said separation of religion and state must be 'completely rejected.'" How is the "primary subject" of the article? Please provide elaboration. Agha Nader 00:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
He is the primary subject because the article is about his statement. The title focuses on him and his expressed opinion, the opening paragraphs introducing the "news" focus on him. The rest of article is about reactions to his statement, and also some background information for context. The article is about al-Fayadh because it is reporting specifically about his demands regarding the constitution of Iraq. The Behnam 00:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this right. You think he is the primary subject of the article? And that the upcoming Iraqi election is not? Why isn't he mentioned in mentioned in 13 of the 15 paragraphs in the USA TODAY article. He wasn't even named in 14 of the 15 paragraphs. How is he the primary subject if he isn't mentioned in the body paragraphs? Agha Nader 04:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
The article's purpose was to cover his comments; hence, the title they used. The opening paragraphs. Of course it relates to the Iraq elections, but the actual news item being reported was his statement. It was the "news" part of the report. By the way, I find it "cute" that you consider each of the bulleted wire reports as separate paragraphs. They begin with "Also Sunday:", and are small recaps of other events that also occurred during that day. It is similar to a Ahmadinejad Israel comment; a few other things are usually recapped or mentioned for context, but the main idea was him and his statement. Such is the case for this article as well. Glad to help! The Behnam 04:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agha, whether he's mentioned in the paragraphs or not isn't even relevant. His title and the mere mention of him combine to pass WP:BIO even in just that state. His position in the article is much like the position of any famous person if the article were on a famous event. Again, the 3/4 of the article that doesn't talk about him doesn't matter, the fact is those first couple do talk about hi and aknowledge his notability.--Wizardman 06:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that someone finally accepts that 3/4 of the article doesn't mention him. But I must disagree that "the fact is those first couple do talk about him and acknowledge his notability". WP:BIO says that the person must be the primary subject of media attention. I have read through the USA TODAY article, and each time I come to the same conclusion: he is used as an introduction to the Iraqi election. Do you agree that someone has to be the primary subject of media attention? Agha Nader 17:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted. This is taken directly from WP:BIO. Even if he is not the primary subject in the USA Today article oes not mean he should be deleted.--Wizardman 22:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, his comments(hence, him) are the primary reason for the news report. Just because Agha Nader is distracted by the recapping and contextualizing common to news reports doesn't mean that al-Fayadh is not the primary subject. It seems Agha has a tendency to ignore statements from opposing viewpoints unless he thinks that he can misconstrue them to fit his point. At this point, it might be best for all parties to simply ignore his continuing obstructionist approach, and wait for this Afd to close. It does not make sense that we all have to repeat arguments just because Agha Nader chooses not to acknowledge evidence. I hope Agha Nader learns how to act more appropriately on Wikipedia from these experiences. The Behnam 23:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I will concede this point. Agha Nader 07:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
  • Keep, most bishops listed in Wikipedia are less notable (in catholic terms this would be a Cardinal) ... sometimes I wonder about the deletion nominators Alf photoman 21:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remind everyone of WP:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD.2FWikietiquette. It says, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." So when making comments make an argument and respond to mine. I also wish to tell you that a person needs to be notable in order to have a Wikipedia article about them. Please see WP:Notability#Notability_is_not_subjective. It says, "Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations". Although you may think being a Grand Ayatollah on its own is notable, you must prove it with arguments relating to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Also do not just assume someone is notable because of their rank. I would also like to inform the editors that there is no criteria on WP:BIO that says a high ranking cleric, bishop, or rabbi is notable just because of their rank. Please be objective when defending Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad's notability. Also please read WP:Notability#Notability_is_not_subjective it says, "Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly". Your job is not to judge Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad's notability, but rather to consider the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia on notability. Also, I am able to answer any questions you have about deletion nominators! Agha Nader 23:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
Well, I think you should now explain, in detail, why he doesn't meet the criteria of WP:BIO. You mention that "Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations." Until you thoroughly explain your reasons for saying that he is not WP:BIO, we are only seeing your personal considerations, so it is high time for you to explain. Also, remember to consider the conversation about the central criterion from above, since it is, well, central. If you give this elaboration, I think it will at least be easier to know where you are coming from. It was fairly obvious when you nominated, since the article was just a stub lacking much information, but your nomination has spurred improvement to the article, and it seems that just a little investigation about the man has shown that, indeed, he is rather significant. The Behnam 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Behnam, remember, you should assume good faith, instead of making this kind of comment. Saying that "It was fairly obvious when you nominated, since the article was just a stub lacking much information" isn't assuming good faith. Furthermore, you are making the affirmative statement by saying he should remain, and thus the burden of evidence is on your shoulders. But it should be clear by now the reason as to why I don't think it should remain. The reason is that he hasn't done anything notable and does not meet the criteria on WP:BIO. In fact, the only thing he has done is become an Ayatollah. And that, by itself does not make him notable. Unless you wish to keep avoiding this, please post a response that relates to my comment. Agha Nader 04:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
Apparently, you misunderstand my statement. Do you know what I was saying was "fairly obvious"? I was saying that it is plain to see why you might nominate the article for deletion because, at the time, there was nothing notable mentioned n his article. If anything, this is assuming good faith. By stating that all he has done is "become an Ayatollah", you seem to be overlooking the improvements to the article that indicate that there is more to him than what you believe. I have provided the burden of evidence; try reading the conversation above if you have forgotten. I said he satisfies the central criterion of WP:BIO, and I provided the sources that support this claim. You just claimed the sources mentioned him in passing, despite the fact that they are reporting about him. If you are going to just ignore evidence, you may be able to justify to yourself that all he did was "become an Ayatollah"; however, you probably will not convince others here. So please, assume good faith before accusing others of not assuming good faith. The Behnam 04:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator is very new to Wikipedia. Generally I would recommend gaining more experience as an editor before jumping into AFD nominations. --Dhartung | Talk 22:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any basis for this recommendation? Is there any policy of Wikipedia that says I am not able to contribute to Wikipedia since I am relatively new. Dhartung, let me remind you this is not a gaming forum, and I am not a "noob". I regret your primitive attempt to discredit me. This is not appreciated by the Wikipedians, and is against the ideals of Wikipedia. Namely, that everyone can contribute. Also, I have been involved in a previous AfD, and The Behnam can attest to this. I hope that all editors of this AfD see Dhartung's comment for what it is. For now, I will assume good faith and not take further action. Agha Nader 23:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
Comment You will not take further action against what? Against general advice? My, you are touchy. I recommend you not be so touchy, especially if you plan to frequent AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 23:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend taking this to our talk pages as recommended by Wikipedia guidelines. But to bring order to this AfD I will address your questions. There are many action I could take. Refer to WP:No_personal_attacks. I will contact the Arbitration Committee if this continues. You again are being uncivil by calling me "touchy". Rudeness is an example of incivility according to WP:Civility. According to the guideline of Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers, "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism." Please add any new personal comments to my talk page (of course only civil comments will be tolerated). I will only continue to respond to you on this matter on your talk page. Agha Nader 00:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
Agha Nader, remember, you should assume good faith, instead of making a this kind of comment. Saying that no one else here(except one user) is unbiased is not assuming good faith; you are aware that such comments are not hidden, aren't you? The Behnam 03:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the time the comment was posted, it was clear to me that people were biased on this AfD. I can especially elaborate on your bias, as I have had many conversations with you on this subject. Please see, [WP:AGF] , "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Good try though! In fact, I will agree with you and choose to keep if you can present an argument as to why the article should be kept. Agha Nader 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Agha Nader[reply]
Are you going to provide evidence to the contrary? Evidence that everyone else participating at the time was biased except for that one user? I would really like to see that! Without any evidence to the contrary, your statement isn't AGF. Also, I doubt you have anything that reveals that I have a "bias" here; we haven't talked even talked about this guy before. I also doubt that you have evidence that everyone else involved at the time is biased. What preposterous accusations! The Behnam 04:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at The Behnam's talk page to continue this personal comment. Agha Nader 04:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
You have proven to be unable to provide real evidence against me; what about the others you accused of bias? There isn't even a story that you can make up for their cases. The Behnam 04:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you that this is not a poll. This is part of Wikipedia guidelines, and I can provide specific ones if you contest this. Also, you must provide a debate as to why it is obvious that the article should be kept. Otherwise your comment is a mere opinion. Agha Nader 04:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
  • Keep, visible leadership position in major religion easily comparable to far lesser Catholic Bishops who have their own articles.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Verified as significant religious figure. Strange nomination Bwithh 11:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep all Grand Ayatollahs are notable per definition, the point of being a GA is that people can follow your fatwa, thus, you have a "cult like following" per Wikipedia:Notability (people), if nothing else. --Striver - talk 11:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable per WP:BIO which stats, "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person". At the bottom of the page, there are at least 7 citations of which several are very reliable source. This no doubt passes WP:BIO. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like notability is now established after some de-stubbing. highlunder 14:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:BIO, I almost want to assume bad faith on the nominator's art, but I'm refraining from that.--Wizardman 05:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:BIO. Also, a reminder to all editors to do your best to stay cool. --Scott Wilson 18:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:BIO as illustrated above, not much more to add. RFerreira 19:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete by Yomangani. Tevildo 17:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart burney[edit]

Stuart burney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

non-notable, poorly written and lowercased own last name BabuBhatt 23:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. It's a cv - the guy should post it on his own website instead. He needs to be notable in his own right, not associated with other people who are notable in theirs. --62.160.67.3 15:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Dolls[edit]

The House of Dolls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

The novel doesnt meet the notability criteria for an entry. Not mentioning the dubious content. see: Wikipedia:Notability (books) Tresckow 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per notability concerns expressed by nom; note that "dubious content" is not a legitimate reason for nomination. Otto4711 13:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia isn't a place to judge content. The fact the book carries and ISBN and the author appears to have notability - with sources cited - is good enough. Please note that Wikipedia: Notability (books) is only a proposed policy/guideline and this should not be used to gauge whether an article should exist on a particular novel. Personally I follow earlier guidelines that basically say anything that isn't vanity press and had any sort of distribution is notable. I'm willing to change my vote if proof can be provided that this book never existed. 23skidoo 15:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think that citing the proposed guideline is fine, to the extent that the community agrees with it, but suppose that while it's merely "proposed," the debate here may help show the extent to which the community agrees. In addition, the book is notable under the proposed guideline - it is relatively well known, and it is fairly trivial to find references to it. I will add a couple and update. TheronJ 16:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 61 results on Google Books, a few on Google Scholar as well, so it would actually pass the cited guideline. (That said, I think that "would fail proposed guideline X" is a perfectly valid argument). --Dhartung | Talk 16:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This needs to be tagged for cleanup and as unsourced, not deleted. -- Antepenultimate 16:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added a couple references, which should be enough to bring this article verifiably within the scope of Notability (books). It still needs cleanup, of course. TheronJ 16:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I've attempted to clean up the page slightly by adding an "Allusions/references to history" section, since it was confusing what parts were about the novel and what parts were about the novel's historical background. Hope this helps. -- Antepenultimate 16:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whilst the article could obviously do with some work, it seems notable enough to be kept, particularly in light of the references added recently by TheronJ. Silverthorn 17:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable. Work to improve - prompt for additional citations and referencing - don't blow people's hard work away all the time! Really! Wikipedia:Notability (books) should not be used as a stick to force things out, only a way of ensuring we clearly know what should be in. And it isn't agreed yet! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep except the Joy Division reference should appear somewhere else than in the "Trivia" section. It's most likely behind 95% of the lookups for this article. ~ trialsanderrors 19:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although there does need to be a synopsis at the top of the article. So tagged for cleanup. SkierRMH 00:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is important for the relationship to the band Joy Division, as it is where the name of the band came from. Although, I would have thought the holocaust / death-camp relationship was interesting enough in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KaffieneNZ (talk • contribs) 03:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia isn't a place to judge content. If it is true it should be here. Qqzzccdd 16:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to TimeSplitters Future Perfect. Sandstein 21:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time Assassins[edit]

Time Assassins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete or Redirect to TimeSplitters: FP The Time Assassins are not nearly noteworthy enough to have their own article. The robots that appear through the series are more notewothy than them, but even they don't deserve their own article. BishopTutu 04:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to TS:FP due to lack of notability of the subject itself, but the possibility that it will be searched for. -- Kicking222 14:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't seem right for wikipedia. It could even fit speedy deletion under the db-bio tag. Rasillon 20:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect because redirects are cheap and the term may be searched for. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced. No objection to redirect. Addhoc 16:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly 21:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rocketbusta Radio[edit]

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

Page reads like spam. There is no notability. Editor(s) has deleted all instances of speedy delete before. 49erInOregon 12:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I dont understand your reasoning for deleting this when there are plenty of other things that have no importance what so ever. Not to mention, who are you to say what does and doesnt belong on "Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia." If this isnt allowed on Wikipedia, then nothing should be.

WP:POKEMON is not a valid reason. 49erInOregon 20:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom: I cannot see any notability --BozMo talk 13:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the amount of wrestlers that have been interviewed on it, it is as noteable as any other radio program. JobDDT 05:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you have any info on the number of listeners it has that might be a better argument for keeping it? 49erInOregon 21:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, the show exists, and it has listeners (including myself), so I see no reason to delete it.Brodeur19 16:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You exist and people listen to you... do you have a wiki entry? 49erInOregon 03:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But he isn't a form of media. And I highly doubt he has held interviews with people of importance. As for your question about listener numbers, I couldn't tell you because I'm not involved with the show. JobDDT 06:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a wiki page... guess I'm not as SUPER AWESOME as 49erInOregon. You're being difficult just for the sake of being difficult. Why don't you go to the website and listen to the show until you understand that it's 100% and there's a decent amount of people calling in, sending in e-mails, and ESPECIALLY those in the chat. Do some research before you simply dismiss it because you don't know what you're talking about.Brodeur19 16:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument was "the show exists and people listen to it" as the reason for keeping the article. How is saying that is not a good argument being "Difficult"? I've never heard of the show before and haven't see any statistics on what makes it notable. There are rules that exist on what makes a page notable so maybe you guys should have researched them before throwing up a page thinking it will stick just because it exists. 49erInOregon 17:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability, no coverage from third party reliable sources that would make this any different to the countless other one man broadcast from a bedroom internet radio shows. One Night In Hackney 19:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Closing Admin Please keep in mind the only people voting keep are people who have created the article and who may be involved with the show itself and 411mania. 49erInOregon 16:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly 21:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FuturixImager[edit]

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

Well, the reason for this nomination may seem strange - actually I'm the author of FuturixImager (not the author of the article). However I don't think this article is any good! Most text is taken straight from my old website: I'm not against that, but it is pointless. Futurix 14:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per author's request. JuJube 23:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't speedy delete if the subject of the article (or equivalent) requests things, only if the author of the article does that, and even then it's debatable unless the article was mistakenly created. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops! In that case changing vote to Delete per you. ^_^ JuJube 07:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Yet Another Image Viewer; has claims of fame but is better off rewritten in any case if this is lifted from the website. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SOFTWARE ::mikmt 00:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above... Addhoc 19:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fully agreed. Fionik 05:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 05:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete by Doc glasgow. Tevildo 19:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goswin Schwendinger[edit]

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

Possibly violates WP:BIO. Does violate WP:AB & WP:COI. NMajdan•talk 14:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

should be deleted immediately. yes. it violates everything, really.Goswin 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Catholic High School[edit]

East Catholic High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was nominated for speedy deletion as an empty article, but it has a long edit history, and was once long enough to be a stub. Donald Albury 14:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand — I've added some information on their successful sports program. — RJH (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Where are the sources? The material will be deleted from the article if reliable sources are not supplied. -- Donald Albury 22:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Manchester, Connecticut, unless reliable secondary sources can be found. Without such sources, the school does not warrant a stand-alone article. Shimeru 09:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per my personal believe that high schools are notable enough for inclusion, and for meeting the WP:SCHOOLS as currently proposed. Yamaguchi先生 03:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How does this article meet the WP:SCHOOLS proposal? Where are the "multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself"? Who are the "alumni (plural) who are notable according to WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC"? Neither Andy Baylock nor Rob Penders have articles in Wikipedia, so where are the "multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" establishing that they "are notable according to WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC"? How is the school "distinctive in any area for which it has received press or other coverage"? -- Donald Albury 22:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If kept, needs to be renamed and a dab created since this name is used by several schools. East Catholic High School (Connecticut) would probably work. Vegaswikian 06:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article makes specific claims of notability per WP:SCHOOL. Article will benefit from expansion and addition of sources. Alansohn 17:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SCHOOLS and at the very least it keep all the high school vandals occupied. --MarsRover 20:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, college preparatory school which appears to offer various notable sports programs. RFerreira 02:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per commenters above. Zadernet 04:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Tubezone 22:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raw tune jr.[edit]

Raw tune jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC Donald Albury 15:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. This is advance publicity for the guy's album, nothing more than that. Certainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and it's wishful thinking on the part of the person who wrote the page to think it does.
  • Delete hoax - crz crztalk 16:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC. The Rambling Man 17:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the "speedy delete" person -   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 01:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, conflict of interest. —ShadowHalo 04:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn, if his album is successful the article can be resurrected, at this point there's not even any references or confirmation that an album will be released. Tubezone 20:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per everyone. Also recommend investigating related articles from this label - some of those appear deletable too. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 21:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patent Training Academy[edit]

Patent Training Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable training aspect of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. It gets about 67 Google hits, almost all of them are from the USPTO. This article and similar ones have been created several times (in both article space and on their user pages) by Mrchrzan (talk · contribs) and Jteets (talk · contribs) to promote "the greatest group of patent examiners to come out of the PTA". They also uploaded a ton of photos yesterday of people around the office that I deleted since they seemed to be used only as a free webhost. I don't see any outside reliable or verifiable sources for this. I also don't see any notability for this. Metros232 15:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this is not a public-facing agency and is unlikely to ever be individually notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of government offices, of which there are so many. --Dhartung | Talk 16:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I don't see anything particularly unworthy about the subject. It is an agency of the U.S. government whose existence can be verified. The fact that it is not run for the general public is neither here nor there. The motives of the creators in creating it are matters of editing for NPOV, and apparently, for deleting unencyclopedic photos; they don't give rise to grounds to delete this article. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment but is it really a government agency? From what it seems like, it's not. It appears to be a training aspect of a government agency. Metros232 19:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I used "agency" generically. It would probably more accurately be termed a "program" or "office" of the USPTO. --Dhartung | Talk 19:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - It would appear to be an institute established to train public servants for the USPTO. Judging from the article, it was only very recently established. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would tend to agree with Dhartung that there are many, many government offices and agencies and that each one "exists" does not warrant it an article.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruaidhritopia (Welcome to Lennongrad), Ruaidhritopia[edit]

Ruaidhritopia (Welcome to Lennongrad) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ruaidhritopia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We've seen multiple versions of this. Seems to be total hoax. I can find nothing on the alleged fictional utopia, the alleged author, or any of his books, that don't look like Wiki or mirrors. Publisher looks likewise fictional. Let's get a firm AFD so we can G4 any and all future versions. Fan-1967 15:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no assertion of notability, no sources, and I can't find anything about the publisher online. -- Merope 15:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above and lack of any Google presence (zero non-WP/mirror hits for "Ruaidhritopia"). If deemed necessarily, salting is certainly an option. -- Kicking222 16:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The Rambling Man 17:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Hoax or at best a novel self-published with a dozen copies. Ruaidhritopia has already been deleted twice. The author Popsyfeet is clearly a sock puppet of Ruaidhril (even though the latter has not been blocked). -- RHaworth 18:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trash. JuJube 23:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt to prevent another recreation. Philip Gronowski Contribs 00:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. Wow, this is another obvious hoax I've seen today -   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 02:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly 21:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pacha[edit]

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

Deleted and protected by me on G11 basis per tag, undeleted per request. There is a history of promotion for this entity as per the deletion log and per things like this (see what's been removed). Underlying this is a concern for corporate notability. WP:SPAM, WP:CORP, WP:COI. Procedural, abstain. - crz crztalk 15:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not to mention severe WP:NPOV problems. Delete until third-party reliable sources are given which validate the claims in the article. I'm not sure why this is even in AfD in the first place - G11 doesn't have a "automatic DRV clause" like A7 does, and "article deleted on spurious grounds" is not a DRV reason. ColourBurst 15:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is per request, not per DRV. I was the deleting admin, and I have chosen to reconsider speedy deletion in favor of discussion. - crz crztalk 16:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine with me, but my !vote still stands. ColourBurst 16:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has been created and deleted several times previously. I am unfamiliar with these versions. This time I created it based on the German and Spanish language versions as well as Pacha's own web site (and I may have perused several clubbing web sites also in the process) and my knowledge of the enterprise from having visited the Ibiza club twice a few years back. This club is merited as one of the highest-ranking international nightclubs in terms of prestige and it would be leave a vacuum if removed from Wikipedia. __meco 16:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment but who does this ranking? If it's "ranked", there must be some organization that does it. ColourBurst 18:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should have refrained from using the contentious term ranked which quite correctly warrants an authority to perform the ranking. I am sure such authorities exist but I'm not privvy to this information. To rephrase myself, among club goers it has been considered one of the most prestigious nightclubs in the world (no source). __meco 21:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources can be provided and the spam nature removed. Nuttah68 19:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - One of the most famous clubs in the world, and now a successful franchise with venues worldwide. This needs expansion, not deletion. - hahnchen 21:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That you proclaim it so doesn't really count as evidence - do you have third-party sources not related to the club's website to back this up?--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just assume good faith here, I have absolutely no affiliation with the Pacha company. This is an international brand, with its own record company, it hosts the worlds top DJs in residence. Meco has some sources below which may be of interest. If you do Google news, you'll find reports of Pacha NYC. As before, the article needs expansion. - hahnchen 21:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no assumption of bad faith, and sorry if my comment sounded as such, but many arguments on AfD are along the lines of "it's famous" rather than "it's famous per this article in Newsweek and these google results I found." My standard reply to such comments is "that you say it's famous doesn't make it famous." --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. No reliable sources establishing claims or compliance with WP:CORP. Reads like advertising or spam with puffed-up phrases like "one the world's most celebrated clubbing franchises" and "well-known and prestigious venue". Willing to reconsider if reliable sources are provided and the advertising language is removed. Agent 86 00:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability is established, but the article needs a re-write to make it encyclopedic. --SunStar Nettalk 13:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some additions to the article now including a poll from an clubbing magazine rating Pacha Ibiza as the no. 4 most popular nightclub globally. Please consider when you take issue with claims like "world's most celebrated" and "well-known and prestigious" that we are dealing with an entertainment venue that caters to a high degree to the world of supermodels, music and fashion industry executives and promoters and international jetset personalities. In this light these terms should be considered intrinsic, not inflated hype. __meco 16:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. This is a prime example of an AfD nomination on charges of "advertising" and "non-notability" based on sheer ignorance. Pacha is definitely a renowned nightclub chain (and certainly one of the most famous nightclubs in my country Spain)—the DJ Magazine ranking provided by User:Meco should make this clear to those nominators around here who know nothing about what they rush to AfD. Uaxuctum 14:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please Assume Good Faith and avoid the personal attacks. It's not the job of the nominator to verify the hyperbole. All the revisions show is that a magazine has decided this club is number 4 on its list. If the advertising claims were justified, it would have been number one. Agent 86 01:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article asserts the company's notablilty and references back that up (good work, meco). --Oakshade 04:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly 21:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelhafid Boussouf[edit]

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

Deleted on expired prod, recreated per request. Prod rationale was "this is a person, not an airport, per a Google search". Procedural, abstain. - crz crztalk 15:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No sources are provided to demonstrate that this airport exists and is encyclopedic. I didn't find any in a google search, either.. I am willing to reevaluate my stance if sources are provided to demonstrate that this really is a notable airport, of course. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As an airport, it is not very notable. Google search does not help much, person whom it was named after may have a better claim to notability. Can't find any other external sources that refers to the airport. --Eqdoktor 17:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above ::mikmt 00:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand. It has a French Wikipedia entry [33] and seems to be a politician in a series of Algerian governments in the 1950s and 1960s [34]. Seems more than notable enough for me--Thomas.macmillan 17:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted by admin Nihonjoe (non-notable). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yomari (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

It's basically a bad advertisement for a business and I don't believe it's Wiki-worthy Porterjoh 16:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: A7: no assertion of notabilily, G11: blatant advertising. Tagged as A7. --Pak21 17:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was CSD A7 - crz crztalk 17:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wid and Ben[edit]

Wid and Ben (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonsense Sharonlees 16:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete; unedited since nomination with no assertions of permission, either. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OmenTFL[edit]

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

Appears to be a fairly minor role-playing game. Google gives 375 hits, of which about 21 are unique. There are no independent sources, making writing an article impossible. In addition, the majority of the article is quoted directly from the website [35], so there may be a copyright issue. Trebor 17:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Actually, on second thoughts, this might be speedyable under A7. Trebor 17:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • The quoted material is both workable under fair use, and the quotations are also supported by the copyright holders. Also there is a space there for players to imput their own independant critiques. Davou
    • Eh... the majority of the article is quoted from the source with very little critical/explanative commentary, and could be replaced with rewritten material. I fail to see how this falls under fair use. There's no indication anywhere in the article that the quotations are "supported" by copyright holders either, and the site's copyright policy mentions nothing to this effect either. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't appear to be notable at all. The only reason I'm not deleting this as a copyvio is that I'm giving it a benefit of doubt and assuming there's a good explanation of this "support" from copyright holder. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • next chance I get to speak to the holders, I will have them establish a notice page on their website, and link to it... but untill then, This is well within the bounds of fair use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davou (talk • contribs) 23:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Um... it's abundantly clear this does not fall under fair use by any stretch of imagination. Ignoring headings and markup, I get roughly 230 words of original content vs. 1160 words of verbatim quoted text. To my best non-US-lawyer understanding, it fails all of the four criteria listed on the fair use article: purpose and character (in effect, we're not using the text for scholarly purposes here, just quoting it for the heck of it), nature (there's absolutely no reason not to go by broader copyright rules), amount and substantiality (majority of the content is copied and it's directly copying key portions of the original text without any justification whatsoever), and effect upon the work's value (even if finding a giant pile of money on the street indeed has a great effect upon your value, it's still not right to take it without any permission whatsoever). While getting the permission, can you also please provide documentation on the notability of the project, because that's even bigger factor here. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Majorly 00:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yogani[edit]

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

doesn't meet WP:BIO, books are all self-pubished (AYP Publications), references don't meet WP:V (one self-published testimonials, one self-published press release, the other two are both on the same user's personal site (~sarlo). Article has been previously deleted via AfD. Jefferson Anderson 17:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator withdraws nomination. Article has been edited so that it is sourced to radio program. That works for me, even though the archive of the radio programs is hosted on the AYP site. Jefferson Anderson 18:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hi Jefferson Anderson. I was just wondering if you happened to read the discussion page on the article before applying the AfD. It may help to explain why the article had been deleted in the first place. Also, I made a note to please let me know any problems with the article so that I may create it to better suit Wiki standards. I'd think it would be in Wikipedia's best interest to improve on the articles as opposed to quickly deleting ones which could be fixed to comply. This is my first article so I will be the first to admit that I may need a bit of help, but it doesn't help at all when someone comes by and adds an AfD without explanation, apparently without even taking a look at the discussion page. I hope we can work together to solve the problems with the article as opposed to the deletion of an article which should have a home on Wikipedia. I will be looking forward to your correspondence. Thank you and have a great day. Mdyogi 21:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Maybe I should go ahead and start the discussion regarding your problems with the article. Yes the books are published by AYP, but I see little reason why this would be a problem. As a matter of fact, I can list 10 spiritual teachers off the top of my head (with current wikipedia articles) who publish their own books. Let me know if you'd like me to do so. Meanwhile, you haven't seemed to take notice that all the books are consistently (and often significantly) within the Amazon 100k rank level in the USA, Canada and Europe, and are in the process of being published in India as well. Regarding references, I wasn't sure exactly what needed references so I just did my best with what I thought might need it. It would be helpful if you could point out what exactly needs references and I can take it from there. I am willing to work with you on this, and I hope you will do the same. Thank you and have a great day. Mdyogi 21:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - And one more thing. What was the problem with the quotes section? The subject is widely known for that quote which is the basis of his teaching. Mdyogi 22:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete db-repost. There should not have been a second AfD. JuJube 23:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. JuJube 00:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I was the one who 1st marked it for speedy deletion) -This is a young article, give it a change to find some sources so it can prove if it is verifiable or not (Template accordingly). This is obviously a completely different case from the first time the older article was nominated for eletion, and we should assume good faith. Sfacets 06:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that is precisely why I AfD'ed it rather than speedy it. I really don't think the sources are there, but certainly if reliable third party references can be found... Jefferson Anderson 15:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Jefferson Anderson. I plan on working on the sources this weekend, but why AfD the article in the first place instead of a tag which would serve as a warning? The article is less than a week old. I have no arguments with the article needing some work, I just don't understand the need to pull the trigger on the AfD so quickly. Now that I have a better understanding of what needs to be done, I will be happy to update the article according to Wiki standards. If you wouldn't mind explaining exactly what you feel needs sources, it would be of even greater help. Thanks and have a great day. Mdyogi 18:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources can be added to the article, per WP:RS. Otherwise it is hard to judge whether he is notable. EdJohnston 17:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Agent 86 00:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virokine (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

This is a dictionary entry rather then an encylopedic entry. It has been tagged for editing by an expert on the subject almost a year ago, but has not been done so. Pinkkeith 17:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a basic stub, and certainly expandable. It may be a long time before someone competent to add information finds and sees it, but the subject strikes me as worthy, and the stub, though minimal, is informative. It might be merged somewhere, but suggesting where is a job for a specialist in itself. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. While consisting solely of a definition, this is more a stub in that it is "an article that is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of the subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information." The point is that it has the potential to be a full article once someone knowledgeable comes along to expand it. If we delete this we'll only reduce the chances of a good article on this subject being created. --Jackhorkheimer 21:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- Jackhorkheimer has made most of the points I wanted to, but I'll try to contribute my own argument anyway. The topic of the article is clearly a real thing which has its own origin, history, development and use. The simple fact that none of us happen to know, offhand, what any of those are doesn't mean that someone else won't come along who does, or who feels like finding more information to contribute from outside sources. The article is tagged with a stub tag, clearly indicating that the potential for a full article is there, but needs someone to turn it into a full article. This is all that needs to be done with this kind of article. Be patient; experts in viral pathology don't just fall out of the sky, y'know. -- Y|yukichigai 23:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've expanded it somewhat. It's still stubby, but hey, I'm mol. bio; I just listen to this stuff at lab meeting. Choess 08:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. --Coredesat 20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Jones (educator)[edit]

Fred Jones (educator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I am also nominating the following related pages because all these pages seem to be intended to support links to author's site to sell books and DVDs:

Positive Classroom Discipline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Positive Classroom Instruction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tools for Teaching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

fails WP:BIO and WP:V, possibly WP:AUTO, seems intended to promote links to subject's website Jefferson Anderson 17:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all not notable and possibly commercial Arnoutf 18:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly 00:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Assis-Brasil[edit]

Gustavo Assis-Brasil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability per WP:BAND —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - His pioneer works in organizing the study and development of the hybrid picking technique for electric and acoustic guitar and his versatility and modern phrasing made him featured in Guitar Player Magazine - USA (Spotlight session - 1995). He has performed and recorded with artists like John Stowell, Hiromi, Tony Grey, Jose Pienasola, Greg Hopkins, Dig Trio, Brett Wilmott, Matthew Nicholl, Tim Ries, Hiroaki Honshuku, and Doug Johnson. All above factors meet his BIO. DoDoBirds 05:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, but not in this form Asserts notability and published sources; however, most of the article appears to be cut-and-paste from here. Agent 86 00:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Addhoc 19:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Guitar Player article and the bio on allaboutjazz.com seem to be enough to meet WP:BIO.--Kubigula (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete by Kinu per CSD G11. Agent 86 19:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewellers in london[edit]

Jewellers in london (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

While this sounds like a reasonable name for an article, it's actually just an ad for one particular jeweler. It's clearly speediable under G11, but when someone tagged it as such the tag was removed, so I've brought it here. Pinball22 18:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom Arnoutf 18:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis of 2020[edit]

Crisis of 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article was nominated for AfD in April 2006 with no consensus. No editing has occurred since then. Even though some people predict this crisis will happen, it's still a crystal ball. YechielMan 18:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've moved this nomination to a separate page, since the author created the second nomination on the same page as the first. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, undue weight given to the work of Strauss and Howe, not a shred of evidence that this idea has achieved widespread notability beyond their works.--Nydas(Talk) 20:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crystal ball gazing. Rewrite the article when the crisis happens or when there is independent reliable coverage of it. Edison 20:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure crystal-ballism, that heavily favors the work of two people.-- danntm T C 21:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete db-context. JuJube 23:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not as crystal-balling but essentially as a non-notable neologism with no verifiable references other than its original source.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly 21:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer[edit]

Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable law firm. Fails WP:CORP (Criteria for companies). Or at least notability not asserted. Edcolins 18:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Chovain 18:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of notability. ju66l3r 22:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to my response to your baseless suggestions. Thanks. ju66l3r 01:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This came up at WP:ANI and it looks like the bias allegation is well-intentioned but groundless. I'm glad some Wikipedians watch out for that kind of misuse. This nomination appears to be based upon policy without any unseemly taint. DurovaCharge 02:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Sandstein 20:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gueorgui Gatchev[edit]

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

Having trouble getting this deleted. He's a sixteen year old amateur artist. This is probably speediable, but he's been removing tags. Delete as non-notable. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Non-notable, probably violates WP:AUTO or else nonsense article Arnoutf 18:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Arnoutf Chovain 18:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD A7. --blue520 18:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:AUTO, WP:BIO and WP:BALLS. Best claim to notability is his fondness for doing "musculation". Caknuck 19:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calypso (software)[edit]

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

Non-notable software product Chovain 18:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstructivism[edit]

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

Term "reconstructivism" does not have this meaning in general use. This article is promoting a particular personal opinion and a particular new definition of the term. See "What Wikipedia is not" -- e.g. unpublished original research, self-promotion. [[36]] Theoh 19:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. This seems confusing and confused. It links Christian existential humanism with John Dewey, without giving much of an explanation about what they allegedly share; this seems implausible. It also attempts to link a rather odd collection of entertainments, from Being John Malkovich to Lion King: The Musical to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, without containing much analysis about what they allegedly share or how it relates to the named belief system. Seems like original research to me as it stands currently. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, such a mess cannot be probably saved without total rewritting even if it were notable.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be, like "Christian existential humanism" which I will put up as Afd as well (as assumedly a strictly personal opinion, which comes to the article being a hoax), an article created by User:Kitoba mainly to promote the personal website "Kitopedia" by Christopher "Kitoba" Sunami, see [37]. Note that forementioned other article (of course) links to 'Reconstructivism'. Suggestion: check out other contributions by the article's creator, look for possible sockpuppets and historically used IPs. — SomeHuman 14 Jan2007 05:47 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism and self-promo. Dragomiloff 05:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 22:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gery Roif[edit]

Gery Roif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Bio requirements unfulfilled judging by WP:BIO. SPecificP 20:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 19:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd be a three-time champion too, if it was in my own promotion. Caknuck 21:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Caknuck. JuJube 23:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or properly source and cite demonstrating notability Alf photoman 00:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete A7 --BigDT 05:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rapture right[edit]

The rapture right (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete, previously speedied as an A7, but assuming good faith and brought here for consensus after recreation and a message on my talk page. No evidence from WP:RS of notability per WP:MUSIC, probably WP:NFT. Searching for "rapture right" yields many results, but most are irrelevant or are about the Rapture Right itself and not this band... and I doubt the creator's unsourced claim from my talk page that the band was instrumental in creating the movement; it's more likely the other way around. --Kinu t/c 19:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Kinu, take your pick of what's failed here... The Rambling Man 20:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references provided for notability and I cant find any. Why don't we boldly redirect to Rapture Right? I'm happy to do so if I see consensus or no objections here.Obina 21:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I'd be all for an A7. No objections to Obina's suggestion to merge. --Dennisthe2 00:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hedging a bet on that A7, have a pleasant night. --Dennisthe2 02:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect to Rapture Right. the wub "?!" 11:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as non-notable ... or maybe for the absurd claims of having started the religious movement of the same name (although it is quite a feat that they were able to influence Scofield and Darby). Pastordavid 17:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Pastordavid, I think the author of this page is talking to you in this completely irrelevant rant. I dropped them a note on their talk page to cool it with the potential personal attacks and suggested attempting to source their band with something other than a Myspace page. --Kinu t/c 08:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD#G7: main author requests (sic) deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 23:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collections for Research into Sudeten German Minority[edit]

Collections for Research into Sudeten German Minority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Does not satisfy notability to be an encyclopedic entry, it is a local group studying in the library!

Twice speedied 1st nomination

Comment: please note that it was due to the fact that the article was in German and not in English, previous debate should not be impeached. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it is a list of self-published works. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: strongly beware of personal attacks. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Warum? Müssen wir noch einmal den Buchstabe N, oder gelbe Stern tragen? --Dr. Steller20:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this good faith. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By request, here is a translation of the German remarks: ‘Tulkolahten’s private war against our collection for racist reasons. Do you not like our Yad Vashem and Diploma […] programme, dear Tulkolahten? […] Is this by chance: “Czech is this user’s first language.”[referring to a userbox on Tulkolahten’s user page]? […] Why? Do we have to wear the letter N or a yellow star again?’ (Note: I do not endorse or dispute these statements or their implications.) —xyzzyn 20:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
context: yellow star. ~ trialsanderrors 21:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Agathoclea 20:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:N, no third-party coverage of this research group. Oh, and Dr. Steller, please cease your personal attacks immediately, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sandstein 20:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after moving to user space. The German article looks like it might be keepable, but the parts current present here aren’t sufficient to establish notability. —xyzzyn 20:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks, I didn't look at the German version of the article. Based on that, it looks like it might very well be notable, but the German article also features no third party coverage. Sandstein 20:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No outside sources establishing notability and WP:AUTO. -- Agathoclea 20:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first deletion refered to above was due to the fact that the article was in German. Agathoclea 20:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note German version de:Sudetendeutsche Wissenschaftliche Sammlung, which has some claims to notability, but also WP:COI issues. No opinion on the article yet, but I warned Dr. Steller on her talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 20:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find outside evidence of notability, willing to reconsider if the extent of the claimed EU support is documented and if Dr. Steller is willing to enter a constructive dialogue rather than personal attacks. ~ trialsanderrors 21:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sandstein. - Darwinek 21:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the author is unwilling to cooperate and cite reasons for notibility, then we have no choice but to delete.--Carabinieri 22:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, be aware: User:Dr. Steller once thought I had deleted this article (I'm not even an admin), so she started reverting my edits to unrelated articles (see [38], [39], [40], [41], and [42]). It turned out I had only created a redirect to the article, which had not been deleted. I just wanted to mention that so you can be prepared for her doing that again.--Carabinieri 22:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : zu gut für Wikipedia. --Dr. Steller&nbsp;[[User talk:Dr. Steller|<sup style="color:lightgreen">e-mail</sup>]] 20:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like a hoax to me, cannot find any German sources about it, which were independent on German Wikipedia. perhaps there is something, but still it looks rather small and not very notable--Ioannes Pragensis 20:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Idiom Magazine[edit]

The Idiom Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

By own admission, underground, given away a free in a local community. Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. 24 Google hits equals not being notable. Bigtop 20:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In fact, when you go to theidiommag.com, there is a link that says to click the mag link and leads to a 404 error. Bigtop 20:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm the one who made the article. What can I do to change it to make it acceptable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skier6770 (talk • contribs).
      • Reply You could supply references showing the magazine has been discussed in reliable sources and is notable in contrast to other magazines of its type. If a topic is not notable, however, there is little that can be done to make an article compliant. --Dhartung | Talk 01:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a notable publication. --Dhartung | Talk 01:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Also, is that supposed to be a copyright notice at the bottom of the article? Maxamegalon2000 06:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and appears to be unverifiable as well. Shimeru 09:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by admin Nihonjoe (nonsense, no context). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Democratic National Convention[edit]

2012 Democratic National Convention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article is an extreme example of crystal-ballery, so absurd that it might even qualify for speedy deletion (a different article has been speedied once). However, I think it's important that it be deleted through process and continue to be deleted until there is notable and verifiable information available about the Convention (i.e. a location is chosen), which won't happen for a few years probably. Savidan 20:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It's too early to happen. Bigtop 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per crystal ball et al. The Rambling Man 20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crystal ball gazing, lack of sources, and facetious tone of article all indicate it is not yet time for this article. Edison 20:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not for the rant therein, then at least kill it until a site has been picked. Caknuck 21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously. Where I come from this sort of thing is known as "getting your retaliation in first". There will be an article about this Convention at some point but let's wait until something is known about it. Sam Blacketer 21:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal ball. Pastordavid 22:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I couldn't even find any real information on cities that may want to bid. Even if there are real potential sources, this article is pointless nonsense as written. --Dhartung | Talk 23:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until we know something about it not in the "Democratic National Convention" article. 1.618033989 00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wow, 2008 elections aren't here, and here we are thinking about the elections after that. What's next, the 2016 Convention article?   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 01:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as patent nonsense, per WP:CSD#G1. This is no crystal ball, only the title implies that. The article itself is blather. I'm tagging it with a speedy. — coelacan talk — 02:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly 21:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody-Disgusting[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB. Large website, but I can't find much of outside references to it[43], and no WP:V sources that discuss it. An Alexa rank of about 30,000 is not truly impressive either[44]. Probably a very good site for horror lovers, but like most specialized forums, not fit for a Wikipedia article. Fram 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. Go ahead and delete it. Is it okay to mirror it on my talk page?--cw1925 20:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just spoke with CW1925 and I do believe the article could be viewed as a good reference for horror fans who are interested in reviews, as well as independent directors withing the horror or cult genre. If I may do a little bit of editing, with the permission that CW just gave me, could I have the opportunity to possibly show the article could be more than just a promotional tool for a single site?

  • Comment You don't need permission to do that, Dreemykreem. If you think you can make a case, go for it, but I think the deletion tag will stay on in the meantime. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, you have five days to improve the article, before this AfD closes. However, it is for Wikipedia not important if the site is very useful or absolute rubbish: the only question is if the site has been the subject of WP:V sources: has the website been written about by reputable sources (so no blogs, other fansites, ...), has it been the subject of articles, TV shows, books (chapters), ...? If not, then we should not have an article about it. We are an encyclopedia, not a web directory. Fram 20:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we've been on Podcasts and in Fangoria. I'll add those later on tonight.--cw1925 22:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I just added it to Wikia.--cw1925 00:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, Bloody-Disgusting's main site (not specifically the forum) is probably the #2 or #3 Horror website on the internet, up with Fangoria and Dread Central. Other than those, I can think of no other site but Bloody-Disgusting that is of the same quality.Docbp87 03:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, sorry. It looks like a decent site, but, you know, there are scores of thousands of decent sites, and we don't want articles on them all. The Wikipedia is weighted toward the web and toward pop culture as it is. There don't appear to be any magazine or newspaper articles about the site or any other proof of notability. If and when it becomes notable, which may happen, that'll be a different story... Herostratus
  • Delete per above. Fails WP:WEB. Eusebeus 13:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone that does a web search for a horror message board will turn up with Bloody-Disgusting at least in the top 5 in the world. It deserves a spot here. love, Gregory

  • Delete unless at least one WP:V source can be found. However, the site itself strongly deserves to be put in the external links sections of horror-related Wikipedia articles. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Allen3 talk 14:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Ross (artist)[edit]

Steve Ross (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No significant edits since merge tag was added, nominating for deletion or merge with Bob Ross Zerbey 20:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's obvious this article gets little attention, it contains no significant information. I'm normally against deleting articles but in this case there's nothing even to merge -- everything in this article is mentioned in Bob Ross -- unless somebody has something significant to add, this is just a waste of space. Professor Ninja 09:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability other than that of his father's; does not meet WP:BIO. Agent 86 00:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hai Binh Nguyen[edit]

Hai Binh Nguyen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Looks like an autobiography; no reason for notability is given in the page. Itub 20:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: A7, no assertion of notability. --Kinu t/c 21:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete db-bio. JuJube 23:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly 21:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Harker[edit]

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

Not notable, Fails WP:BIO DXRAW 20:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very spurious claims to notability. Likely violation of WP:COI, as bulk of article was written by Andimania, who appears to be the subject's former tag team partner. Caknuck 21:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: though i dont like to see British wrestlers removed considering the ammount of unotalbe American ones there are but i think i would have to agree. He is a British title holder but his carrer isnt notable and isnt exactly sourced --- Paulley 22:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above... Addhoc 19:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:ILIKEIT, so no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 21:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zarni[edit]

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

AfD nominated by Okkar. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 21:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a notable bio, but really needs some cleanup. Chris 22:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd vote for keeping it. I have edited it several times already.SimonBillenness 23:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above. Addhoc 12:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep due to withdrawn nomination. --Coredesat 20:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Rare Breed Association[edit]

American Rare Breed Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP. The only claim to notability appears to be that it recognizes new "breeds" of dog which the American Kennel Club does not. A search for the availability of sourcing has turned up nothing of note, being either casual references or not meeting verifiability guidelines. The article was created nearly six months ago and appears to have been abandoned by it's creator. Cheers, Lankybugger 21:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. While the article desperately needs to be re-written and expanded, this organization is the largest rare breed association in the United States and very well known, though perhaps not outside of the dog breeding and showing world. They register, show and promote breeds which have been recognized by the FCI but have not yet been recognized by the AKC. Dogs such as the Coton De Tulear, Cane Corso, Japanese Spitz and Bergamasco are registered by this organization. They are discussed in the books in the Kennel Club Dog Breed series and the Essential series by Howell Book House. Many, many other books (I will be happy to provide a list if necessary) contain a phrase similar to "other kennel clubs, including the United Kennel Club and the American Rare Breed Association", which infers the type of notability the organization has in the dog world. They're even discussed in Breeding Dogs for Dummies by Richard G. Beauchamp (2002) and also appear in the Dogs and Puppies for Dummies books; unless a book about breeding or showing dogs is written specifically about or for the AKC, they are generally discussed at some point. They are certainly discussed more frequently in media targets to dog fanciers than mainstream media, but they greatly exceed the non-trivial published works requirement. Shell babelfish 22:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With all that said, if you'll dig up a couple items which meet WP:RS and prove this meets WP:CORP, I'll happily withdraw my nomination and we can get an admin to speedy keep this thing. As I said, I tried to find some information before posting the AfD as I feel it's patently irresponsible to nom an article without at least attempting to find sources, but my own searching proved futile. Cheers, Lankybugger 23:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Richard G. Beauchamp.Breeding Dogs for Dummies.For Dummies.2002
Gina Spadafori;Marty Becker.Dogs For Dummies, 2nd Edition.For Dummies.2000
Sarah Hodgson.Puppies For Dummies, 2nd Edition.For Dummies.2006
Anne Arch.Old English Sheepdog (Kennel Club Dog Breed Series).Kennel Club Books.2004
Juliette Cunliffe.Pharoah Hound (Kennel Club Dog Breed Series).Kennel Club Books.2004
Susan McCullough.Your New Dog: An Expert Answers Your Every Question.Capital Books.2003
Mordecai Siegal et al.The Good Life: Your Dog's First Year.Simon & Schuster.2002 (this gentleman is president emeritus of the Dog Writers Association of America)
Carlo Devito,Amy Ammen.Everything Dog Book.Adams Media Corporation.1999
Richard G. Beauchamp.The Simple Guide to Showing Your Dog.TFH Publications.2003
Cheryl S. Smith.The Absolute Beginner's Guide to Showing Your Dog.Random House.2001 table of contents
  • Other examples
On DogChannel.com (Dog Fancy magazine's online presence) breed info pages list AKC, UKC, CKC or ARBA groups for each dog. Examples: Caucasian Ovtcharka, Olde English Bulldogge, Tibetan Mastiff
Dog Fancy magazine lists ARBA as one of the acceptable registries for dog owners wishing to submit photographs[45]
Part of About.com not copied from us, ARBA standards are given (and noted) for certain breeds [46]
Various Rare breed parent Kennel Clubs mention ARBA (usually trivial) [47], [48], [49]
Canada's Guide to Dogs discusses ARBA under the basics of registries [50]
  • That's a quick go round of my collection and a few other things I knew of. Since both rabbit breeding and a medical organization use the same initials its a bit hairy searching online; hope that helps! Shell babelfish 02:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly enough for me. If an admin would like to Speedy Keep this, I'm withdrawing my nomination. Cheers, Lankybugger 03:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Shell. Notable organisation, poorly written page. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/tentative keep (Strong Keep if evidence provided) - a brief online search tends to suggest it's bona fide, notable and has a reputation in its niche. (eg amongst rare breed webrings at least, and a decent amount of referencing online.) However what is missing for me is a few solid references to it, by a known reputable dog body, to confirm that in the niche world of rare breeds, this is considered a "known name" and is notable. Get me a few of those and this moves from a tentative to a strong keep. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - found the same webring listed in the top 10 of google references. The webring could itself be suspect (many are), but it does indicate at least a degree of notability. I think it might help if someone could check if they were ever cited as a source for a breed that is considered notable, but I don't have the time (or lately, with the cold, the brainpower) to do that myself right now. Badbilltucker 00:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly 21:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Summers[edit]

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

Seems like WP:FANCRUFT to me. There are no major promotions in which he has won titles. Some opinion in there too, saying he has a "loyal fan base." Orstroeebski 21:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Being in the top 500 isn't notable. Static Universe 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability ::mikmt 00:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Addhoc 19:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CJ Summers belongs on Wikipedia. He is more well known than thousands of other names on Wikipedia.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpana Singh-Chitnis[edit]

Kalpana Singh-Chitnis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Previously speedied as an A7, but recreated with substantial more information that constitutes an assertion of notability. However, participation in a few film endeavors appears to fall well below the threshold of notability per WP:BIO, with no WP:RS indicating notability. Google lends very little, as does IMDb, and the creation of the article by User:Silentriver may indicate a WP:COI issue, vis-a-vis Silent River Pictures And Publications. Delete recommended. --Kinu t/c 21:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 16:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete NRI film director with a minor award for a 16-min short at a small festival (just a mention, not a main prize[51]). Her poetry probably doesn't make the grade for WP:BIO either, but there are mentions of awards[52] that could be worth checking. The title "Bihar Shree" doesn't google except as an award from the Bihar Young Journalists Association (for example[53]). Anything to support the article's claim about an award from the Bihar state government would help. Mereda 16:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete needs extensive wikification/cleanup at a minimum SUBWAYguy 21:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not impressed that you found time to edit war about including several tags and then hit a newbie with warnings, but didn't have time to explain how to wikify or improve the article. Addhoc 16:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, salvageable, but only just. Addhoc 16:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we go by the letter of Note 5 of WP:BIO, this director does not yet qualify for notability. It is very possible that she will do so in the future, but that depends entirely on the writing of third-party articles about her work that will appear in newspapers, magazines or books. I also don't like the WP:COI of her film company apparently writing this article. If the article is kept it ought to be rewritten by a non-affiliated person. If she completes the feature film 'Adios Mi Amigo' and it is widely reviewed and commented on, and if an outsider can write the article, then it might be considered again. EdJohnston 21:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Minehan[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Fails WP:BIO. No sources cited. Valrith 21:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rock mites[edit]

The result was Delete. jimfbleak 16:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Suspected hoax; there are no sources, and no google hits for the given species name Damalinia sedementaria. A google search for "rock mites" (acarina OR acari) yields 15 results, none of which are pertinent. The article is poorly written and scientifically incorrect in several ways ("lice-like arachnids" is silly, since lice are insects and therefore unlike arachnids, which are definitely totally unrelated). Other parts of the article are odd or make no sense ("once the eggs are laid the mother of the eggs expires", "eggs will only hatch on hair, fur, or rock"). IronChris | (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that's a matter of circumstance, if it's obvious nonsense or vandalism, then an article can (and they often are) be speedied. Tubezone 22:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Perhaps, but CSD:1 does explicitly state that a hoax does not fall within the meaning of patent nonsense. Personally, think a hoax should be speediable, but that's not what the policy is currently. -- Whpq 22:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that not all hoaxes are patent nonsense, but I think this one is. And, in practice, the vast majority of hoaxes that make it to AfD are either G1'd or G3'd. Tevildo 22:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a string of words that don't scream nonsense at first blush but are, nevertheless.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G1. It lasted this long?! --Dennisthe2 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, it is not "patent nonsense". I have removed the speedy tag. Patent nonsense is defined in the criteria for speedy deletion as, "Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes." Please note that hoaxes are not patent nonsense as defined for speedy deletion. -- Donald Albury 03:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very obvious hoax. -- Donald Albury 03:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia ---- Creating joke or hoax articles, replacing existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense, or adding silly jokes to existing articles is considered vandalism. So it's speediable as a G3, or WP:SNOW, right? Tubezone 04:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Its not G1 (patent nonsense), but it is G3 (compromise[s] the integrity of the encyclopedia), as per Tubezone. Serpent's Choice 07:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not comfortable speedying this as "pure vandalism". If another admin wants to do so, I won't object. -- Donald Albury 12:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understandable, and were I an admin, I'm not entirely sure that I would either ... in the long run, the deletion-speed of hoaxes and what is considered "pure" vandalism under CSD G3 versus vandalism without an adjective under WP:VANDAL is something that will have to be approached by the community. Serpent's Choice 12:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax or nonsense, its going to be deleted. --Eqdoktor 08:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax article. Absolutely no references in medical sources. The only "rock mites" I found were:

here and even then that's nothing to do with this. --SunStar Nettalk 18:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 03:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD G3 Obvious hoaxes can be speedily deleted as vandalism. Since this article calls rock mites arachnids, they cannot be related to lice, which are insects. However, this article states that they are related to lice later on in the article. Therefore, this is an obvious case to anyone who has had high school biology. Jesse Viviano 15:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 21:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Cory[edit]

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

bio page for NN-chef. possible advert delete Cornell Rockey 21:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Reads like the CV of a subject who fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 13:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not especially advert-ey to my eyes, but doesn't make a good assertion of notability, either. delldot | talk 18:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no decision made, just closed. - brenneman 00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck[edit]

Fuck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - (View AfD)

Article does not include any verifiable sources to back up assertions. Appears to be entirerly original research. —Malber (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. Oh, for this article's sake. Tevildo 21:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The nominator has not put the AfD tag on the article. Normally, I'd do that, but this is such a patently-obvious keep that I don't feel that I should. However, if we're strictly adhering to policy, I suppose somebody should fix this. Tevildo 22:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure what you mean by "does not include any verifiable sources," it's got sources at the bottom of the article where they belong. For the most part; I would say this is a fairly good article, but I could see a transwiki to Wikiticionary (yes, I know, I always spell that wrong). ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nominator has withdrawn the AfD from the log page. I think the actual AfD debate (this page) should be deleted - G6 or G7? - so that any subsequent AfD won't conflict with it. Alternatively, the AfD can be closed in-process. (placed by User:Tevildo in G7 request for this page) SkierRMH 00:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Possible mergers are an editorial matter. Sandstein 21:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yigal Arnon[edit]

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

Bio article that may loosely meet WP:BIO (chairman of 5th this, 2nd that in one country). More problematic is a lack of WP:V from secondary sources online. Most links I have found lead to press releases and the person's business. Article also seems a bit WP:SPAMish. ju66l3r 22:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google may not be, but reliable sources are. Add them or at the very least list them here or there is no verifiability. ju66l3r 18:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to my response to your baseless suggestions. Thanks. ju66l3r 01:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This came up at WP:ANI and it looks like the bias allegation is well-intentioned but groundless. I'm glad some Wikipedians watch out for that kind of misuse. This nomination appears to be based upon policy without any unseemly taint. DurovaCharge 02:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article reads somewhat like an advertisement, and lacks reliable sources. Printed articles commenting on this man or his work would be desirable under WP:RS. Since some editors above have complained about 'mass creation' or 'mass deletion' of articles, I think it's desirable that each article be carefully documented in its own right. There may not be any ongoing community of editors knowledgeable about this man who are willing to participate, so the references may not get any better in the future. EdJohnston 17:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - source indicates he has represented Ehud Olmert. Also, have a look at this Google News Archive search - [54]...Addhoc 20:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Paying creedence to the Ehud Olmert and the Google News Archive listings Addhoc provided, seeing he's the primary subject of many articles. Just added the first Globes newspaper reference [55] to the article. --Oakshade 03:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eitan Law Group[edit]

Eitan Law Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP and could potentially even be speedied for complete lack of assertion of notability. ju66l3r 22:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good job erring on the side of caution, ju66l3r, but I think you're right, we can speedy delete this per A7. delldot | talk 18:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable law firm, or at least no evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a business directory. --Edcolins 20:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, indeed: Non-notable firm. Don't even claim notability. Speedy delete. Edcolins 15:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7 ::mikmt 00:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S. Horowitz & Co.[edit]

S. Horowitz & Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP, possibly WP:SPAM, only assertion of notability is via WP:WEASEL words ("...one of the largest...") with no reliable sources to attempt WP:V. ju66l3r 22:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If you read the profile, than you can see that the minimal info provided is verifiable. As for the good faith, a little homework would show that Horowitz is indeed one of the oldest and largest law firms in Israel and that itself is quite notable. Compared to the major western countries, Horowitz is a small local firm, but in Israel it is significant. --Shuki 23:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No WP:RS providing any of the criteria for WP:CORP...and none that I could find in a brief google search that weren't press releases and other PR from the firm itself. Please point to how it meets WP:CORP. ju66l3r 00:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no asertion of notability and no verifiable sources. Doesn't meet WP:CORP by a long shot. A google search ("S Horowitz & Co") reveals just around 500 links, but they appear to be nothing more than listings. --Dennisthe2 00:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Single sourced, its own company profile handout. Article does not assert any notability to the company. Per nom, does not meet WP:CORP guidelines and other verification issues. Borderline spam. --Eqdoktor 08:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article has been much improved. All it needed was some effort to establish notability and track down the external refs and cites. Still needs more work but is now a viable stub. Israel's third largest law firm, ranked as the leading Israeli recommendation by a lawyer trade magazine guidebook. It is also Israel's rep in the Lex Mundi organization. Notable enough (and with refs) for me --Eqdoktor 08:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a double standard on WP: How about Bingham McCutchen for one? If this goes, than shouldn't all other articles listed in {{law-firm-stub}} be nomnated for Afd s well? --Shuki 21:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Bingham McCutchen has been recognized 3 consecutive years by Fortune magazine for its work environment as one of the best companies to work for. It was also recognized by Boston Business Journal and the San Francisco Chronicle. While these references were not included in the article originally, they do show notability (i.e., recognition by multiple independent news sources). I have not found the same notability for this law firm. ju66l3r 18:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's unfortunate that you don't search in Hebrew, or care to accept the two widely-accepted Israel ratings companies based on your lack of knowledge and language skills. --Shuki 22:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Search in Hebrew, but put the information you find in the article or at the very least in this AfD. Claiming to have found something of import to establishing notability in another language and providing that information to actually establish notability are two different things. As for the "widely-accepted" ratings, you'll have to establish that "fact" as well too. It's not my lack of knowledge that's the problem here, it is the lack of evidence. ju66l3r 05:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 3rd largest law firm in Israel, which is notable. [57]. --Oakshade 05:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I question the use of a "size" ranking index to validate notability. Imagine a situation where every company in a category is ranked by size and listed in an index. If 200 firms exist, then even the 182nd largest company is listed in the index and therefore meets WP:CORP under this interpretation, even if the size of the company is 10 staff. Is size of a company notable? Maybe this is more necessary for clarification on the WP:CORP talk page than this AfD, but when the only thing notable about a law firm is "it hires more lawyers than all but 2 others in Israel", then is it still notable? Surely, the #3 biggest law firm in all of Israel has done something to warrant better notability than that. The thing is that I can't find it. ju66l3r 21:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Israel has over 7 million people in it. As the Jerusalem Post article suggests, Israel is saturated in lawyers (with 33,000 lawyers, there is alot more than 200 law firms in Israel; I'm guessing several thousand). Just the mere scope of a law firm being in the top 20 in such a country is inherently notable. --Oakshade 22:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the #1 largest law firm had 26,000 lawyers, the #2 largest law firm had 5,000 lawyers, and the #3 largest law firm had 900 lawyers (the remaining 100 lawyers spread among #4-#whatever), then you could make an argument that #1 was notable based upon size alone, but that 900 pales in comparison and is therefore less notable (if not completely un-notable based solely on size). This is clearly not the case, but gives an example why size ranking alone is hardly a hearty criteria for notability. Even when companies are recognized by independent reliable sources, we sometimes require multiple recognition as such for notability. To hinge keeping an article solely on a very loose interpretation of WP:CORP criterion #2 (ranking indices) is not in accordance with the guidelines of Wikipedia. This is about as clear as I can make it in stating this argument, so I will probably refrain from any further comment on it. ju66l3r 00:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That argument makes no sense. "If the #1 largest law firm had 26,000 lawyers..." is not based in fact. In fact, the #1 law firm in Israel, Herzog, Fox, Neeman & Co., has 100 employees and 34 partners. That is huge for a law firm. The #10 firm, Fischer, Behar, Chen, Well, Orion & Co., has just over 100. These are very signifficant in a country of just over 7,000,000 and well past the threshold of scope for notable law firms. --Oakshade 03:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just noticed there is a recent string of Israeli law firms and lawyers up for AfD and all of them have come from either User:Ju66l3r or User:Edcolins and with one exception, all of them include votes by one or the other, depending on who created the AfD. They include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yigal Arnon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamburger Evron & Co., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eitan Law Group and this one. I find this very troubling possible vote stacking. At User talk:Ju66l3r, there is actual discussion between the two in deleting ALL Category:Law firms in Israel articles! I won't charge an anti-israeli POV, but with all the anti-Semitism I've encountered recently in Wikipedia, I'm very disturbed that law firms or lawyers from this country are singled out for deletion. --Oakshade 23:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response on discussion talk page to avoid derailment of discussion of article. ju66l3r 00:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This came up at WP:ANI and it looks like the bias allegation is well-intentioned but groundless. I'm glad some Wikipedians watch out for that kind of misuse. This nomination appears to be based upon policy without any unseemly taint. DurovaCharge 02:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient local notability. Needs expansion, though. Caknuck 01:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect - any extra infomation will be in the history.. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Representatives from Minnesota[edit]

List of United States Representatives from Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Information is duplicated in United States Congressional Delegations from Minnesota which is complete Appraiser 22:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect per above. Newyorkbrad 23:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per it being redundant.--Tainter 23:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to United States Congressional Delegations from Minnesota. Might as well put up signposts where we know people have treaded. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Sjakkalle's well-spoken rationale. -- Kicking222 13:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose because there are 49 other "List of United States Representatives from Foo" articles out there with different information from "[United States Congressional Delegations from Foo". See, for example, List of United States Representatives from Massachusetts. These articles list hometowns and reasons for their leaving office. Also, those lists are in alphabetical order.—Markles
  • Strong Keep, Oppose Deletion - The information presented on the list page presents the information in an alphabetical order with additional notes which the delegations page does not allow. Both pages present similar information, but the manner of presentation and differences in detail require that they both be kept withOUT a merge. --Daysleeper47 21:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose, Strong Keep - These articles are here for a reason. While most of them are at the moment woefully inadequate, this one in particular is very well organized. The hope is that the rest of the Representative lists will be completed in the not-too-distant future, but the fact remains that these articles serve a purpose. This is not redundant at all - this shows information on these representatives, as opposed to a graphic representation of when they all served. Valadius 21:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently the only additional information for each Rep. is the exact dates of service. "District Home" has no meaning that I'm aware of (districts have no "seat cities"). As for being alphabetical, I can't see much advantage. Browsers have search features that obviate that need.--Appraiser 22:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Keep for Now. This list is well organized and took some effort, but it is somewhat repetitive. Components of this list can be folded into others. A larger discussion should take place regarding all delegations to eliminate repetitiveness wherever possible, and what lists link to what articles to begin to get some uniformity going. I'm for keeping this list until that happens. As Valadius states above, many lists are woefully inadequate, and we shouldn't be discouraging initiative. As Markles states above, there are 49 other state lists. They should be taken up en masse rather than singling out a particular state, or at least start eliminating ones that haven't been worked on in a while and are incomplete. On the plus side of deletion, by all of us working on less list types, we may get more work done if we agree to some type of format. The problem lies with policing and agreeing to which lists make sense.Pmeleski 23:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to Pmeleski, the discussion and the agreement on the format has been completed and resolved at Project Congress, and hence we have the format for the list of reps and list of senators from Foo articles distinct from the Cong Delegation from Foo article. Lots of dedicated Wikipedians have done amazing work on the entirety of Project Congress--and all Project participants invite your participation to further improve these articles — in the context of the larger project.--G1076 03:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop using AWB to change links in other articles from "List of…" to "U.S. Cong Delegs from…." You're calling it "cleaning up" but it's not cleaning up, it's making a policy change without consensus, and I don't know how to use AWB to change it back.—Markles 01:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many articles link to List of United States Representatives from Minnesota because of the templates that are used across all 50 states. There's no practical way to change which article they link to as long as there is no consensus to merge, rename, or delete the article (as it now seems is the case). However, a few articles explicitly linked here, which I was able to change to link to United States Congressional Delegations from Minnesota. Whenever the "List" article is completed, I wouldn't mind linking the articles here again, but right now only 24 of the ~140 representatives are on the List and the "Delegations" article has all 140 representatives with links to each of their own articles (which several of us worked on completing). I see no reason to deny the reader the link to the much more complete article, when we have the option. You reverted one of the 1/2 dozen or so articles that I changed, but regardless of the outcome of the "merge" discussion, I think the changes I made are improvements. Can you think of any reason to link to the incomplete one at this point, in those few articles that we have a choice about? The point to rename or merge the articles is to pick up the 100s of articles driven here via templates. (The "cleanup" is just what AWB puts in the comment line - I wasn't trying to obscure the actual changes.)--Appraiser 02:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1st reason: each and every other state header in ordinal congress articles links to the list of reps article. 2nd reason: If you are concerned that the reader won't have the benefit of the complete list at the Cong Delegation article, put a see also link on the list of reps article to the Cong Delegation article. 3rd reason: It's a lot easier to add that see also link to one article than to change 100's of other articles now, then change the same 100's of articles back.--G1076 03:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Opppose. I invite user:Appraiser and the other users joining this AfD to join Project Congress to discuss the appropriate manner in which to display the vast amount of data attached to the United States Congress. These lists have been discussed and changed various times over the last year. No change should be made in haste, because in the interest of uniformity, at least 49 other articles need to be changed in like manner.--G1076 02:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent suggestion G1076!Pmeleski 12:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as duplication of material that exists elsewhere and something that a redirect would be inappropriate for. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organ of St. Mary the Virgin, Ewell[edit]

Organ of St. Mary the Virgin, Ewell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Why is this noteable? Should there be an article for every organ in every church? Ballyboo 23:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete even if there is assertion about Notoriety every instrument in the world could have his litle storry. Why not creating the page about the first T-Shirt of Jimbo Wales then ? -- Esurnir 23:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (and redirect) in to Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Ewell.--blue520 23:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Blue520. The "best of several similar instruments built in the Highbury area" is really not very notable at all. --Dhartung | Talk 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Significant detail to add to the church's article, but I don't see it really needing its own article. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the church article. Nuttah68 17:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cashel, Ontario[edit]

Cashel, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Violates WP:LOCAL and WP:CRYSTAL, it's a neighborhood that hasn't even been built yet. Static Universe 23:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable future community. --Tainter 23:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but why did the nominator remove the AfD notice? -- Kicking222 00:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. As to the removal, I'm not sure about that. Dar-Ape 01:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete by Doc glasgow. Tevildo 14:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Dodd[edit]

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

I can find no verification of this. I believe it to be a hoax. Joyous! | Talk 23:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:HOAX. Any real person with that position (chief of Canadian defence) would be easily verifiable. --Dhartung | Talk 23:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete even if it's not a hoax, it still falls under db-bio. JuJube 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing of consequence on google. ditto to Dhartung.--Tainter 23:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill with as much rapidity as possible As if the hoax wasn't obvious enough, this supposed person died 60 years before the post he supposedly held was created. -- Kicking222 00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill per above, then hang up above mantle Wow... this is the most obvious hoax I've seen in my 8 months here. How is it possible that he held the post that was created after he died (unless the creator of the article is reffering to another Canada that only the creator knows of).   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 01:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with time travel Delete per Kicking222 and The RSJ. Newyorkbrad 01:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. --Canley 03:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interfaith Network of UK[edit]

Interfaith Network of UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I saw this in some RC patrolling, unsure of notability, wasn't sure whether to speedy. It doesn't quite assert notability to me, shows no statistics to prove it. At best, stub and clean up. DoomsDay349 23:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now. may be more notable in the future. google search didn't turn up much. there is an offical site which is where this article lifted all of it's text. --Tainter 23:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems just on the right side of notable. The official site mentioned makes out a case for notability in that it isn't the "two men and a dog" type of organisation. One of the co-chairs is the high-profile Bishop of Southwark of "I'm the Bishop of Southwark, it's what I do" fame; his predecessor was Jim Thompson, the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The group has had some media coverage and apparently conducts its own inquiries and issues its own publications. Sam Blacketer 23:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article should make note of these facts, as it is, it appears very unnotable. DoomsDay349 23:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's room for expansion, but the Network's website (added to references) makes them look notable to me. -- Bpmullins | Talk 00:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, pops up in UK media occasionally. the wub "?!" 11:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - brand new page, give it some time for editors to contribute and assert the notability. Pastordavid 17:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and Redirect to Noise rock. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 21:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NoisePunk[edit]

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

AfD nominated by TeN with reason: "this article is mostly nonsense and pure opinion, and the majority of it is identical to (i.e. stolen from) the much more profesionally written Noise Rock article." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 23:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nonnotable. Only 2,050 G-hits. Also unverifiable. bibliomaniac15 00:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find 186 articles on Newsbank for "noise punk". I'll have to look more into it this weekend. My recollection is that this is a valid subgenre of punk although it might already be covered better elsewhere. ~ trialsanderrors 01:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like the list of bands is stolen from Noise rock, and the intro is pretty much unsalvageable, so redirect to Noise rock unless someone can establish that those two are not the same genre. ~ trialsanderrors 16:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Noise rock. - Peregrine Fisher 22:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Stub or Merge, I've heard of it, and know of a few of the bands, the only one I really 'listen' to is AMEN. With a little work this article could become more relevant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emevas (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Stinks of original research, and it's basically redundant with the noise rock page. Could always just blank and redirect. WesleyDodds 10:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Noise rock unless reliable sources establish that there is a difference. SWAdair | Talk 07:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 09:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of instant messaging clients[edit]

I think that we shouldn't have this on Wikipedia. I think it's unencyclopedic and just doesn't belong here. While it is useful, this belongs on a specific website devoted to IMs, not Wikipedia   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 23:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep We have many other "comparison" articles, and I don't think this one is any worse than those I've seen in the past. There's little if any OR (contrary to the article's tagging), all of the info is verifiable, and the page contains useful encyclopedic content. -- Kicking222 00:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Informative, useful, and in line with other comparison articles. I fail to see exactly what is unencyclopedic about it. —Dylan Lake 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kicking222 - all the contents are verifiable. Quack 688 01:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've found several of these software comparison articles useful, factual and neutral - they use easily verifiable facts and specifications, without drawing a conclusion or "rating" the subjects, so no OR involved. --Canley 03:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! Hi, I just found this amazing article and saw that it was foolishly nominated for delete by some random runescape player as noted on the history thingy. I 100000% agree with everything the above smart people have stated. There is no reason to delete this. Policies need to be change to keep up w/ the times. Plus, I hear there is a IAR policy here at wikipedia. As a common user of wikipedia, I speak for the average person-- keep it or we leave!
    • Comment Excuse me, just because I'm some "random" RuneScape player doesn't mean I just go around for fun nominating articles for AfD. I don't know, I guess my opinion has changed with all these reasons.   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 04:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison articles are the BEST! I think whoever disagrees doesn't belong here at Wikipedia, "the free source for information and knowledge." -signed as "if it's good, keep it" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.84.133.100 (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    • Comment Not sure if this was made by the same person above, but regarding your comment "I think whoever disagrees doesn't belong here at Wikipedia", um, so I should be kicked out of Wikipedia because I disagree with something? That's like saying if you don't like Jimbo Wales then you can't join. I'm confused -   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 04:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable, useful, encyclopedic. Maxamegalon2000 06:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Everyone else has pretty much covered the reasons. Chickencha 06:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Okay, assuming that the linked to articles are sourced ok. I'm not a fan of tables or comparison charts, but I guess this is a kind of list in essence. Bwithh 10:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP If this article was deleted, then all the other "comparison" articles would be as well. As long as all the information is kept up to date and organized, it should stay. It has a lot of useful information and is NPOV. --71.250.49.200 23:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cannot see any reason to delete this, while keeping it would benefit readers of our encyclopedia. Yamaguchi先生 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's useful! --h2g2bob 12:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's useful, and encyclopedic. it has NPOV, which is good. it's quite useful for the end user deciding over which messenger program to use. Ccmolik 23:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 10:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poudre High School[edit]

Lack of notability; vanity article Orange Mike 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that you promote the deletion of every other page that is a page about any specific school? As for lack of notability, it would seem to me that they list a lot of note worth things on the page. I would propose clean up rather than deletion. What makes the page for UMW so mush better than this? If pages can be created for any/all universities without reprocutions like this, why can't this stay? DemonOWA 00:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UMW? I don't see what the United Mine Workers has to do with mush, or with any of this. If the school has particular notability on a national level for scholastic achievement, or a history of notable alumni, or high standards, then it would be appropriate; but most elementary and secondary schools don't fit those criteria. "Mr. Ney likes steak" is not encyclopedic data. Read Wikipedia:Schools. --Orange Mike 00:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also According to the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines, it is ok so have a page about a school if: "The school is distinctive in any one of the following areas, or in any other areas for which it has received press or other coverage." Recently there was quite a lot of coverage relating to the Alpine Robotics Team, which is affiliated with the school. Also in numerous national competitions Poudre High school, and it's affiliated programs have been recognized.
Also in the notes section of the WP:SCHOOLS guidelines it states that: "Newspaper coverage includes regular coverage in local media (such as complete stories about a school's athletic program)." Which Poudre High School has been. Orangemike cannot be the judge of this because is not from an area where he has access to local news.
On to note 4 in WP:SCHOOLS guidelines. Although Poudre High School is one of but a few schools in the district, it's academic acheivement is often noted amongst schools in the entire state, and regularly does better than them in many nationally recognized and acclaimed sources such as Newsweek.
Also if you had read anything i had said in the discussion portion of the page you would realise that i did not support the addition of "Mr. Ney Likes steak," and in fact, openly contested it.
UMW was a bad example, what about CSU? What makes a high school less worthy than any number of universities?
And as to the "mush", sorry for not having spell check in my web browser, perhaos you can find it in your big kind heart to look past this? DemonOWA 00:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another notworthy event: Poudre High was asked to go to the Fringe festival in Scotland, and had it's band ascked to play at Carnegie hall in New York City.DemonOWA 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if verified The various high national placements in various competitions would assert sufficient notability, but currently, there's only a link to the robotics team. Thus, if the information about the science competitions is verified, my !vote is a keep. If info is not verified, it is unacceptable for any article, and thus, my !vote is delete. -- Kicking222 00:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The claims have been verified; the school's achievements are certainly notable. -- Kicking222 13:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Universities by definition are more notable than high schools, just as high schools are more likely to be notable than elementary schools or pre-schools. And I do, incidentally, have access to cbs4denver.com and The Coloradoan. Sorry about the mush joke, DemonOWA, but as Mr. Coatman, Mr. Hlawaty, Mrs. Hunt and Mrs. King have undoubtedly told you, people find it harder to take your writing seriously when you appear unable to spell or use correct language. --Orange Mike 00:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit to seeing that Poudre High School is noteworthy in our local, and state area, and if that is the case then it under the noteworthy section of WP:SCHOOLS DemonOWA 01:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a reasonable subject for an article, although I am not sure about including 100% of the content. Note to Orangemike and DemonOWA: personal gibes between real-world acquaintances, whether intended seriously or (as I hope) as just friendly teasing, don't really belong here. Newyorkbrad 01:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that none of the claims were cited originally and that is completely inappropriate to make unsubstantiated claims. DemonOWA and myself have added citations to reputable third party confirmation of the many of the claims and will continue to do so. To the best of my knowledge the information listed on the page is correct. Variable Z 02:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I obviously want to keep this page open, though I am not sure if my vote counts here. DemonOWA 03:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: this is not a vote. If you have anything to add to the discussion, that will be considered. --Pak21 09:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks well-enough cited now to establish notability. Shimeru 10:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article makes explicit claims of notability in compliance with WP:SCHOOL with reliable sources. Alansohn 13:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Notable. Hey, this forum is slowly becoming the High School Article Improvement Drive (HSAID)! The page looks decent but it needs more citations. — RJH (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is much improved from when I nominated it, which is one of the hoped-for results of an AfD nomination! --Orange Mike 23:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets all relevant proposed guidelines and policies for inclusion. Silensor 00:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per commenters above. Any school that has IB is notable, but isn't it a waste of time to search for EVERY high school article and nominate it for deletion just for notability? Schools are, in fact, inherently notable enough to be here on Wikipedia. Zadernet 08:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_11&oldid=1116878136"