Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 12

< January 11	January 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was 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]

Nerp: Nefarious Evil Resident Pollitick[edit]

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

WP:nonsense as well as being a vanity page of sorts. Also states that very little can be revealved about it. not good for an encyclopedia entry.--Tainter 04:25, 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. No need for the debate to continue, with the very strong consensus shown here. Mango juice^talk 13:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Online medical education[edit]

Nominating this article for deletion under the WP:NOT policy, specifically 1.4: Not a Soapbox. This entry is not an encyclopedia article, but rather a very POV essay written in support of the concept of online medical schools. The author is the same as the author of World Health Medical School, and one can only assume that this essay was written in support of his online medical school. At this time, there are no accredited online medical schools. Contested prod. Leuko 00:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Leuko. Also seems to push the original essay boundaries of WP:NOT. -- MarcoTolo 00:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay, and a very POV essay. Also, although I recognise that this is not in itself a reason for delete, his basic premise regarding the viability of on-line medical education is hopelessly flawed.--Anthony.bradbury 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is truly a very POV essay, as said by Anthony Bradbury. Big top 00:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an essay, with facts and references, but not an article Pleclech 01:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ack, per nom, the article is basically a POV essay. Arjun 01:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything's already been said.Gan fon 01:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Ronbo76 01:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The original nominator expressed my sentiments. --Ox-Puller 02:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Qwertyca 02:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody. Just H 02:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom purple monkey dishwasher. JuJube 02:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all you wonderful people. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NPOV. JRHorse 03:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAPBOX -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a personal essay. JIP | Talk 05:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Maxamegalon2000 06:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all.SetofFive 07:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per all. -- Greaser 08:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. Doesn't even contain information on (or sourced criticism of) continuing medical education provided online by notable organizations such as Emedicine. --Charlene 13:36, 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 Speedy deleted by User:Nihonjoe as nonsense. BryanG^(talk) 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flood the Block: The Rise and Fall of Fitzy[edit]

I can find no verification that this documentary exists. Joyous! | Talk 00:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as nonsense. Also could work for nocontext or nocontent. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 00:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparent nonsense. "Flood the Block" is a song by the band Mobb Deep ([1], and "Rise and Fall of Fitzy" returns only three hits to two mirrors and Wikipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense (per Dennisthe2) -- MarcoTolo 00:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it has a {{db-nonsense}} tag on it. Why are we discussing it?--Anthony.bradbury 00:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yeah it has the nonsense tag on it. Speedy Arjun 01:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom; non-sense. Big top 01:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. No entry on IMDb or other websites. Ronbo76 01:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparent nonsense. --Ox-Puller 02:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete which looks to have already happened. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:35, 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 to Sophie Delezio ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Delezio[edit]

This is an article and unverified article about a living individual with no notability beyond having a disabled daughter and campaigning for her cause. My merge was questioned by another editor so I am bringing it here. --Peta 00:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the claim that he was named father of the year was sourced, that alone would not meet WP:BIO. Likewise, being on the periphery of someone more famous does not allowing piggybacking onto that fame, even if the daughter has been the subject of multiple, not-trivial treatment in reliable sources.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fug's comments illustrate how deletionists operate. The suggestion that the FoTY award was a figment of someone's imagination is clearly made in bad faith. Fug could have done a quick SE search and amended the article (if it needed to be) - rather he uses this transparent device to attempt to sway casual observers that the article has no merit. Albatross2147 00:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if his daughter, with whom we sympathise, were notable, that would not make him so. If he were a major fundraiser for important charities that might carry some weight, but there is no indication that this is so.--Anthony.bradbury 00:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Will you please explain how you have come to believe that the daughter is not notable as well. Both father and daughter meet WP:BIO As a deletionist you should think about recusing yourself from these "votes" and restrict yourself to comments. Albatross2147 00:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are two sources for his Australian Father of the Year award. These reference are from Australian news media, both of which are reliable sources. He is honoured (and notable) as a significant fundraiser for the Day of Difference Foundation, not because of who his daughter is. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sophie Delezio. These awards are not really sufficient notability in themselves, but there's no reason they can't be mentioned as part of his daughter's article. --Dhartung | Talk 01:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sophie Delezio. The daughter is notable and so are the awards, however the breif bio. of the Mr. Delezio is not notable enough to have it's own article. I do think it fits in just fine with the daughter's though.Gan fon 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sophie Delezio. John Vandenberg 03:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sophie Delezio - If he does enough speaking he may become notable in the future. Reference needs to be moved to Australian Father of the Year award.Ga rr ie 05:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Very Strong Keep - Delezio is notable in NSW and Australia. As pointed out he is a significant fundraiser and advocate for disabled people. This is a bad faith and petulant nom by the deletionist nominator who didn't like being challeged vide his/her statement in my talk when challenged on the earlier peremptory deletion I am an editor; I can make decisions. I don't need permission.. This idiotic statement should be enough to rule out the AfD nomination although the article does need expansion. One reason it has not been expanded is that as the article relates to a living person who lives a largely private life but does some notable things (albeit in an Australian context). Albatross2147 08:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sophie Delezio, being 'newsworthy' is not to be encyclopaedic. This information would be much better served in Sophie's article. If the merge fails, delete -- Greaser 08:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DXRAW 09:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sophie Delezio. On its own, this article does not make notability requirements. His deeds are known quite publicly to Australians. As said by Greaser if the merge fails, then delete. --Ali K 10:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unclear why the father or the daughter are encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 10:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TruthbringerToronto. Due to his fundraising and other actions, he's gotten wide press attention in his own right beyond simply being the father of a disabled daughter. The two Australian awards, now sourced, help establish that. -SpuriousQ 11:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable in Australia. Notability now verified by reliable sources. --Charlene 13:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced, encyclopaedic biography article that passes WP:BIO - why are we even discussing this? WilyD 15:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As stated elsehere this is a bad faith nom by a petulant admin. I reiterate the example of their "I don't like it I am gunna delete it" attitude: I am an editor; I can make decisions. I don't need permission. Albatross2147 23:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Anthony.bradbury — Brother Flounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 17:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:BIO with reliabble sources provided for verification. -- Whpq 18:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sophie Delezio. In so far as he may be notable, it is as Sophie's father, not in his own right. Coemgenus 20:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that he meets a WP:BIO criterion for being notable in his own right, care to elaborate? WilyD 21:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The text in the article regarding Day of Difference Foundation is incorrect due to omissions. He actually created the charity after his daughters accident, and is the chairman. [2] While I applaud the man for his efforts, the charity is only notable due to his daughter's plight. Also, the father of the year award is not reason for notability in itself; the award is primarily about raising funds for charity. John Vandenberg 22:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Jayvdb's comment is. frankly, rubbish. The Father of the Year award is a fund raising vehicle BUT if you look at the list of the recipients you will find that almost all of them have articles in Wp or ought to because of their prominence in Australian history. That is to say the award is taken seriously by the award committee, the recipients and the Australian public perhaps even more than the Australian of the Year award which has been somewhat devalued by the continual awards to nondescript sports people. Albatross2147 00:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And Lee Harvey Oswald is only notable for shooting JFK - yet he gets his own article. WilyD 07:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And all those rooly rooly notable fat-arse "M"LB baseball players from the sixties. Albatross2147 03:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I was leaning to merge, however the key point for me is that he has become (where originally he was not) notable in his own right - eg [3] judge for Take 5 Magazine's 'Young Brave Hearts awards'; [4] Australian Festival of Light Citizenship Award yadda yadda yadda - over 2,000 hits on Google. Springnuts 23:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subject was nominated for Australian of the Year, but does not appear on what seems to be the list of finalists. I'm not sure whether merge or keep would be better; outright deletion would be wrong. Eludium-q36 10:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as 2006 Australian Father of the Year. I would not vote keep as father of Sophie Delezio (probably wouldn't even vote keep on her). --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, "Father of the Year" seems like a pretty marginal award, and I don't think it makes him very notable, but I think it makes him notable enough to pass, and the article has that all-important feature: sources! Meets WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BIO, even if it's just barely on that last. (And no, I don't think he's only known because of his daughter--it actually looks like it's the other way around. I would probably vote to delete an article on her.) Xtifr _tälk 12:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Springnuts. It's true that he was originally notable only because of his daughter, but since then, he's established enough of a public presence to become notable in his own right. Quack 688 13:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sophie Delezio. Father's notability only via his daughter. Eusebeus 20:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto/from Sophie Delezio. All the father's actions and notability are a direct result of Sophie's accidents, and so the two are inextricably linked, as they do not have independent notability. Ohconfucius 02:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly satisfies WP:BIO. The previous two comments also accept that the subject is notable, so I wonder if they meant keep. Or should we merge George Washington into United States for the same reason? CiaranG 13:50, 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 00:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carnosity[edit]

WP is not a dictionary. YechielMan 00:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. -- MarcoTolo 00:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. This is not just a dictionary definition, it is an actual disease. Arjun 01:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. This seems interesting and, as a medical condition/disease, I'm sure there is more that could be said. Treatment? Prognosis? Rarity? --Ox-Puller 02:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This seems to be a borderline case illustrating the fine line between what should and should not be transwikied to Wiktionary. It is true that currently the article is merely a dicdef. However I believe there is potential for it to grow into a proper encyclopedic article (even if a short one). I think only those dicdefs should be moved to Wikitionary which cannot possibly be expanded into proper articles and will forever remain just that, dictionary definitions. I don't think this is the case here; it is of course a merest stub, but all things begin small. -- Ekjon Lok 02:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per Arjun. —dima/s-ko/ 02:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is unverified information. Without sources, it ought to be deleted.Nick Graves 03:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand per Arjun. JRHorse 03:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A carnosity isn't really a standalone disease or condition, more a specific medical term -- much like saying ecchymosis vs bruise. Since carnosity links to tubercle (another stub), what about a merge? (Note to Admin: this is not intended as another !vote, simply an alternative to my original transwiki suggestion above). -- MarcoTolo 03:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a medical condition, it is encyclopedic. Article has potential to be expanded. —Brim 06:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; it's not a medical condition as far as I can tell. It is a medical term, as well as a general term. ([5], [6]), and I don't think an encyclopedia article could grow from this alone. Wouldn't be opposed to having it included in another relevant article, however. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but provide better referencing and expand. Yamaguchi先生 03:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. I agree with Fang Aili that it seems to be a medical term, not an actual condition, but it still needs a dictionary definition on Wiktionary. As for Wikipedia, no objection to a merge or redirect to Tubercle (anatomy), as long as someone can conclusively say that they're actually the same thing. Quack 688 09:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being a stub is no reason to delete a page. --h2g2bob 18:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no matter what it is, a medical condition or a disease, it is encyclopedia material. So keep and give it a chance for expansion and referencing. ← ANAS ^Talk? 02:44, 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. The keep opinions have not proven that this article meets WP:BIO. Coverage in reliable secondary sources is key here, and "independent reviews" are held to this standard as well. Grand master ka 08:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald del Campo (2nd nomination)[edit]

1st AFD from 8/9/2006

Delete Geral Del Campo, while an author of occult books, is not a notable person. His contributions to occultism are minimal and only within the organization OTO is he recognized as an authority. I harbor no personal ill-will towards Mr. Del Campo at all and I feel that this article would be better served in www.thelemapedia.org than here. Subject is not worthy of inclusion in a broad-based, general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia.org. Subject's literary works are marginal in the field of occultism and are of interest to only a small percentage of a specific sect (Thelemites.)

Delete - While an cursory look at the article may imply notability, further research only showed 3 unique google hits. Seems like he might be notable to a few people, but not notable to pass WP:BIO. No Google news hits, no hits from reliable source. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sounds a bit outside the mainstream of authors, but he isn't necessarily non-notable. His books are on Amazon [7] and are actually given favorable reviews by some folks. As a "[p]ublished author ... who received multiple independent reviews" for his books, I'd say he's at least marginally notable under WP:BIO. Coemgenus 20:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon sells self-published books, and "reviews" on the amazon site are not what WP:BIO is referring to by "independent reviews". Pete.Hurd 16:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Coemgenus. If you've got an ISBN to your name, you're notable to me. Just H 21:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN numbers are given out like confetti. For example, in Finland, Sweden, Norway & Denmark, every single university thesis gets an ISBN number, it may also be true in the USA, I don't know. Merely self-publishing a book is obviously contrary to WP:BIO's standard of notability. Pete.Hurd 16:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anyone can write a nonsense book, get it published in limited edition, and achieve an ISBN. That does not make the author notable. Notable means generally so, not merely to a small clique.--Anthony.bradbury 22:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that they got it published by someone other than themselves fits within the definition of "published author" at WP:BIO. I'd agree that self-published work doesn't count there and that should be changed. Just H 23:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Notable means generally so, not merely to a small clique." I couldn't disagree more. Notable doesn't mean generally so, even in the context of Wikipedia. There are many people who never enter general awareness yet deserve an article. For example, if you aren't a physicist it's likely that you'd never hear of Robert H. Dicke, yet it's perfectly suitable that there be a Wikipedia article on him. --Jackhorkheimer 05:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. You make a good point, Jackhorkheimer. However, let me give you a counter-example. I live in an area where the Boy Scouts of America is a large, thriving, and viable organization. They have thousands of members in the "council" region where I live and have numerous property holdings (more even that many minority religious organizations, i.e. the Ordo Templi Orientis.) The leaders of this "Chocoloco Council" (as it is called) have significant influence over the community and many fully grown, adult men still maintain connections with the BSA and the Order of the Arrow. Now, the question raised here is, Do the individual leaders of the Chocoloco Council in Northeast Alabama warrant inclusion in Wikipedia? Remember, this group is a potent force within the Boy Scouts of America which is a potent religio-polticial force within America! Should "Scout Master John X" from down the road have a Wikipedia entry simply because he elected, appointed, or otherwise empowered "Council Leader" and/or because he writes/revises a Scout manual, issues an article for "Boy's Life" magazine, or otherwise makes some small contribution to Scouting? Or should the inclusion criteria be broader, more catholic (in the lower-case "c" use of the word) than that? I would argue that this is a slippery slope argument. You must be careful regarding criteria for inclusion because publications alone may not suffice to merit notability. Likewise, should Wikipedia include every author of every minor religious tract ever written on the basis that some such piece of literature "saved thousands of souls?" The slope is slippery, indeed. Mens Keper RaEyes down, human. 22:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per arguments above Pete.Hurd 02:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's getting involved in publically-accessible webzines (e.g. www.rendingtheveil.com) and releasing new material, increasing his relevance and visibility online.Sheta 13:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 13:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is well and good but I notice by your name and a quick scan of the site that you are affiliated with this website. I am also attempting to verify that this site is in no ways affiliated with any of the religio-spiritual organizations of which Mr. Del Campo is a member. Unfortunately, doing a WHOIS lookup on the URL is proving useless. Can you please give some history of this website's service, its function, its creation date, and over-all history? One of the central guidelines of Wikipedia ("pillars" I believe they are called) is that Wikipedia does not serve as an advertising service for companies, persons, religious organizations, charitable organizations, or websites. Mens Keper Ra Eyes down, human. 22:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Well if we're going to examine the person behind the contributions, I'm curious: are you the same user as Mod176? I'm just wondering because your contributions bear a striking similarity to theirs, particularly as regard to AFDs. --Jackhorkheimer 07:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment'. No. I am not "Mod176" nor do I have any idea who that may be. I would like to suggest to you that just because I target certain articles for deletion does not mean that I am another user or editor. However, please note that the articles I have tagged for deletion pertain to persons who operate on the fringes of the occult community (with which I am intimately familiar.) That others may be familiar with these people (and thus doubt the validity of their inclusion in Wikipedia) is not entirely ureasonable. Eyes down, human. 09:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above. NN author. Eusebeus 21:52, 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. Support here for transwiki is pretty underwhelming, and since the word does not occur in the OED, I don't see it. I'll provide the content for any wiktionarian who disagrees, however. Chick Bowen 06:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mensiversary[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and even if it were, this word is a neologism not in standard dictionaries (see discussion by Google answers. YechielMan 00:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible transwiki to Wiktionary per nom. Big top 00:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism, or transwiki per nom. -- MarcoTolo 01:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclodpaedic.--Ox-Puller 02:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. It's not a neologism - according to Google Books, the editor of The Cornhill Magazine (either George Smith or William Makepeace Thackeray) used it some time between 1860 and 1862, as did the Rt. Hon. James Mackintosh in 1836. Not surprisingly, it was also a favourite of William F. Buckley. It is, however, a dicdef, and therefore should go to Wiktionary. Edited. --Charlene 13:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Yechieman, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I think transferring it to wikipedia is a good idea :) Rasillon 16:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism — Brother Flounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 17:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as the sources seem sufficient to establish its existence, if not huge popularity. If anyone could add some discussion of customs or history of monthly celebrations, it could stand as an encyclopedia article. There is the Month's Mind (which was notable enough for the EB 1911, although it has no oncoming links), can anyone think of others? If not, perhaps a redirect to month and a mention of it there. Rigadoun (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete as a Neologism -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. I actually saw this word used in William Buckley's column in National Review a few years ago. I've used it myself to replace the jarring phrase "six-month anniversary." Still, it's just a definition and will likely never be more, so I'd say move it to Wiktionary. Coemgenus 20:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move - Agree with the comments above. It's a definition and should be placed on Wikitionary. Tellyaddict ^Talk20:51

13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was I would have speedied it. Grand master ka 08:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fun Ship Freddy[edit]

Not notable, nor verifiable. Possible candidate for speedy deletion. YechielMan 00:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything here is already included in Carnival Cruise Line. SkierRMH 00:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Included in Carnival Cruise Line. Big top 00:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not notable enough to deserve, also it's length may not even meet the def. of 'stub'.Gan fon 01:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as sub-stub per Ganfon. -- MarcoTolo 01:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I guess this isn't really a speedy candidate since it does provide context (limited as it may be). Still !voting Delete as a non-useful sub-stub. -- MarcoTolo 02:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Non-notable, non verifiable. --Ox-Puller 02:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable or veifiable -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Carnival Cruises. JIP | Talk 05:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable •CHILLDOUBT• 16:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Whpq 19:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indeed. Coemgenus 20:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:JIP Delete or mergeDUBJAY04 21:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then possibly redirect to the cruise line. This needn't have gone to AFD, though - the redirect should have been done. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 03:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to have no encyclopedic relevance.Tellyaddict^Talk20:53

13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Grand master ka 08:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional time travelers who have visited the Reign of Terror[edit]

I can't begin to contemplate the number of ways this is unencyclopedic... juxtapositions of two different things to form a subject are rarely if even good ideas, to start with, and this one iks a textbook case of an indiscriminate collection of information. Being a tawdry list with ostensibly two items (yes, there are six names, but all from two episodes of TV programmes) doesn't help matters. Cruftcruftcruftycruftcruft. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pleclech 01:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless reliable sources emerge that these visits to the Reign of Terror took place (which would be notable). --Dhartung | Talk 01:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that's a pretty pointless list! --Canley 02:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per unbelievable triviality. --Haemo 02:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow. WP:BAI. Mango juice^talk 02:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment you know, you could have made the your point just as effectively without calling this cruft. FrozenPurpleCube 04:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I calls it as I sees it. You saying it isn't cruft? Grutness...wha? 01:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless, unencyclopedic list -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't legitimate information. We might as well have a category for "How many and what types of blue socks are in my top dresser drawer" if this level of stuff gets added. Mens.Keper.Ra
Delete, too specific and narrow subject makes this list useless. JIP | Talk 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Wow. came back to add a few more examples to something clearly labeled 'stub' and look what I find. This list was created because someone specifically said to me aloud they wished wikipedia had this info - so clearly it's information needed by the world. It neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg to have verifiable information here, and if as Grutness, an alleged incrementalist, said, the complaint is partially that it is not very fleshed out, well it IS a two day old stub that is being worked on. sheesh. I am so damn sick of the Wikipedia anti-time travel list lobby/cabal - it's this cabal more than any other that is ruining the Wikipedia. --John Kenneth Fisher 06:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While information on what periods people have travelled to might be appropriate, perhaps you might want to start in a different direction, say by making a list of time travelers by era (or type. Sam Beckett is a different kind of time traveler than say the Protagonist of the book by Wells) instead of just concentrating on this singular example? At some point in time, I suppose the people who visited the Reing of Terror might be a large enough section of such a list to deserve a spin-off, but that is not yet demonstrated. FrozenPurpleCube 19:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I will likely do that... and I won't make the mistake I made here of putting it up early thinking other people will flesh it out while I'm still adding to it. --John Kenneth Fisher 19:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - sure I'm an incrementalist - I even coined the term and wrote the metawiki article on it. Incrementalism doesn't support the idea that any tiny subject is appropriate at a given point in Wikipedia's development. Maybe, just maybe, when Wikipedia is ten times the size it is today, such an article will fit alongside articles of equal worth. But WP is yet to reach that stage, and this article doesn't fit with current expectations of what a Wikipedia article should be. As an incrementalist I agree with FrozenPurpleCube's comments on starting with a larger, more appropriate list, and only breaking out smaller subtypes as and when they become approriate. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm as pro-time-traveler-list as anybody, but this is clearly overcategorization, which is distinctly warned against. (Though I can't remember the document name) -- Y|yukichigai 06:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any more specific and they'd be visiting my house. How is visiting a location or event in any way notable? – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This criterion does discriminate at least, but it is way too specific to provide anything useful to the readers. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of how well referenced this might be able to become, it opens the door for as many List of fictional time travelers who have visited the foo period as we can name foo periods. There are a lot of foo periods. Let's deem this arbitrary and overcategorization and stop here. Serpent's Choice 07:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Credit where credit is due: this is one of the most absurdly trivial lists I have seen. I shudder at the infinite number of spins offs this list could generate if not stopped in its tracks. Perhaps all articles about historic events should have such a list attached? Shudder, WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 09:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, verifiability is necessary but not sufficient for an article. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm really not sure how this list is helpful or necessary, and the accusations of an "anti-time travel list cabal" really don't help that understanding. Seraphimblade 11:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too specific and unlikely to be expanded beyond the, really, only two examples. 23skidoo 13:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we could merge this article into another related one, it doesn't meet the priority for Wikipedia. But it could help add to an exsisting article. Rasillon 16:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. — Brother Flounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 17:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Given that the first revision description is Clearly the most important article Wikipedia has ever produced - but needs fleshing out. and the author stated "someone specifically said to me aloud they wished wikipedia had this info - so clearly it's information needed by the world.", I'm guessing this is some kind of hoax or bad joke. Ha ha, we get it, you're bored. --Vossanova ^o< 18:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Was having fun with it, yes, but it was my brother working on an essay for school that mentioned that he looked in the Wikipedia for this info and couldn't find it. I suspected it wouldn't stand, and I admittedly was amused by it as I wrote the revision description, but it was not a joke, and was not a hoax, and was, as I said, added because I knew it was being looked for. I'd trot out AGF, but I can't exactly blame you for jumping to that conclusion, wrong as it is. --John Kenneth Fisher 19:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia -- Whpq 19:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete beyond trivial -- Bill W. Smith, Jr. 19:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just silly, and I'd hate to set a precedent with similar lists for other events/time periods (time travellers who have visited prehistoric times, time travellers who have visited the JFK shooting, etc.) The Reign of Terror article has several sections about fictional treatments, this could easily be worked in there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 20:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Wikipedia is ment to have information that a normal encylopedia might have. I often call it "The source of all knowledge". This certainly counts as knowledge ( as most stuff does). It is ridiculous to say that this is "unencyclooedic" when it isnt supposed to be! its supposed to be "Wikipedic" (cheesy, right?). Nick Scratch 22:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you. However, this is not exactly a good example of an article that should be brought up as a martyr toward this end. "We want more diverse knowledge, like this!" "Oh yeah? Looks like trivial crap to me." (This is kind of like the "Save Betamax" campaign - People went "but I've already had VHS VCRs for the past decade or so, get on with the times" when the campaign was actually about the Betamax decision rather than Betamax itself...) I like diverse and even unusual information. However, this is not the information people really will need anyway. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About a month ago I nominated another list as the most banal list of all time. But I was wrong, because here is the champion. Wholly trivial, wholly pointless, grossly incomplete (quotes only two tv programmes),totally useless, completely non-wikipedic and why are we even talking about it? Make it go away!--Anthony.bradbury 22:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Odd idea, I give it that... but unlikely to be useful (in any sense of word) as a trivia list by any stretch of imagination. "Reign of Terror in popular culture" might be acceptable - this, I don't know... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The point of lists and categories is to make it easier to find articles on Wikipedia. If someone wants to find out about this, they can get there through articles like Time travel in fiction or Reign of Terror. Keeping this would open the door to lists like List of Star Wars characters who've visited Endor and List of politicians who've eaten at the George St McDonald's in Sydney. While verifiable, none of these things are particularly character-defining. Quack 688 11:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, only slightly less bizarrely, List of Hindi Film Stars who have been to Mauritius, which did once exist... Joe 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Silly or not, the subject is already adequately covered in Reign_of_Terror#Treatment_in_television Peter Grey 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated by nominator.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zahir13 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Delete - This is original research.. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 20:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PMID 8474513[edit]

Minor point is that the research paper's name is not the PubMed abstract number later given. this might suggest at least a rename/move.

Furthermore PMID followed by a space is automatically externally linked by the wikimedia software and article names are not noramlly links offsite.

Major reason is that this is reporting of just one study, so:

fails describe background to purpose of study (that screening might reduce rates of colon cancer)
fails describe if advances knowledge or changes clinical practice (i.e. fails establish notability for inclusion in an encyclopaedia)
- This of course needs great care as dewscribing how a large study is important or has changed clinical practice risks being personal opinion (i.e. fall foul of WP:No original research), unless one can cite reliable 3rd party sources to verify any claims made on behalf of the study's influence.
Wikipedia is not a directory listings and that should include listing out all and any research papers.
If this study has a major influence, then surely better as a footnoted citation in an updated Colorectal cancer or Fecal occult blood test articles.

These major points (re whether appropriate at all to have article on this paper) suggests to me an AfD David Ruben ^Talk 00:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is very nicely wikified, but wikipedia is not a directory of journal articles. Wouldn't it be an ideal world if all journals were freely available and published in cross-reference wiki format? To paraphrase Jimbo Wales, Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge... including scholarly research. Only problem is getting the print journals to allow concurrent publication in a wiki database. Dlodge 00:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the carefully laid-out points above. -- MarcoTolo 01:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. No WP:NOTABILITY asserted. What makes this particular study and paper (NB: not the broader scientific topic(s) in general) important beyond being a footnote or sentence in articles on the topic? DMacks 01:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move the material to colon cancer. Andrew73 02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Journal articles would belong on Wikisource if they satisfy its inclusion policy. John Vandenberg 03:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. As a result of my discussion with Badgettrg I am convinced that the topic is notable, and DGG has done the leg work to confirm the details. The current article text forms a good foundation for the expanded topic and it already also meets WP:V, so I dont see that the article must be rewritten before it is acceptable. I have added a todo list on the talk page listing a few of the suggestions that have been made during this Afd. John Vandenberg 06:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Brim 06:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep for the moment - I do not see a problem with an article that reports one study. In fact, WikiPedia has many such examples. Look at Framingham Heart Study, Tuskegee study, Nurses' Health Study, British Doctors Study, National Comorbidity Study, Middletown studies, Whitehall Study, Heart Protection Study, Stanford prison experiment, Milgram experiment, Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study, The Gothenburg Study of Children with DAMP, 1964 Chesapeake Bay crossing study. Admittedly some of these are noted for historical reasons, but many are not. Some suffer from not having their numeric results summarized in a standard way that may influence the decision making of doctors and patients. Because the Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study (that we are discussing), and many other studies report their benefit in relative terms only, they can be misleading (see research on reporting problems: PMID 8474513, PMID 14687273, PMID 10612327, etc). I am hoping that PMID 8474513 leads to a template on scientific reporting. A decision to delete here for WP:NOTABILITY seems an arbitrary value judgment. So WikiPedia can have subtle Star Trek and Andy Griffith trivia, but cannot have a report of an article that affected people's health? WK has templates for baseball scores, but not for scientific reporting? If you delete this for lack of notability, you start a slippery slope - where do you draw the line? Does everyone have the same values on WP:NOTABILITY as you?

To me as the author, the better question is how to fix what I have started. Does an article in its first 24 hours of life have to be perfect to avoid deletion? The shortcomings listed above are accurate and I will get to them. The toughest point to fix that you make is the naming of this article - the article probably needs renaming. Keeping the [PMID] in the name helps it be linked to related content around the web (like shopping on the web with a model number rather than a description). Should the name be be 'Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study' as done by the studies listed above? Problem is that are multiple publications from the study and so this would not be a unique name. How about 'Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study (PMID 7580661)'. This seems tedious, but better bibliographically.

This is a very interesting discussion. Regardless of the fate of this article, how is the current discussion archived? Please pardon any deviations I may take from WikiPedia norms, this is a new process to me.

Thanks - Badgettrg 11:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This study does not present itself as significantly notable enough to be compared with British Doctors Study, which has been running from 1951 to 2001. I'm sure the same applied to other studies you have mentioned. Note that British Doctors Study covers many publications related to the same study, rather than an individual publication on a topic. If the topic this article covers is comparable with the studies you have mentioned, the article needs to be expand to demonstrate this. A new article name will become apparent as a result of the expansion. John Vandenberg 13:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - When I go to British Doctors Study and judge their original source (BMJ 1954), it has 211 citations in other medical journals per Institute for Scientific Information. The more recent article cited (BMJ 2004) has 135 citations. The Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study that I am reporting has 1231 citations. While I am perseverating on this one imperfect metric, the point of it is subjective judgments of notability of this study are risky.Badgettrg 14:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Those figures are a good start, but ground-breaking and scholarly are not sufficient to meet my notability yardstick. As the basis of my previous comment, I found 374 google hits on "British Doctors Study"; having briefly looked through those results, it appears that the study is referenced by govt agencies (other than the UK) and laymen, reinforcing its notability and reason for inclusion in Wikipedia. I've now done the same for "Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study" and found 343 hits, and they appear to put it in the same league.

To a certain extent, inclusion will also be based on subjective judgements, and inclusion of this study will be used to justify the inclusion of others (if not on paper, it will certainly be used as rationale inside peoples heads). i.e. there is a slippery slope on the other side of this hill. I am definitely warming to this article being kept as Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study.

Also, perhaps you can provide some detail regarding the relationship between this study and The Cancer Center at the University of Minnesota. John Vandenberg 21:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current discussion is archived indefinitely at this URL. If the outcome is to delete the article, the article (not this discussion) will disappear completely, except that it can be viewed by admins. If you wish to preserve the effort put into this article (e.g. in order to use the text in another article), back up the text yourself on a user subpage. John Vandenberg 13:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Thanks for the tip. I have now done so at user:Badgettrg.
Delete. Journal articles are not inherently notable; notability needs to be shown by outside references like everything else. --Prosfilaes 13:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I think it very risky to judge the WP:notability of this article without expertise in both the clinical topic (colorectal cancer screening) and in medical publishing. I would not judge WP:notability outside domains of my expertise such as physics. What is the basis for judging notability here? Do we have a means for measuring of the notability of this article? According to the Institute for Scientific Information, this article has been cited by other medical journals 1231 times as of today. This makes is a very impactful study. Please explain the basis for Wikipedia allowing an article on Aunt Bee and not on one of the most important studies of colorectal cancer screening [personally, I like the The Andy Griffith Show show very much, so no offense intended towards its aficionados]?

Here is more explanation of the purpose of my wanting to summarize and individual study. Editing medical articles to the highest standards of evidence-based medicine is very hard and time consuming. Summarizing individual studies in a structured way can help users reading this topic, and in addition, can be building blocks to help experts write the larger topic (in this case, screening for colorectal cancer). The summary I am working on is based on the work of others(PMID 15588311, PMID 15579428, PMID 15204609, PMID 15105349, PMID 14728311, PMID 11702349). In case anyone is worried, I have no conflict of interest in promoting this article. Actually, my choosing this article is based on its combination of very high impact (WP:notability) and substandard reporting (reliance on relative measures of efficacy rather than absolute measures) on its original publication. thanks - Badgettrg 14:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I agree this is a very nice summary and is quite constructive on Wikipedia; however Wikipedia is not a directory of journal articles. Perhaps a Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study page would be more fitting, with a summary of each journal article derived from the project on a subpage. I think this would probably be better than incorporation into the colon cancer page (main or as a sub page). Dlodge 16:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Now we're talkin'. What's really important here...the article itself or the study it's reporting? The latter is more plausible in my mind, and is easier to support and more relevant to a wider audience. DMacks 17:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, Delete the wiki is always asking for verifiable data and this is it, and page references could link to pages like this one. I guess that the editor is new to the wiki (please correct me if I am wrong), so I feel that allowances could be made for this. Presentation and readability could be improved, but it is a good idea in my opinion, for what it might become. In may be encyclopaedic to list notable papers. The wiki is not short of space. There is a science in summarising and evaluating research articles and the wiki should not ignore this science. It may be new to the wiki, but the techniques and methods of evaluating statistical medical papers is a science in its own right. It is wiki policy to start articles at a simple level and works up to a very technical level for technical readers and both general and technical readers might want to see some evidence, if it is well presented. If this is deleted perhaps the author should write a new page on an paper that is undoubtedly notable. Snowman 17:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rethink - It might be better as part of a meta-analyis of the subject in-the-round, probably not notable enough by itself, probably should be part of a discussion of the topic. Snowman 23:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete + move content. The study is significant-- but it doesn't meet the threshold of notable for WP IMHO. The content of the article belongs in the article fecal occult blood test. Nephron T|C 01:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as proposer. David Ruben ^Talk 04:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study might be a worthy article but I can't judge that, nor should it be up to us editors to judge. If the study is widely referenced in review articles, textbooks and other media then it could be said to be important. This article is no more accessible than the original paper, making it too close to the primary source. In fact, the paper's abstract is more accessible – its concluding sentence contains the essential information that is just not apparent in the article. An encyclopedia must help to reader understand the significance of the results and probably the actual raw figures are not helpful to quote. Interpretation is vital but must draw on secondary sources rather than the editor's own abilities. Colin°^Talk 22:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep and Move to Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study , about which there are, according of PubMed, 251 articles. A major long-term clinical study reported in NJEM is notable, since this is the most prestigeous international journal for the reports of these study--no. 1 in Impact Factor in medicine in Science Citation Reports for decades. (don't be put off by "New England"--it means, among other things "Harvard Medical School" and its affiliated hospitals.) We do not have to judge notability, because there are secondary sources to report: first, the editors and peer-reviewewrs of NEJM, second, the authors of all the 251 other articles; This is not OR, this a report in a prestigious journal of the results of research. as CH said, "if the study is widely referenced.." and so it is--of the articles about it 29 are review articles, iincluding a review for Annals of Internal medicine, & Archives of Internal medicine, the 2 top internal medicine journals, and JAMA. It does not belong in fecal occult blood test, although that is one of the topics studied. The only problem is that this WP article has been naively edited.

This particular paper would be one of the referebces, though the main one, because apparently --following the links in PubMed, it is the major publication of the results. Though we're not a medical encyclopedia, it meets the tests for science--under the name of the study of course. CH, either you or I could upgrade it--WP should have gotten this study in earlier. Please rethink and re-comment.DGG 03:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of this AfD review, both the title and content are currently unsuitable for WP, so I still think delete is the appropriate choice. You make very a good case for Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. A newly created article would start with information from the review/book sources and work down to details from the original paper as and where necessary. The British Doctors Study would be a good model to follow but it could be longer with more detail if warranted. I'm not qualified to "upgrade this", nor do I have access to the journals and books required. WikiProject Medicine should be able to help, and I'd be happy to post a request there once this AfD review is complete. Colin°^Talk 09:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

move to Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study and then fix other problems, expand, per above suggestions. Pete.Hurd 04:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a more suitable article name. Clean up and expand article and add reliable references to establish article's notability. ← ANAS ^Talk? 02:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete • Torches and pitchforks optional. :) More seriously, the article is incoherent, a single study, and probably constitutes original research. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:30, 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 Remember that episode of Simpsons wherein Chief Wiggum described a fleeing suspect as "hatless"? Yeah. Delete. DS 22:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socklessness[edit]

Though it was double prodded before, this article has not generated a single reference to show that is a notable cultural phenomenon. This belongs in Wikitionary, not here. If this is acceptable, then why not have articles on bralessness, hatlessness, ankle-braceletlessness, and countless others? Dar-Ape 01:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per nom. I'm surprised there's no reference to Einstein, a notorious non-sock-wearer, but I doubt that would be sufficient to bring it into notability. Tevildo 01:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If really necessary, couldn't particularly notable non-sock-wearers just be included in the sock article? Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. The state of being sockless is not a phenomenon and none of the specific examples referred to here have verification - it's just an editor's musings on what s/he feels to be a phenomenon ("I've seen a bunch of ads with sockless models.") The article's title is a giveaway that it's just a pared down original essay. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. JIP | Talk 05:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My personal motto is "Wear Two Socks for Duty, No Socks for Pleasure... but One Sock Only for Ecstasy". Unverifiable article. No, does not belong in Wikitionary either Bwithh 10:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable and OR. Thank you for the visual, Bwithh. --Charlene 13:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. — Brother Flounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 17:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any worthy information about fashion trends in sock-wearing, if properly cited, might well be merged to Sock. Coemgenus 20:39, 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 Speedy delete both as A7. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flashdist[edit]

This software's notability is dubious. YechielMan 01:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related software item for the same reason:[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 23:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny khosa[edit]

Article fails to assert nobility; subject has done nothing notable, fails WP:BIO. Written poorly anyway. Dooms Day349 01:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong delete. The assertion of notability is made, but a couple of

Google searches can't turn up Khosa in connection with Big East basketball. I've tagged the "freshman of the year" assertion as {{dubious}}, accordingly. I'm willing to give a little time for somebody to locate a reliable source; without one, this article is speedy deletion material. —C.Fred (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I will second this motion. A Google Search yielded no results.Gan fon 03:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A search of the Big East media guide records [8] reveals nothing. WP:HOAX - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7 -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to err on the side of giving it just a little more time to find sources or see if the original writer(s) can shape it up, but if that doesn't happen by the time the AfD runs out, delete no doubt.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he were a prominent college athlete, businessman, and recording artist, surely he would get more than zero Google hits. --Metropolitan90 06:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If he were signed to Def Jam, there would be so many google hits and probably a MySpace to boot... let alone college athletic results. -- Greaser 08:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: I am the one who originally marked it for speedy deletion for being a non-notable biography. It hasn't gotten any better. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 20:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —dima/s-ko/ 20:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Zero Google hits? Allegedly played college ball? Should be a slam dunk for deletion. Coemgenus 20:41, 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. There didn't seem to me anything worth merging, and y'all were pretty vague about your wishes, but if anyone wants to merge let me know and I'll retrieve the content for you. Chick Bowen 06:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Silverballer[edit]

Delete or Merge The article's topic is not noteworthy enought for its own article. The AMT Hardballer article discusses the weapon enough, to boot. BishopTutu 01:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge There is already plenty of info on this weapon in the Codename 47 article. •CHILLDOUBT• 16:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Any peculiarity's applicable to the weapon within the game context should be dealt in the Hitman: Blood Money article itself. Veritas Panther 07:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 02:56, 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 delete. DS 23:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inheritance Abuse[edit]

Deleted on prod, disputed after the fact. Prod rationale was "This article does not follow NPOV. It contains blatant opinions, and/or original research." From myself I can add that there are WP:NEO and WP:COI issues in play as well, see [9]. Procedural, abstain. - crz crztalk 01:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous reasoning on prod and nomination. I don't see a possible way this could be made NPOV or be done without original research. Seraphimblade 01:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Never heard of the term, though I suppose the phenomenon it purports to describe has some relation to reality. If reliable sources are provided, I will reevaluate, of course, but I suspect there is unsalvageable original research here. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete', as I originally suggested the delete 2 months ago...--Vox Rationis 02:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Note also that the title is incorrectly capitalized. Doczilla 05:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. I agree that the article creator's comments at [10] indicate violation of WP:COI in creating the article. Author has vested interest in spreading the use of the term. Doczilla 08:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates NPOV, possible original research, not encyclopedic. JIP | Talk 05:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Drake Dun 08:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I am familiar with the field, and have never seen this; there's nothing here that couldn't be addressed at, say, will contest or testamentary capacity. An inappropriate extension of psychobabble. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Smerdis; I'm an estates and trusts lawyer, and I've never heard the term "inheritance abuse". The concept could not possibly be NPOV. Coemgenus 20:46, 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 delete. —Centrx→talk • 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calderside Academy[edit]

no assertion of notability, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earnock High School Closure — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 01:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Only fact about the school is its location and that it's under construction. Everything else is unsupported opinion. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup - yes it is a total mess, but the claim of community controversy seems to suggest that this might be more notable than the average school (and let's not forget that some editors, though not me, are of the opinion that a school is automatically notable.)--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case, those editors can make their case on this page. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 05:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I would argue that this school is probably less notable than the average school, given that it doesn't even exist yet. Long-established schools tend to be more likely to have had some notable event or alumnus - this school makes no claim to either. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 06:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. Write the article when the school is constructed. Shimeru 10:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources - school estimated to be 6 months away from being built. Once built and open, then notability would arguably be achieved and deserve its own article •CHILLDOUBT• 16:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to South Lanarkshire. Article is premature per WP:SCHOOL, but belongs as an issue discussed at the municipal level. Redirect will allow article to be recreated once additional material is available to satisfy notability. WP:SCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLS3 agree on very little, other than the fact that consensus has been reached that non-notable articles be targets of a merge/redirect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alansohn (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge agree with Alansohn, this is premature... merge content and wait until enough material exists. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South Lanarkshire per above until better sources are available. RFerreira 19:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear delete crystal ball, etc... Eusebeus 21:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Schools open and close all the time; this doesn't make them notable. The article is also inadequately referenced. WMMartin 22:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references. Article can be created after construction. ← ANAS ^Talk? 02:58, 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. DS 23:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carissa and Josephine O'Meara[edit]

More infant "actors". Their only claim to fame is appearing on Eastenders seven years ago. No credits, nothing to establish further notability, fail WP:BIO. —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability and considerable precedent. Doczilla 05:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Brother Flounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 17:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:18, 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 as non-notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin K. F. Ng[edit]

Unsourced, non-notable bio. No evidence of notability given. Fails WP:BIO. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Tagged as db-bio. Non-notable; 10 Google hits. Big top 01:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom., Big top. Even if sourced still isn't notable enough.Gan fon 01:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought about speedying it, but with all the initials I thought I'd give it the full AfD in case he's known by other variations of his name that others can find (ie "Kevin K Frank Ng" or Kevin K Ng") --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Ronbo76 01:45, 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. Grand master ka 09:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Academic Programs/Course Offerings of the Divine Word Seminary[edit]

A list of program offerings. Wikipedia is not a college calendar. Denni ^talk 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod Delete Denni ^talk 01:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That is what the course catalog is for. --Sopoforic 03:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a school course catalogue. JIP | Talk 05:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information, nor is it a course catalog. — Brother Flounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 17:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 20:39, 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. DS 23:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corridor Retreball[edit]

Googling for "corridor retreball" (quotes included) produces 0 hits. As the article itself states, this was made up in school one day. Seraphimblade 01:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Haemo 02:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-verifiable original research --Pak21 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. — Brother Flounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 17:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete under which criterion? --Pak21 18:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article almost nominates itself for being made up in school. -- Whpq 19:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFT has it on the nose. Coemgenus 20:50, 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 as non-notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David ingram[edit]

Person of dubious notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V. It's clearly a vanity article, which Mr. Ingram apparently scribbled himself last August and abandoned. I think deleting it would be a tremendous kindness to him. YechielMan 01:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this VanCruft would also be a tremendous kindness to Wikipedians everywhere..... Delete as vanity, nn, etc. -- MarcoTolo 02:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vanity, nn, linkless, etc. Dlodge 02:18, 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 issues of sources was raised, and there exists rough consensus that these sources do not demonstrate notability. Suggestions were made to merge to an article that does not exist, and of course any deleted article can be restored if/when required for merging into another. (E.g. I'm not keeping this "in case" someone cares enough to merge it, but I'll bring it back if someone does the work first.) It should also be noted that *cough* very new accounts with *cough* under ten edits need to presetn comeplling arguments or bring references to a deletion debate if they would like their voice heard. This is not intended as an exclusionary measure, but is simply a pragmatic one, and anyone editor is always welcome to use my talk page if they would like to discuss it further. - brenneman 05:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old South Road[edit]

Non-notable fictional road. While of course Tolkien's works are notable, I fail to see how this particular road from the stories merits its own article. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, on the general ground that we already have a very comprehensive and well-indexed collection of articles on all but the most trivial elements of Tolkien's works. However, I appreciate that policy may change; if so, I think we can expect a _very_ large number of Tolkien AfDs in the immediate future. Tevildo 01:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This is only an opinion and I fail to see a reason for deletion. It is mentioned repeately in The Lord of the Rings trillogy and other Tolkien works. If you feel that the longest road in Tolkien's fictional Middle Earth should be deleted, then why not delete places that are not mentioned or visited in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, like Eryn Vorn or Andrast. Roaddawg 01:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not-notable. And yes, why not delete places not mentioned or visited in LOTR, like Eryn Vorn or Andrast. Sancho McCann 03:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this road joins may other elements of the fictional landscape together. John Vandenberg 04:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I will vote delete one at a time if every other bit of trivia from LOTR gets nominated. At best this is worth a sentence or two in an article on the Geography of Middle Earth. "We can't delete this piece of trivia on X, because it will open the floodgates" doesn't hold much sway for me.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why delete this piece? It serves as an important part of Tolkien's work and is mentioned multiple times in his most notable works- Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, The Return of the King, The Silmarillion, and Unfinished Tales. hereiam2 05:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons to delete it are given above, rhetorical questions generally don't hold much water on AfDs.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it would be kept if it were in the real world, and being part of arguably one of the most well known fictional worlds of all time is enough for me. Jcuk 15:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other above. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no sources cited, and for all the text, it is still jsut a fictional road from Middle Earth. -- Whpq 19:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with East Road, Old Forest Road and Greenway (Middle-earth) (and any other roads except the Straight Road into Tolkien's "Mt. Olympus") into Roads of Middle-earth, following Rivers of Middle-earth (a continent, not a planet/universe), Rivers of Beleriand (a lost continent) and Rivers of Gondor (a realm). Uthanc 22:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're citing precedent, it doesn't hold: some of those rivers have separate articles. I wouldn't mind combining some of the roads; Greenway (Middle-earth), for instance, is pretty short and would be better merged with Old South Road. You're right about combining all links into one easily-readble article though (Roads of Middle-earth). --Fang Aili ^talk 22:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is a very good idea. I would far prefer these sorts of articles than a broken out series of them - those rivers that have their own articles ought to be merged as well, in my humble opinion. It seems like a good compromise between people who insist on having this info on wikipedia and people who insist that it shouldn't comprise dozens of articles.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "some of those rivers have separate articles" - okay, my mistake. About merging the rest of the rivers, I'll bring this up to the project members. Uthanc 23:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "why not delete places not mentioned or visited in LOTR, like Eryn Vorn or Andrast." Well, they're in Tolkien's other writings. Uthanc 22:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The road and its users and uses are described in full detail in the Tolkien trilogy. The road has no other reality. I do not see the need for or purpose of the article.--Anthony.bradbury 23:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Roads of Middle-earth per Uthanc. Tevildo 23:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Size of the article shows that something can be said about it, and all of this is sourceable in Tolkien's writings. I could accept a merge into a comprehensive 'Roads of Middle-Earth' article as well. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The road was important enough for Tolkien to mention multiple times and it is a major feature of his Middle-Earth. The more information in an encyclopedia the better. Milton 02:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple non-trivial third party sources can be provided. Yamaguchi先生 03:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP is not Tolkien Gateway or lotr.wikia.com. The above keep arguements would be valid at an afd at those wikis, but does anyone have a keep argument based in Wikipedia policy? How about delete per WP:NOT - 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." I'd be willing to reconsider if a secondary source is presented establishing the subject's impact or historical significance (in this world, of course). The closing admin doesn't just count votes, right? --maclean 03:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established outside of the book itself and zero reliable sources. Naconkantari 03:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As this is really only one of two roads in middle earth (north-south and east-west), there is nothing really to merge it into. In the general spirit of user:Tevildo above, if this is deleted all Tolkien geographical elements must be as well- this is of the same strand of material. I see no AfDs on other geographical items from Tolkien's work (although I checked only those linking out of this article and the two mentioned above, (Eryn Varn, Andrast, etc.)- why is this one the only item listed? It just seems rather pointless to delete information that people will read, as it has obviously generated some interest as per this debate. Not to mention the fact that notability does not have to be established outside of the book itself based on the mulititude of other trivial articles concerning LOTR. Grainofsalt 03:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion (again), arguments of this type are most troubling because they acknowledge how problematic the article is but still suggest keeping it because altering it in any way would unleash some sort of biblically proportioned wave of subsequent AfDs, or at the very least, merges and redirects. Any one article being nominated is, in and of itself, automatically justification to keep them all, in a rather odd bit of circular logic (please note that I'm accusing you of bad faith in any way). Perhaps the LOTR/Tolkien project people should spend some much-needed and appreciated effort consolidating trivia into a truly well-written series of parent article instead of presiding over an endless spinning out of non-notable bits and pieces.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To answer the question two comments above "why is this one the only item listed?", it is the only one listed (of the Tolkien universe) because it is the only one that caught my eye during new page patrol. I have neither time to, nor interest in, seeking out other Tolkien related articles for scrutiny at the juncture. Not that this matters, of course. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POKEMON and the fact that this is the longest road in the LOTR universe. MPS 04:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Greenway (Middle-earth) which is the same road. Note that third party, reliable sources actually do exist for this topic. It is covered in The Complete Guide to Middle-earth by Robert Foster ( ISBN 0-345-32436-6 ) where the main article is North Road and probably in Karen Fonstad's Atlas of Middle-earth though I can't put my hands on that at the moment. Eluchil404 06:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Greenway (Middle-earth) should be merged into Old South Road as the Greenway is only a portion of the much larger Old South Road. Regardless, I believe merging of the two roads is the best solution.--hereiam2 07:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It's not clear to me what the ultimate name should be. As I said, Foster treats North Road as the primary name and says that Old South Road only applies to the stretch of it between Tharbad and Bree. Thus equating it with the Greenway. In any event, merging, renaming, or moving don't require an AfD so that discussion can be differed to project or Talk pages. Eluchil404 07:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for complete lack of third-party sourcing establishing notability. Until I see that, this (to me) is just a fictional road and nothing more. -- Kicking222 14:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Wikipedia is not paper. Peter Grey 21:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that there are quite a few third party Tolkien sources that mention this item and many more items of smaller importance...for example:

John Howe & Brian Sibley's The Guide to Tolkien's Middle-earth ISBN:0061055069

Karen Fonstad's Atlas of Middle-earth

Robert Foster's The Complete Guide to Middle-earth ISBN:0345324366

Greg & Tim Hildebrandt's Tolkien's World from A-Z:The Complete Reference Guide to Middle-earth ISBN:0739432974--Hobgarth 22:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I added the previously mentioned third-party references to the page. This should solve that problem, at least. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hobgarth (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I must say, and I'm sure people will disagree, that mentions in "guides to middle earth" and fan-produced publications do not make the topic any more notable. It is still a sub-trivial article than should be merged into something larger. I think by now I need to just accept that there will always be parallel wikipedias for topics that have large computer-based fan followings and just give up on trying to participate in these topics.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hobgarth summed it up nicely. Multiple sources, which are unfairly trivialized by the above comment. I know that at least one of those books above has an article of its own. Irongargoyle 18:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The guides listed above by Hobgarth do not give any encyclopedic context whatsoever, nor has anyone bothered to cite the page number(s) which explicitly mention this road. RFerreira 19:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer we not give credence to these sources by asking for more specific citations, they are explicitly meant to be concordances that present entries on everything in Tolkien's work and as such do not seem to me to establish notability. No one is questioning whether this road "exists" in Tolkien's work.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be, but as it is right now, this is a useless list of book titles and ISBNs. RFerreira 20:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Okay The Lord of the Rings is a work of fiction. Therefore, there is not going to be any information on how the Old South Road applies to the contemporary world. The point of the article is to show the massive amount of Tolkien's work (stories, places, people, events) that are all connected by this major road. Each of the sources listed above does just that. I have read all of the entries on this page and it seems to me that there are some people who will never be satisfied no matter the justification. Articles such as this one (and this seems to be much more complete and profound than the works I am referring to) exist throughout Wikipedia and are there to enhance the knowledge of an individual about a specific topic. This is an encyclopedia. Everyone holds different interests, and the point of Wikipedia is to provide a place for everyone to gain more knowledge about a specific topic, fictional or non-fiction. --User:Lossoth 01:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to major article about the roads of Middle-Earth, or delete. I'm a Tolkien fan, but this is fancruft. We don't have to describe everything that is mentioned in LotR or his other writings in detail, there are other venues for this. A generic article may be helpful, but that's all that is needed. This is a solution that can be used for many of the Tolkien articles, by the way: if Culumalda does need a mention (which is highly debatable in itself), surely it can be done in a larger article on the trees of Middle-Earth? Fram 15:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - One of two main roads in LOTR. Notable aspect of LOTR. - Peregrine Fisher 22:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LOTR fancruft at its worst. Ok, maybe no worst, but pretty low. We don't need these LOTR forks on every bit of minutiae that LOTR fans can think up. Eusebeus 21:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well it may not be interesting to everyone, but there is obviously a high percentage of people out there who read these articles. Information is boundless and to put as much as possible on wikipedia is definately the way to go. Remember, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT PAPER! --User:Wofford 23:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Matthew Brown. It beats a pokemon for longevity.Ga rr ie 05:01, 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. Grand master ka 09:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cardboards[edit]

Non notable band with no sources, couldn't find any when I looked. Daniel J. Leivick 01:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable band (WP:BAND) JRHorse 03:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Doczilla 05:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. —dima/s-ko/ 20:40, 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 speedied Opabinia regalis 05:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

APAC (construction company)[edit]

Fails WP:V and WP:CORP. YechielMan 01:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7. Tagged as such. Also should be removed from the APAC dab page if deleted. cab 04:23, 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 without deletion. Too incoherent to be merged, but the content is here if someone wants to give it a shot. Chick Bowen 06:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halfa[edit]

Danny Phantom fancruft; everything here could easily be stated in the main article. Quarma 01:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Danny Phantom, but not before a major brush-up. V-Man737 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per V-Man737—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 03:04, 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 Nom withdrawn and Keep. Navou ^banter 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content as per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion Articles section criteria #7. Qwertyca 01:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhs in Belgium[edit]

EDIT - The author himself User:Sunnybondsinghjalwehra is a Sikh in Belgium and based on the name, is possibly related to one of the prominent figures mentioned in the article. Not that it matters, but it could possibly be WP:COI. Besides, the group isn't anything notable - they have not impacted the history or current affairs of Belgium, India, Punjab, Sikhism or Europe in any important way (unlike the comments about Muslims in Europe). Nor do they have any members of their community who have done anything notable (and if they do that should be listed on the page). Additionally, the article jumps from discussing a group in general to talking about the death of one of it's members without even mentioning who he is or why his death is in any way relevant to the article. -- Qwertyca 02:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - Ok CanadianCaesar, that's a better article now. Thanks for your input. How do I un-nominate this from deletion? Admin if you're reading this please don't delete. Thanks. --Qwertyca 05:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep um, there should be no question about this. It's not a group, it's a minority group, and is paralleled with many articles such as Islam in the United States, Islam in Canada... CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By which I meant, no question about the notability. The article itself is clearly hurting. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that I've now rewritten it as a stub. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I disagree that this fits the intent of CSD #7, I'll have to go with a ~~Neutral, leaning towards keep~~ (though it does need a notability statement desparately). Long term, this should probably be a section in a more comprehensive Sikhism in Europe entry.... -- MarcoTolo 02:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep per CanadianCaesar's edits. -- MarcoTolo 03:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a notable topic and it is a decent stub. John Vandenberg 04:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to me that this is misleading. It's not an article about sikhs in Belgium, it's an article, and a sketchy one at that, about one incident of violence which an editor has attempted to dress up by giving it this title and attempting to place it in a broader context, which might in itself constitute some form of OR.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on that a bit.--T. Anthony 14:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Merely a stub is not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 15:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - interesting even though it is a stub. This article adds value to wikipedia. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopedic... —dima/s-ko/ 20:42, 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. Nishkid 64 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Cody Prosser[edit]

Completing unfinished AFD; nominated on notabiity grounds. — ERcheck (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being KIA in Afghanistan is not grounds enough for notability. Not every Soldier or Marine killed deserves their own page here. Also, the claim of "1st military intelligence soldier" is not notable in and off itself. There are not pages for the first casualty in every military occupational specialty.--Looper5920 00:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a declaration of notability at the bottom:

"Staff Sergeant Brian Cody Prosser is the namesake for the village in which the Army's Military Intelligence soldiers live during their training in Fort Huachuca, Arizona."

I'm not saying this makes the subject notable, just pointing it out. -- MarcoTolo 02:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Looper5920 and WP:NOT a memorial (nor is being memorialized, in almost all cases, itself notability -- and especially not by fellow soldiers, who do it for all their dead brethren). I think this article just misses speedy A7, but fails notability. --Dhartung | Talk 04:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. does not appear to pass WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 02:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO Eusebeus 21:56, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstline Security[edit]

Article was nominated for speedy deletion per G11 (blatant advertising), but doesn't qualify. I'm moving this to AFD instead. No opinion. A ecis ^{No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end} 02:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Corporate vanity, nn. Article creator (Dzabihaylo) appears to be Dave Zabihaylo, corporate shill [11]. -- MarcoTolo 02:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's spam, just not of the "blatant" variety. - IceCreamAntisocial 02:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Doczilla 05:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. Fails WP:CORP. And apparently their PR people need to learn the difference between it's and its. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. —dima/s-ko/ 20:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Eusebeus 21:57, 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 21:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slice NY[edit]

Notability is dubious, despite some press coverage. (See the discussion on the talk page. I'm just not convinced that a blog about pizza should concern anyone in Wikipedia. :) YechielMan 02:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the "press coverage" is highly dubious and appears to be nothing more than a fleeting mention on a trivial tabloid-type broadcast.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the single piece of coverage is just eh Yahoo 9 which grabs nine sites every single day for a viewer popularity poll/contest. -- Whpq 19:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn blog. ← ANAS ^Talk? 03:05, 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 no consensus. Surely the best thing is for someone to move all of the stubs linked from CSIR India, including this one, into the parent article. Chick Bowen 06:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Central Leather Research Institute[edit]

I give up. Read it and decide for yourself... YechielMan 02:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Weak Keep. This article from the Indian financial press (WARNING: Very high density of popups) does mention it, so it might just have a chance of scraping into WP:CORP. Although - "networking nationally and internationally for evolving a paradigm shift in the sector"? Not a phrase that immediately suggests notability. Tevildo 02:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another article. Different publication, but the above warning still applies. Tevildo 02:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally weak keep. Notable as part of Indian govt body CSIR India. Could be merged into CSIR India. John Vandenberg 04:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Will change to keep if notability asserted and demonstrated, which presently is not the case. Leather research is in my personal view not intrinsically notable.--Anthony.bradbury 23:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The CSIR is notable, as the National research organization corresponding to the NSF in the US. 17 of the 39 branches have WP articles, and someone knowledgable & who knows WP well enough to write appropriate articles should get to the others. To say that Leather research is not notable for intrinsic reasons is a POV. To not accord the major institutions of other countries status is chauvenism. I have added links to projects, including those from third parties. A simple google search was enough to find them. DGG 21:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you virtuous. Delete as a non-notable organisation. Eusebeus 21:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Vjdchauhan 06:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete unless notability asserted and facts referenced. ← ANAS ^Talk? 03:07, 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 Delete by Nihonjoe. Tevildo 03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gills Corp.[edit]

A business with no assertion or evidence of notability. This article was deprodded by someone who claimed prod wasn't "the proper method" for deleting it, whatever that means. - IceCreamAntisocial 02:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7 appears to be the "proper method" here. So tagged. Seraphimblade 02:48, 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 21:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CASPR[edit]

Non-notable paranormal research group in Arkansas. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Virginia Ghost Hunters for a similar situation with another non db-group candidate ghost hunting organization.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article does not assert notability. Naconkantari 03:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:RS (indeed no sources), WP:V, and WP:NOTE. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 03:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. The ghost hunting craze has driven many such hobbyist orgs (and individuals who are self-proclaimed "paranormal researchers") into a frenzy of self-publicity. This group is just one of many exploring WP as a means to self-publicize. See also other questionable articles:

Central_Oklahoma_Paranormal_Studies
Janice_Oberding
Vincent_Wilson
PSICAN
Brent_Fair
Jimmy_Lowery
Ghost_Tours_UK
AGHOST
Chip_Coffey
Supernatural_Summit_Ghost_Hunter_Conference_Batavia_NY
Paranormal_Society

--- LuckyLouie 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this CASPR, which issued a press release when Larry Flaxman got himself listed on wikipedia ? Delete per Flaxman (Flaxman was speedy deleted 3 times). It does not seem to have any notability except at a local level. All but one press article is trivial, and the organisation seems only to rear its head most at halloween time on local radio stations. Ohconfucius 02:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article nominated... unless some evidence that the group passes some kind of basic notability test. ---J.S (T/C/WRE)

Delete - Poor non-notable ‘paranormal investigation’ articles undermine the importance of the parapsychology subject area on Wikipedia. - Solar 22:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Ohconfucius's PDF of Flaxman's press release. That's just plain exploitative, and I'm actually for some paranormal groups being listed (the notable ones). --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Ohconfucius. Not big enough to be notable. Totnesmartin 19:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the AGHOST entry. It has been recommended by Steel359 that I plead my case for the AGHOST entry here, as it's recently been deleted. I've read the notability guidelines thoroughly, and unlike many of the other "ghost hunting" or "paranormal research" groups out there I believe AGHOST actually has established significant notability in its field. The group has existed for more than 5-years and is a non-profit organization, which is unique among these groups. It also has had a great deal of press, including national (US) press, links to which I added to the article specifically to establish notability. The page http://www.aghost.us/106.html from the organization's website lists links to some of the media attention it has received. Briefly, some of media includes the Seattle Times, the Oregonian, and ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1347154). Thanks, Obsid 21:14, 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. Majorly 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pi Gamma Phi[edit]

Organization with no assertion of notability. Hús ö nd 03:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable "fraternity" or "sorority". JIP | Talk 05:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to the creation of a better article later. If this is a nationally organized fraternity in some country it may be worthy of an article. --Metropolitan90 06:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:V by WP:RS as well as WP:OR. Even with the links, I can't find any sort of external verification that this is an organization with more than a couple of chapters, and even those chapters are not reliably sourced; all the information are from their "offical" chapter pages hosted on freewebs. The origin isn't reliably sourced. That said I have no predjudice against recreation provided external sourcing is produced (or keeping the article if those sources turn up before the end of the AfD). If kept it needs a complete rewrite though because right now it is basically a member list and image host.--Isotope23 16:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not notable. No reliable sources, either. --SunStar Net^talk 19:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 03:11, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Inspirational magazines[edit]

An arbitrary, niche topical list of redlinks. If the author intends to use this as a to-do list, it should be on a user page. Otherwise, it is devoid of content. Salad Days 03:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subjective article title. What is inspirational for one person might be rubbish to the next. All but one of the links are redlinks, and no sources. VegaDark 06:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Inspirational" in the North American publishing world usually doesn't mean "inspiring"; it almost always means "Christian". If this were "List of Christian-themed magazines", AND if the list was reliably sourced, AND if the bulk of the entries were blue links, I'd vote keep. Unfortunately, I see no reliable sources, the title is POV (non-Christians don't generally use "inspirational" to mean "religious"), and all but one of the links are red. This appears to me to be an unsourced list of indiscriminate information, and I therefore vote to delete. --Charlene 12:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I have several friends who find Playboy inspirational and I'm pretty sure that's not what this list is intended for. Always going to be a subjective list of indiscriminate information. The Rambling Man 16:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subjective title, arbitrary listing, and possibly listcruft. --SunStar Net^talk 16:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "uninspiring" and indiscriminate. Ohconfucius 02:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete not WP material at all NBeale 07:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Biased listcruft. Metrackle 09:15, 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. Majorly 21:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YA Entertainment (Entertainment Company)[edit]

Created by user:KatieFlanagan who is listed on the company's website in charge of "media contact," who I think has created other accounts, (sock puppets/accounts, TK52 & Drama950 which were created today after the discussion on the talk page according to their user logs and claims user:YAE is the only person who works for the company when the account was created today), to make edits to the page to make it seem like it was being created by neutral editors. Also, user has since moved the page after blanking the old page, YA Entertainment. Really strange behaviour. Anyway, user/article appears to be using wikipedia to advertise their company, only making edits to Korean dramas associated with said company. See the talk page for further and detailed info. Oncamera 03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: The article fails both WP:COI & WP:CORP as the shortened version of what is above. Oncamera 04:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is close to a speedy delete as advertisement or no notability assertion. Definitely a delete in any case. Seraphimblade 03:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I give Oncamera props for a) doing the detective work, and b) being classy about it. Oncamera has been fair and polite, but KatieFlanagan insists that she is simply a fan. Anyway, I vote delete, as YAE is simply a North American distributor of Korean dramas subtitled in English; it can perhaps be noted on the Korean drama page, if it seems tirhg to do so. SKS2K6 05:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oncamera's research. No reliable sources given for any of the information in this article, from what I see. --Charlene 12:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Gan fon 22:36, 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 Speedy delete a7, nonnotable group of students. NawlinWiki 04:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sophomore Sizzle[edit]

Non-notable list of sophomores at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology Jhinman 03:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not non-notable, please give it a few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staylor21 (talk • contribs)

Strongest possible delete for the obvious reason that it's a vast wasteland of POV original research and unencyclopedic jokes relating to a bunch of 15-year-olds. In fact, aside from the fact that they go to a good high school, there is no notability asserted, so this should be speedied by {{db-group}}. -- Kicking222 03:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7, so tagged. Major POV and notability issues. The article is turning into a blog. JRHorse 03:45, 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 21:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina 1-A Conference[edit]

Another editor had tagged it with {{prod}}, but the template was removed without any real improvement to the article to address the concerns raised in the prod. Non-notable organization that asserts little, if any, encyclopedic value. Agent 86 19:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable per WP:ORG and lacks any sources to show any notability. Jayden54 21:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article shows signs of steady going improvement, with new showing of source credibility. --Daniel ellis 19:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)— Daniel ellis, the creator of this article, has made few or no other edits outside this topic and Rosewood High School.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "newspaper coverage" is box-score type stuff or a mention in passing in articles about other subjects (trivial coverage). WP:N requires nontrivial coverage from multiple sources. Seraphimblade 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability and non-trivial sourcing. -- Kicking222 03:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is a valuable source for finding which NC schools are members of conference. Valuable as accessory to other articles. See Rosewood High School chocklitsnoman 00:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)chocklitsnoman — chocklitsnoman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. There are plenty of high school athletic conferences, so what's so special about this one ? For there to be an article we need to see why it's notable, and this isn't made clear. Simply being an athletic conference is not enough - there are plenty of them: tell us why we should know about this one. WMMartin 22:15, 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. Chick Bowen 06:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messy Stench[edit]

Seems to fail WP:N. The article itself is full of weasel phrases . . . for example, "Her show is notorious . . .." but the only sources are two of her personal websites and her MySpace page. janejellyroll 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very little reason to believe subject is notable, no assertions in article are sourced. Seraphimblade 04:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I've found some interviews with her [12] [13][14], but I'm not sure if these sources are reliable enough to assert notability for this young lady. --Charlene 14:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. If notability could be better asserted, I could see keeping this. Is the radio show somehow notable? Charlene, I share your doubt about whether those sources are reliable enough. delldot | talk 04:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 24.210.149.163 made an edit to this article without adding text but with an edit summary that read: "I am as of now writing an article of Messy Stench by the Wikipedia guidelines; please refrain from deletion until I am finished and it is posted. Thank you." [15] delldot | talk 20:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Charlene's references do establish more reliable sources than the nom's concerns of only personal websites and her myspace page being used as references. --Oakshade 05:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Charlene's links demonstrate she exists, but I'm not convinced they are compliant with WP:RS... Addhoc 19:21, 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 Keep. This is either a user who is unfamiliar with wikipeida notability guidelines or it's a sockpuppet of some kind. I'm going to declare this a snowball in hell and end the debate early. If any regular wikipedia editor disagrees, contact me on my talk page and I'll re-open it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks[edit]

non notable website, alexa traffic rank 414,669.[16] T-y-g3 03:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep I've never heard of Wikileaks, but judging by the incredible amount of in-depth third-party coverage from highly reliable sources, maybe I'll start hearing more about it soon. Easily passes WP:WEB per independent coverage. -- Kicking222 03:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the nominator has zero edits aside from creating this AfD, so while I will certainly attempt to assume good faith, it's a bit difficult. -- Kicking222 03:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Clear notability established. Also, nominator may be a throw-away SPA account. No other edits but this nom. F.F.McGurk 03:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established and verified; may be a bad-faith nomination. JRHorse 03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Featured on slashdot today (or yesterday?) --⁪froth^{T C} 03:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today. F.F.McGurk 03:55, 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. Majorly 21:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon elephants[edit]

Non-notable unit from a computer game (Medieval II: Total War). Contradicts another article (War elephant); as mentioned in article's talk, it appears the whole thing stems from a misunderstanding. Prod'ed, but prod notice removed without discussion by anon-IP (their only edit). DarthBinky 03:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable --⁪froth^{T C} 03:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable enough to have its own article. ~~Information should be added to Medieval II: Total War.~~ JRHorse 03:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: just curious- what information from this article is actually worth merging? --DarthBinky 04:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: - You're right... if its part of the game it should probably be mentioned, then again, on Google there are very few hits on it. JRHorse 14:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per DarthBinky --Dreaded Walrus 22:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Addhoc 15:30, 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. Chick Bowen 06:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of rappers that have been shot[edit]

Unmaintained listcruft. I picked a rapper at random from the list, Lil' Wayne, and nowhere in the article is "being shot" mentioned. Salad Days 03:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the article a bit because it's looking like a "no consensus" consensus is going to be the last word... but the page itself could still use some help. Most AfDs I have initiated which have been kept have been because someone bothered to clean them up, but in this case, no one who has voted keep has made any attempt to add references or otherwise improve the list. Thus, I'm still leaning towards delete on this one, simply because while the article itself is possibly worthy of being kept due to the newsworthy nature of rappers being shot, the article itself is totally unmaintained and in need of references. Perhaps it could be left on a temporary basis pending expansion? Salad Days 02:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am going to make an article called Celebrities who have been pied if this lives. Salad Days 02:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK, you guilted me into adding sources for most of the entries. I'll get around to the rest if no-one beats me to it.--Kubigula (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's an orphaned, uncategorized page- no surprise that it's "unmaintained." Anyway, I -de-prodded the article because I know that this is information some people are interested in, and no category directly covers the same subject. Questions over one entry aren't enough to throw it out entirely. --Groggy Dice T | C 04:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to shorter list List of rappers that haven't been shot. —Brim 05:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another pointless collection of information. I cannot think of a reason we should have articles of the form List of x who have Y. No more useful as an article than List of rappers who have half naked women in their videos - Peripitus (Talk) 06:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unimpassioned Keep or Recreate as Category - Sad as it is, were this for any other type of musical performer this list would be pointless trivia and overcategorization. As it is, getting shot is an important and status-building event in many circles of the rap community. It is useful information to many, as is it interesting to those same people. -- Y|yukichigai 06:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is a potentially encyclopedic topic that is actually somewhat likely to be looked up. The problem is, the current content is almost non-existent and there are no sources. I wouldn't be opposed to what is currently there being deleted, without prejudice of recreation with reliable sources. However, If someone wants to salvage this before the run of this AfD I would likely support keeping the article, provided that it lists more information than a category could provide. VegaDark 06:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is maintainable, encyclopedic, verifiable, etc etc. as well as being a list that many users might actually use (which so many of them can not claim to be.) It obviously needs work.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I'm open to a List of musicians who have been shot and then arranging it by genre. ("Who" because I think when referring to people you use "who") Specifying one genre seems to be subtly pushing a POV, which, even if based on reality, is not what we do here.--T. Anthony 08:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, actually--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 09:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of musicians who have been shot and expand. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 09:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename List of musicians who have been shot so as not to indicate bias against specific musician type. Wryspy 09:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even given the name change and expanding it to musicians, is it really that useful? What about stabbings, poisonings, "pushed down the stairs", general maiming injuries? And what of other entertainers and notable people apart from musicians? You may just as well have a list of notable gunshot victims over the ages (which I think may be a real category). Lists are IMO the bane of Wikipedia, people claim that they are "useful" when its just a matter of WP:ILIKEIT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Eqdoktor 09:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are areas where a list is useful or even better than a category. My print encyclopedia from 1969 has an article called "naval terms", but it's basically just a List of naval terms. (It's far far more extensive than the Wikipedia list I linked to, it goes on for pages) It's not an article discussing naval terminology and what it means in history, it's just an annoted list that explains varied terms. Likewise areas that need more explanation than a category can provide are good in list form. See List of people with epilepsy or many other things in Wikipedia:Featured lists. Still I just said I'd be open to a List of musicians who have been shot, I'm still open to going against it too, and I voted delete on this list.--T. Anthony 10:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What next - list of policemen who have won a lottery gah -Doc^g 10:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename as per suggestions above. Although a case could be made that more rappers per capita have been victims of gun violence, I agree that to single out one particular group over another is POV and, not only that, could attract not-very-helpful edits from people with potential agendas. Expanding to include other genres works for me. 23skidoo 13:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a list that will be hard to maintain. Also, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. --SunStar Net^talk 13:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate listcruft. Akihabara 15:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the reasons that exist to delete this, I don't think it can really be classified as indiscriminate.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per inherent silliness in lists of occupation/injury combinations. Bassists with knee abrasions or Tuba players who have been given wedgies, anyone? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to fan the flames of potential OR, but you don't read major news coverage seemingly once a month of yet another world-famous tuba player who got a wedgie.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More's the shame .... I'd enjoy news like that - Peripitus (Talk) 03:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT--Ac1983fan 21:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of musicians who have been shot. --- RockMFR 03:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced and Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. Addhoc 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate - anything which is along the lines of : [[List of people/professions who have been past participle]]. There are endless such permutations. Ohconfucius 02:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is arguable that musicians, and particularly though not exclusively rappers, who have been victims (or perpetrators) of violence are notable as part of a social phenomenon that undoubtedly influences their music. A list like this is just a directory of examples, and I don't think it is either indiscriminate nor does it push a POV.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly rename per above suggestions. The scope of the list is sufficiently defined so as to be maintanable and it establishes a notable connection between the people on the list. You can make reductio ad absurdum arguments about almost every list on WP, but this list does relate to a newsworthy social phenomenon. If there were anti-tuba vigilantes running around giving wedgies to famous tuba players, I think a list of tuba players who got wedgies would probably be notable.--Kubigula (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind ::mikm t 01:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep rappers being shot is a prominent part of culture and a big status symbol. If the list was anything but rappers it would have to go, but this is absolutely notable, no question about it. An article shouldn't be deleted merely because it needs clean-up. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:39, 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 delete. Majorly 21:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nose game (2nd nomination)[edit]

1st VfD, from July 2005

After 18 months, this article still hasn't done much for Wikipedia. It is poorly written and not correctly wikified (AfD is not cleanup) and describes a game that does not need to be documented here.

This was deleted per the first VfD, but was recreated on 28 December 2006 by User:Bigdanoneill (talk/contribs). As such, it may also qualify for CSD G4. TRKtv t c e 03:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very poor aticle, fails google search for notability RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not sufficiently notable and lacking in sourcing. However, let it be known that I frequently use this process, which my friends and I call "Nose Goes", to decide who has to do crap. Still... non-notable. -- Kicking222 03:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if verified, such information doesn't deserve its own article. Surely, Iona Opie has documented this method, or something much like it. The information belongs with articles concerning children's games or folklore. Nick Graves 04:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverified, non-notable game. JIP | Talk 05:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've heard of it, but no sources, et cetera. Not even a game, really. Mango juice^talk 10:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sure, there are thousands of such games, does it mean Wikipedia has to include them all? You should also submit some of the List of traditional children's games entries if you're at it. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does this game actually exist? Sounds suspiciously like something made up in school one day. I'd think Rock, Paper, Scissors (now, thats a well sourced article) would be THE game to play in choosing someone to do something nasty. Anyways, it looks to be original research, does not cite sources for external reference. --Eqdoktor 18:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not as dumb as I thought it would be, but unreferenced and not quite article material either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Selection methods. It is a known game^[1]^[2], but does not justify an article. I would like someone searching for it on wikipedia to find something. AntiVan 03:48, 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 A7 and NaCl - crz crztalk 04:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OO17[edit]

Disputed speedy. Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB, speedied but continued recreation RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and Salt no notability, etc. _SUBWAYguy 03:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shaken, Stirred, and Speedy A7. JRHorse 03:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable --⁪froth^{T C} 03:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt , Youtube videos are patently not-notable. Google search shows solo hit to the YouTube page, so there is no outside treatement in reliable sources, and it's likely, based on triple re-creation, that this will be up again tomorrow if not salted.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and salt A7 Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 04:04, 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 keep. John254 03:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Jameelah[edit]

Ancient article, but for the life of me I don't see verifiable notability from reliable sources. This isn't some sectarian thing - I'll be happy to withdraw this if I'm wrong - but I think we should delete. - crz crztalk 04:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. - crz crztalk 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nom. this is about the closest thing I can find to an official biography. It doesn't really take us any further than what's in the article already; she's a journalist and writer, a convert from Judaism to Islam. I can't find any independent reviews of her books (other than on Amazon etc, which I don't think count as "independent") or any other sources that can prove her notability. Of course, if such sources do exist, the article can stay. Tevildo 04:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep: One of the most important converts to Islam in 20th centuary. --Suchmuch 05:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of references for that assertion would be a great help. Tevildo 05:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can search on google to go through her profile. Check the list of her books on Amazon[17], & WorldCat [18]. --Suchmuch 05:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that proves she's a writer. We need to prove that she's a notable writer: that she's "received multiple independent reviews of or awards for her work", to quote WP:BIO. Tevildo 05:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't want to argue on this any more. I don't remember her appearing on the cover of Times. --Suchmuch 05:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You don't need to be on the cover of Times to be notable. What a most western biased view of the world one needs to have in order to hold such a claim--Striver - talk 10:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even if we ignore the list of Muslim sites that view her notable, and even if you ignore her long list of works that are available on amazon and google books, you still see that islam-haters like Daniel Pipes [19], John L. Esposito [20]and even bigots like Ali Sina on Faith Freedom International [21] view her notable enough to use as examples. --Striver - talk 10:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we also have her long correspondence with Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi [22]--Striver - talk 10:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Pipes and Faith Freedom references are literally trivial mentions. And the Esposito is a straight assassination piece! We can't possibly use that to write the article. I still don't see a single normal work about her life and/or about her work/significance. - crz crztalk 13:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the line "essayist, poet, journalist and author" seems like puffery. I can't find any evidence that she's a poet or a journalist. Essayist/author can be better summed as up as writer. I'm going ahead with that change. If anyone comes up with evidence that she's a poet or a journalist in a substantial way (i.e. not just having a few poems in her books and not just a couple of random pieces printed somewhere and not implying that an opinion piece is the same as journalism), of course make changes again Bwithh 12:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So there was already another line saying she is an author of X number of books. So I just left it at that. The convert bit is the first thing now, which makes more sense. She hasn't written on any other subject it seems Bwithh 12:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but expand and put some more independent sources in it or we will have another AfD within a month Alf photoman 15:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to find any useful non-trivial mentions from independent sources and none of te ones given above qualify. JoshuaZ 18:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She has been discussed as one of the most prominent figure in Islamism in the following scholarly paper:

S. V. R. Nasr, Islamist Intellectuals of South Asia: The Origins and Development of a Tradition of Discourse, Studies in Contemporary Islam, 1 (1999), 2:16–43

I can't see the reason to delete the biography, although I agree that the article should be expanded. TruthSpreader^reply 22:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person had some press, particularly in the early 70's due to her conversion. Alot of articles I've found are subscription only, but they are there. [23]. --Oakshade 05:17, 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 Withdrawn by nominator - Peripitus (Talk) 22:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colombo Municipal Council[edit]

No assertion of notability. Maybe someone can check their website for a reason to keep this organization in Wikipedia. I didn't find anything. YechielMan 04:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the municipal council of a countries capital must be notable without having to look for sources. The council has been in existance since the 1860's. a few seconds of Googling shows at least 4 news articles in the last month and almost 15,000 hits on google. The article is awful at the moment nonetheless Peripitus (Talk) 06:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strangely, I agree with Peripitus that the city council of a city as large as Colombo is notable. However, the article consists of a "vision" and "mission statement" and no body of real encyclopedic text. In its present form I cannot condone keeping this since cleaning it up would mean removing almost everything and starting from scratch. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten now into an ok stub - luckily there was little to remove and the work of minutes to rewrite. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah what a difference! This is a brand new article. Keep. Well done! Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. Nicely done! YechielMan 17:02, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Cederberg[edit]

This article was already nominated for speedy deletion, but the writer contested it and removed the template. The article appears autobiographical, and the assertions of notability on the talk page are thoroughly unconvincing and unverified. YechielMan 05:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPeedy delete A7 - no assertion of notability ... Just another accountant at Deloittes whose moved onto consultancy. Not mentioned in any significant way on the web and not at all in news articles that I can find. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources provided, nor are nany likely to be foound. My own googling didn't turn up any. The article's talk page indicated in Sept 2006 that sources would be forthcoming, but that appear not to have happened. -- Whpq 19:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources and non-notable. Darth griz⁹⁸ 22:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources and cites demonstrating notability are added Alf photoman 15:48, 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. Majorly 21:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fungicides Resistance Action Committee[edit]

Organization lacks stand-alone notability. It appears to be just another company in a large, cluttered world. YechielMan 05:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP on all points particularly the one about multiple non-trival works. No news articles and no impact on the world at large - Peripitus (Talk) 05:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As well as failing WP:CORP, there's just 90 Google hits (many from WP mirrors and FRAC web pages) and no Alexa ranking for home page www.frac.info. szyslak (t, c) 10:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above... Addhoc 15:32, 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 21:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder World[edit]

Delete Contested prod. Not notable, game created within another game, external links go to forums. Just not encyclopedia material. Firelement85 05:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOT - an indiscriminate collection of information. probably not worth a redirect to Wonder of the Worlds - Peripitus (Talk) 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable & unencyclopaedic.--blue520 08:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only supporting material consists of 5 links to the same forum. Links to forums count for nothing in any case. CiaranG 19:18, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French e contraction[edit]

Original research, by the looks of it. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French accent, which concerned another text just like this one. Sandstein 05:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not being a French speaker, I can't vouch for the article's accuracy or OR status. However, this article is a how-to, and rewriting to eliminate how-to content would just duplicate existing articles on the subject. szyslak (t, c) 10:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are some statements that are dubious from a linguistic point of view, like "French is difficult and there is [sic] many difficult rules". But native speakers seem to handle the language's "difficult rules" just fine. Besides, not all people from English-language communities think French is really that hard. The "difficulty" of French is not an encyclopedic fact, and surely stems from the author's personal POV. So this article definitely contains OR; my previous statement that I "couldn't vouch for" OR status was only about claims regarding facts about French per se. szyslak (t, c) 10:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant to much better articles like French phonology and French orthography. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
S'pprimer per nom and Szyslak; WP:NOT for how-tos, reeks of fr:Wikipédia:Travaux inédits. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A strange mix of several concepts in French grammar, none of which are correctedly termed 'contraction'. Peter Grey 22:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moi-j'veux qu'on la j'te à la poubelle (Delete)....I understand the article's topic and its inconsistent explanation, but I don't think it merits its own article, especially in its current state. Ihcoyc is right with their assertion that we have much better articles that cover the same topic. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:20, 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 as blatant hoax - crz crztalk 12:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya(Game)[edit]

this seems to be made up game cant find any info on here Oo7565 05:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because notring shoure it noteably and why it should be on here also to me it seems made up game and title thats just me maybe i am wrong but i think i am rightOo7565 05:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
someone have removed the afd template from the Ya(Game) but not from here what should we do and can we do anything about this as well please respond if anyone can help?Oo7565 05:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
could someone put the afd template again the front page someone removed the prod again —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oo7565 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 06:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I checked EA's web site. No results on a search of their games. -- Ben (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if it's not a hoax, it's about as non-notable as you get. Seraphimblade 09:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious hoax. EA doesn't make original and entertaining games anymore, ~~and they absolutely can't make a game title shorter than 30 characters anymore.~~ Oh wait, this isn't an expansion pack. Well, a title without a year or a sequel number in the end. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. A 2001 game by EA and Origin would have substantial coverage on the web, but there's nothing. --TerokNor 13:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete a hoax -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:56, 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 Speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak as a repost. BryanG^(talk) 07:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fatal faze[edit]

Non-notable biography. Previously deleted and has been recreated. Delete —Brim 05:55, 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. W.marsh 05:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sayings of Spartan Women[edit]

One sentence. Material is already in Moralia. YechielMan 05:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt to demonstrate notability, and google indicates it probably isnt. John Vandenberg 06:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Moralia. While I might contest the conclusion that this is not "notable", and think that an encyclopedia article could be written about this section of the book, this is not it. The main article should be expanded before this should be broken out of it. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
commment If ever there was an inappropriate use of Google to deny notability this is it. Nineteen centuries off. DGG 22:09, 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. —Cryptic 17:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Pickett (disambiguation)[edit]

Disambiguation page. Used to have two guys, but one was a redlink. Send this over to miscellany for deletion if it belongs there. YechielMan 06:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G6 per nom. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo 14:47, 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 Speedily deleted as a promotion of a service with no encyclopedic value. (aeropagitica) 06:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBay[edit]

This page is spam. the author has removed the speedy deletion tag about a dozen times. janejellyroll 05:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Still going round and round with user:WBay about this. He has been notified several times how to challenge a speedy deletion request and refuses to listen. Resolute 05:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. useful page for trading stuff. THIS IS NOT SPAM! this is a page for adding stuff u want to trade and people who wants to trade with u will email u. THIS IS NOT EVEN A WEBSITE! it's just a freaking page WBay 05:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete You don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is. It's an encyclopedia, not a flea market; though I agree that the article doesn't exactly meet G11 criteria. 68.76.222.11 05:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I suggest going to eBay and buy stuff. Flibirigit 05:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note WBay is repeatedly removing AfD notices, despite repeated warnings not to do so. Resolute 06:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He (or she) also removed this AFD from the day's log. 68.76.222.11 06:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per everyone. JuJube 06:09, 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sackville Off Gold[edit]

Album by a singer whose few Google hits include speedy deletions of various works of his on Wikipedia and who does not even have an article. This prod was contested by User:Bucket & Fries who may contest prod's I placed on other albums and songs, which I'll add here as related AfDs. JuJube 06:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Both Feet Down, another album whose prod was removed by Mr Rubin (talk · contribs), whose only other edits are creating new articles related to this guy. JuJube 06:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:MUSIC / ALBUM; normally if the artist is notable the albums are, not vice versa (and the albums don't appear to be either). SkierRMH 07:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 04:36, 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. W.marsh 05:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Rufin[edit]

Unencyclopedic--the only thing said about this person is that he was one of four members of a college football team who weren't on a plane that went down. Besides, his name is misspelled--it's "Ruffin". Unnotable. Largo Plazo 06:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failing WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:RS and, indeed, it's mispelt. The Rambling Man 08:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong DeleteWikiMan53 T/C e@ edits 20:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, none much to salvage either Alf photoman 16:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Rambling Man. Static Universe 23:59, 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 no consensus, although personally I think Dmz5 has a point. Chick Bowen 06:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai rum[edit]

I know this is a popular game that's been around a while. The problem with this article is that there is no way to verify the rules and point system used in the game. I've looked for some sort of rules from a reputable source. I've watched this article for a couple months and have seen the point system constantly changing. Fail WP:V. John Reaves 06:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A very popular game. So the point system changes? Mention in the article that there are variations. —Brim 06:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's popular, I've played it many times myself. But it fails WP:V (I've added this to the nom since I forgot to originally). The article contains information that cannot be verified, i.e. the rules and point system. John Reaves 06:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've added an external link to the rules which is from the same source as the source of the rules of the Gin rummy article, so shouldn't fail WP:V. The Rambling Man 08:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to edit the article to reflect these rules? John Reaves 08:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the only content here is a game guide, which we all know that wikipedia is not. If someone can turn this into an article about the game, rather than instructions for how to play it, I might change my mind.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 08:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so does the same apply to the Gin rummy article which, to me, appears to be predominantly a game guide plus a bit of strategy? The Rambling Man 10:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. WP:NOT says pretty clearly that articles should not just be game guides. A paragraph describing play, perhaps a list of the basic rules, should accompany an article about the game itself. That being said, I admit that just writing all the rules/strategies is a good beginning for an article, which could then be expanded to the history of the game, uses in pop culture, etc etc. at which point the guide can be pared down.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NOT says pretty clearly that articles should not just be video game guides. Shanghai Rummy is a card game. As for verifiability, there are many variations of the rules (aka 'house rules'.) Those currently listed seem to have survived editing and time. Otherwise, I suggest Mr. Reaves take the time to address his own concerns rather than raising the delete flag and expecting others to do the work. 66.177.5.252 03:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't comment on things you know nothing about. If you'd bothered viewing the history and diffs, you'd see the constant change in the point system. John Reaves 03:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't tell me what to do. I have been watching this article for some time and have seen the changes. I am well aware that there have been modifications. Some have apparently been vandalism, others have been reverted so that the points system today is the same one that was listed about 3 months ago. 'Constant change' is a gross exaggeration. 66.177.5.252 01:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a fairly popular game, and rules variations are extremely common in card games and shouldn't be a strike against having a page for them. As for the content, I think rules of card games (of the sort that are played with a standard deck of cards) shouldn't really be considered a violation of WP:NOT. Explaining how to play bridge or blackjack isn't a "game guide" in the same way that an explanation of where to jump to get star 1-6 in Super Mario 64 is. Of course we should strive to have card game articles be more than just the rules, but such an article would seem woefully lacking without at least a brief overview of how the game is played. Pinball22 18:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes wonder if that bit of WP:NOT needs clarification, as there are many many articles like this and there does not seem to be consensus over what is and isn't appropriate. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:20, 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. Chick Bowen 06:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birth of a Butterfly[edit]

marked as cleanup since June 2006. I found a single external reference that the film exists from a google search, but don't believe that the film itself is notable enough for inclusion. Someone attempted to prod it once and it was deprodded by the article creator (Urbanpeacock (talk · contribs · count) which is also the name of the "design consulting" company run by the producer / director (link on talk page of article) so may be vanity as well.-- Syrthiss 19:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable film. Jayden54 21:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have been covered in the New York Times, but the article is premium only [24]. It's mentioned on several other sites as well, including one where it's described as a critical success [25]. Won an award at a film festival as well [26]. It's probably covered on foreign language sites as well, as Iranian cinema is quite popular apparently. One Night In Hackney 18:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note All three of One Night In Hackney's sources are about a different movie filmed in Iran in 1999, not this 4 1/2 minute Indian film, made in 1993. From the NYTimes site is this information about the Iranian film, Directed by Mojtaba Raei; written (in Farsi, with English subtitles) by Saeid Shapouri; director of photography. TheMindsEye 02:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I found the Iranian film sources when searching for sources for this film. They're not the same. Syrthiss 02:45, 12 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, Sandstein 06:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~Unverifiable~~ and non-notable. Correction: Existence of the film seems to be verified by third-party sources. Could be a keep, if the director was more notable. Prolog 21:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, this is the same title of a substantial Iranian film that played all over the world in film festivals. If someone writes an article on Mojtaba Raie (it might be spelled differently on Wikipedia) or his film, maybe a note about the other film with the same title, but I see nothing in the article that it merits even this. KP Botany 20:18, 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 deleted by Jimfbleak W.marsh 05:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Remote LLC[edit]

Advertisement. non-notable company. —Brim 06:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indeed appears to be an advertisement. Created by user who has only contributed to that article, save for an edit to Ira Zlotowitz that added an external link to the same software company. Additionally, though a "Google Test" is not exactly 100% conclusive, searching for "Simple Remote" (also the name of the software they sell) returns no results that talk about the software or the company, other than the company's website. I suspect that even if the article is not a blatant advertisment it will fail WP:N hard. -- Y|yukichigai 06:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Akihabara 15:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11 and so tagged. Ohconfucius 03:04, 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. W.marsh 05:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuntao Jiu-Jitsu[edit]

delete Non-notable - looks like an advertisement for a single school Peter Rehse 06:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I made some minor improvements to the article, I found nothing suggesting this is notable. It appears to be one teacher who (very recently) gave a "new" name to his personal art. —Erik Harris 20:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We aren't here to provide advertisements for schools. --SunStar Net^talk 20:05, 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. - Bobet 08:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Vanderleest[edit]

Vanity. Non-notable. Person put "holdon" on the page, so here we go... Delete —Brim 06:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as an attack page. Even if the disparaging comments were removed, it still wouldn't be a notable subject. - Jhinman 06:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deltete looks like vanity page --RockerballAustralia 07:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as attack page and as a non notable bio. VegaDark 07:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. That the article was made by "User:WikipediaSucs" with disaparaging remarks should indicate that this is not a good faith contribution. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 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 Eluchil404 07:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East San Jose[edit]

Origional research. Mostly gangland promotion.Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 07:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment How about just deleting the However... paragraph with its original research and gangland promotion, and leaving the rest? 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 14:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - It is an article (albeit short) on a relevant historical city and current subsection what is now one of the largest metropolitan areas in the United States. I agree the "However..." paragraph is almost certainly original research, but that calls for a cleanup tag, not an AfD nomination. The most you could ask for on this is a merge, and even that would be difficult to justify. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yukichigai. -- Bpmullins | Talk 23:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but providing better sourcing and remove original research items. Yamaguchi先生 03:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree with Yamaguchi and Yukichigai. This is an important neighborhood in San José. It's true that the gang section is original research and not verifiable as is, but deleting those sections still leaves a decent article.Daisyporter 20:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yukichigai. Nuke the OR. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 05:47, 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 wasSpeedy delete as junk. Tubezone 07:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Christopher of Luxembourg[edit]

It appears fairly clear that there's no such person as Prince Christopher of Luxembourg if one checks any basic references, including the ones on the Luxembourg Royal Family pages, although the writing style of the article seems to also strongly indicate such. The article's original author seems to have invented him, possibly as an act of vanity that oddly reminds me of the Joshua Gardner incident. To further back his/her article, the author, FlyingFire, edited the articles of the siblings and Grand Duke Henri. Notice FlyingFire even went so far as to change the birth dates of some of the actual Royal Family children on Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg just to fit the birthdate of "Prince Christopher", or else Princess Alexandria would have been born very premature to have come right after Christopher. Anivron 07:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. --Metropolitan90 08:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 18:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, see the official site or the Ruling Family.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom as vandalism. Tubezone 06:07, 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, and redirect. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 20:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Crane[edit]

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]

Redirect to Passions. Non-notable, not even named until 5 days ago. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 15:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect to Passions, more or less per nom... Addhoc 17:05, 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, then redirect to The Rules. Majorly 21:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rules (dating)[edit]

100% original research. Speedy deleted once already, and reposted by author with edit summary "Do not delete"; prod removed. JuJube 10:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, then Redirect to The Rules, a notable book on dating. We don't need any of this stuff left in the history. Mango juice^talk 10:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#OR. --Bonadea 12:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear from reading the article that this is the editor's own personal hypothesis being first published on Wikipedia, in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. The fact that neither of the two cited books (that supposedly support this article) exists according to both Amazon and Google Books is in some ways simply icing on the cake. Wikipedia is not the place for publishing one's personal, firsthand, ideas and observations about a set of dating rules. The place for that is one's own web site. A redirect doesn't seem necessary, given the title. Delete. Uncle G 15:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and warn user if fabricated refs. I was the PRODer, and stand by my original WP:OR WP:NFT concern. DMacks 18:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as un-encyclopaedic, but it does make a funny read.--Rudjek 19:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but redirect to the book The Rules. Note that these "rules" are different and apparently unrelated, but a redirect would make sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and redirect to the known (and published) book The Rules. WP is not a personal publishing house. -- Pastordavid 22:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Re-direct I agree with all the above comments The Rules is a much more reliable stuff for the content of the article.Gan fon 00:05, 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Cuervo[edit]

NN journalist per WP:BIO. Although currently the article might qualify for an A7 speedy, I don't think that's a good idea because previous versions (such as this one explained her importance well enough. The article was deleted via prod and then recreated; in both cases, the article was written by User:Ivycuervo, so there's a WP:AUTO problem as well. Delete. Mango juice^talk 10:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google gives inconclusive results regarding several probably unrelated Ivy Cuervos. JuJube 10:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Autobiography. -- RHaworth 14:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Like JuJube's search, Yahoo hits on this person are non-existant which seems to indicate a lack of notability as per WP:BIO. The majority of edits have come from the user, Ivycuervo, which seems to be a WP:COI in that if she were notable, somebody else would write her article for her. Ronbo76 17:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 18:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JuJube. GreenJoe 18:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty clear WP:COI case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 20:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable local journalist. You'd have to seriously stretch the bounds of WP:BIO to get CTV Northern Ontario's primary news anchors to qualify, let alone their reporters — and I say this as somebody who was born and raised in the station's broadcast area and still goes back for a visit at least a few days every year, and thus has personally seen her on the news. Bearcat 23:51, 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. Majorly 21:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of NTSC U/C Xbox 360 games with multi-language support[edit]

Delete, unencyclopedic listcruft. Recury 14:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial, multi-lingual support isn't a defining characteristic and this list likely contains original research. Combination 10:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is reference material to functionality of Xbox 360 games. This list is useful as a reference in language education, for example. References to sources (links to games) are included. This information is hard to come by otherwise because Microsoft does not advertise it. Languages used in countries listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_capitals_in_native_languages. How is it so different to list languages used in computer games? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.250.225 (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Clarification: topic is not encyclopedic. Exarion 22:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I reordered the comments in chronological order.) Exarion, can you clarify your comment on reference to WP:NOT#INFO? Are you refering to Wikipedia not being an indiscriminant collection of information? If so, which of the 9 items listed in that section applies here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.250.225 (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above... Addhoc 19:05, 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 WP:TINC. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Zionist Cabal[edit]

I fear this is not a particularly notable cabal. No reliable sources appear to refer to this cabal, raising concerns of verifiability and original research. And everyone knows the only cabal here is the immortal reptilian humanoid Illuminati USEBACA overlords. And we they will tolerate no other cabals here! Weregerbil 10:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously per WP:SELF. JuJube 11:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We all know that Wikipedia is truly controlled by the Wikans. Kyaa the Catlord 11:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought it was controlled by many different rival cabals that, as with gangs, only meet a few times per year (Wikimanias). In all seriousness, this is non-notable, contains no reliable sources, and is incredibly self-referential. -- Kicking222 13:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can this be redirected to WP:CABAL or are there namespace issues? WilyD 15:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shatner's behind it all. Seriously, non-notable, unverifiable, no reliable sources, original research... --Charlene 15:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Charlene above —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chill doubt (talk • contribs) 15:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete hardly worth discussing. per nom. Akihabara 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Under what criterion? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Akihabara, this is not even worth discussing. GabrielF 16:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SELF. Merely notable cabal with two blog posts as references. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nonsense.--Jersey Devil 20:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEO and WP:RS. Dragomiloff 21:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete ~~We can't risk letting the secret out even for a sec~~err, I mean... NONSENSE. --tjstrf talk
Delete per above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject is not verifiable through reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 03:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oy vey! How did this article get past? VegaDark 07:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the Wikipedia Homosexual Agenda Coalition doesn't allow any competition anyway, so we might as well as delete both before this turns into a gang war. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:26, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Batiz[edit]

I'm not sold on the notability of this person. Google hits are unimpressive. Prod removed by author. JuJube 11:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject appears to fail WP:BIO - as nom, Google reveals virtually zip, without assertion of notability or verifiable sources, gotta go. The Rambling Man 16:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided, so comment. We have Exile Quarterly as a reference to the award mentioned in the article plus a list of some published works [27]. I don't know how notable the award is, or how significant the publications, so can't call this one QuiteUnusual 17:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Keep - The article's subject does get Yahoo hits where she has written several short stories available online. Her book does appear in this World Cat search A todos los voy a matar and was found by Yahoo searches as a paperback in these two online stores, BestPrices.com and BiggerBooks.com. As per user, QuiteUnusual's observation, she did receive an award in 2005. Not sure if that makes her notable enough for WP:BIO but she is being written about. Ronbo76 23:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Vote changed to Keep based upon DGG and Oakshade's opinion. Ronbo76 05:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, there seems to be something there yet it cannot be verified unless sources show notability which at this point they don't Alf photoman 15:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The award helps show notability & has an V from an outside source, just needs to get the rest & put it together. DGG 22:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an award winning writer. --Oakshade 05:13, 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 speedy delete. -- Steel 14:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EXensys[edit]

Not notable. No references. Advertising Sleepyhead 11:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete db-spam. JuJube 11:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G11, so tagged. Seraphimblade 11:47, 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: sourcing was provided during AFD process. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 12:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Littl'ans[edit]

Was proposed for deletion but has been nominated on AfD before, hence procedural deprod and listing here.

Original prod reason was: The only weak claim to notability was 2 years ago, nothing apparantly notable has happened with the band since. Unsourced, failing WP:V, no non-trivial independant third party coverage failing WP:N. Flyingtoaster1337 12:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was the prodder (just saying for the sake of disclosure). Still those reasons above, I don't believe this band is notable enough yet. They did support Babyshambles, 2 years ago. Nothing has happened with them since from the look of it. 2 years is long time for absolutely nothing new to happen to a band. The Kinslayer 12:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - made the top twenty in the UK singles chart, and article alludes to a tour of New York which if it was properly sourced, along with numerous gigs in the UK would easily satisfy the accepted criteria - even without any reference to Pete Doherty! - fchd 16:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll happily change to a keep if the article becomes decently sourced in that case. But, as it stands the article fails WP:V. The Kinslayer 16:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After a quick search, I've added sources for the group's tour with Babyshambles, and their UK chart hit. On its own, I suggest the chart hit satisfies WP:MUSIC. Eludium-q36 10:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first four results on Google are three Myspace pages and this article, and most of the others are lyrics. The name gets 27,800 hits, as opposed to the 1 million+ hits gotten by other bands. Curtmack 16:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm happy with the sourcing in the current version - the BBC, NME and Top 40 seem to fill my interpretation of WP:RS. Per Richard, Top 20 on the UK singles chart, and an international tour, seem to mee WP:MUSIC. Number 2 on the Indie charts is not bad either as an assertion of notability. I see enough here to convince me to !vote keep. Daniel.Bryant 11:51, 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 procedural keep. Well, that was a flop. Even after being given a delete reason, and being relisted, no real solid outcome was achieved. Given that this has been going for 16 days, 15 with an actual nomination, I can't see the point in {{relist}}ing it yet again. Daniel.Bryant 07:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GMT Records[edit]

—— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 21:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap, somehow I listed this without a reason, all of you feel free to slap me a few times! Anyway, the original reason for me listing this was as failing to demonstrate the importance of the subject. This is a new record label. I also do did not see any sources as to why this has any importance. Of course it looks like the article has been updated since my flawed nomination. As such I still think it can use some help with notability, (what makes this special, and or worthy of note?). I apologize for the bad nomination. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was the reason for this article being listed for deletion? Would it be useful to re-merge it back into Aozora Records as at [28] ? Foxhill 21:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - no reason given for deletion. --- RockMFR 22:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Aozora Records. We are sort of missing a nominating statement here, but this seems like the reasonable thing to do. --Brianyoumans 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep due to no argument presented for deletion. Tarinth 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the above comments came before the deletion rationale was added at 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC). Daniel.Bryant 07:23, 20 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, —Centrx→talk • 13:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Information is notable enough to have on wikipedia. Where is not an AfD question. Eluchil404 07:37, 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 DELETE. -Doc^g 23:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly dictator[edit]

clearly a POV fork Carabinieri 13:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please improve before it get's deleted. I'm not to good at this wikipedia editing and just it could use an article named about this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Intellectual47 (talk • contribs) 2007-01-12 13:35:32
Delete. The article is weak, has no sources, no verifiability of the term itself, and looks likely to become a copy-and-paste from here. The Rambling Man 16:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be POV pushing from the very outset. The Wikipedia is not a soapbox to push an agenda or a point, nor does it publish original research. --Eqdoktor 18:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So many POV violations in one short paragraph - that's quite an achievement. Never going to be a valid article. --Folantin 08:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - irretrievably POV. Should not be recreated, this is not a valid term. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:13, 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 Eluchil404 07:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bye Bye Blackbird[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages because :reprinting of lyrics

Delete The vote of the client --Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 08:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This diff is reprint of lyrics.--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 08:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and send to cleanup - badly written article on a very notable song recorded by hundreds of notable performers, including Coltrane, Sinatra, Garland, Rickie Lee Jones, Miles Davis, the Monkees, Joe Cocker, Keith Jarrett, etc. It was in the Top 20 most requested songs of the year in 1926 (at No. 16)[29]; John Coltrane won a 1981 Grammy Award for Best Jazz Instrumental Performance, Soloist with the song[30]. --Charlene 14:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable frequently recorded song. Comment: in what year do the 1926 lyrics become public domain, so they can be included in the article, or can the lyrics be included now as analysis and criticism can be a fair use?Edison 14:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed unreferenced original research ("I spoke to so-and-so") and added references and information. --Charlene 14:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. I assume the article looked very different when it was nominated. Right now delete is just nuts... WilyD 15:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the current version. Apparently a jazz standard. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
Speedy Keep. Written poorly, but easily passes WP:MUSIC. --Wizardman 17:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable song, still fairly well-known after more than 75 years, subject of a Straight Dope article... which isn't a claim to notability but uite interesting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still a stub, but very well known in multiple venues. SkierRMH 18:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 18:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Wizardman and SkierRMH's observation. Appears to meet WP:Music. Ronbo76 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable song, but remove lyrics since I believe that violates copyright law. Yamaguchi先生 03:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind, this song is old enough that it is in the public domain, correct? Yamaguchi先生 03:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've actually removed the lyrics. And no, they're not in the public domain. The cutoff date for works published in the United States is December 31, 1922 - anything published after that date is under copyright. --Charlene 10:23, 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian royal symbols[edit]

Delete: As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of United Kingdom academic heraldry - fair use images cannot be used in gallery format par terms of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #8. --G2bambino 17:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I concur. The fair use images have been removed from this article, but as with the above noted AfD, the remaining article is incomplete and can not be complete due to fair use usage restrictions in place on Wikipedia. --Durin 20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even if an article is not complete, it's not a reason for delition. Additionally, many images used in this page are PD. --Qyd 05:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 18:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am loathe to delete this because I think it is useful, but if the UK article was deleted, this one should be too. GreenJoe 06:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - An article about Canadian royal symbols would probably be an excellent idea (if watched closely for OR), but this ain't that. -- Jonel | Speak 08:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and while we're at it, {{cleanup}} and {{expand}}. There really is no policy basis to delete the article. It is encyclopedic, but could use a much better introductory paragraph or paragraphs. Agent 86 22:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is potentially a way to make this a worthwhile and valid article, but a simple gallery page isn't the way to do that. If it can be made into a more legitimately encyclopedic article, then keep; otherwise, delete. Bearcat 23:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be made into something more than a gallery page. A proper introduction, with some history, by someone more familiar with this topic would do wonders (I've taken a stab at it). In many ways, this is not so much a gallery as it is a list, meeting the purpose of WP:LIST. Agent 86 19:41, 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, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dickson Hill, Ontario[edit]

Violates WP:LOCAL and WP:CRYRSTAL, it's a page for a suburb that doesn't exist yet. Static Universe 05:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Static Universe 05:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every Buttfuck, Indiana has an article, so should every Assbackwards, Ontario. Size of city/village/whatever is not a criterion for deletion, per the US census article makin' bot precendent. WilyD 15:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Population centers are inherently notable. Caknuck 16:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all population centers. — brighterorange (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although every population centre is considered notable by policy, Dickson Hill is not a population centre. As stated in the article, is part of Markham, Ontario which is the notable population centre. That municipality grew and absorbed older towns and villages, but Dickson Hill is not one of them as listed on Markham, Ontario#Markham's neighbourhoods and communities. It is just a named neighbourhood within the municipality. -- Whpq 19:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --SunStar Net^talk 19:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That policy doesn't actually say anything relevent to this article. Care to elaborate? WilyD 21:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep iff proper sourcing can be provided prior to the conclusion of this debate. Yamaguchi先生 03:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like others have said, population centers are inherently notable. Inserted this reference verifying what's currently in the article and then some [31]. It appears to be an historic area. --Oakshade 09:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That is not the same Dickson Hill. The one in your reference is for Cambridge, Ontario, but the one up for AFD is in Markham, Ontario -- Whpq 12:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. Rather distinctive name. Whow would've thought? But still, per Ymaguchi, with verification this is a solid keep. --Oakshade 17:18, 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. Majorly 21:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim gottlieb-walker[edit]

None notable photographer. Only 500 Ghits for the name most pointing to her website. Lacks sources. Maybe Conflict of interest.--M8v2 03:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the hallmarks of vanity page so WP:COI, or if you prefer WP:RS and WP:N as no assertion of notability with any reliable sources is provided. The Rambling Man 16:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced and cited by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above... Addhoc 19:02, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Mayfield Scholars Program[edit]

A minor academic program of Stanford University. Delete or else Merge. YechielMan 08:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't merge Not particuarly notable internship outplacement program Bwithh 07:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 19:49, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex Healing[edit]

I was the one who proposed deleting this article; wasn't logged in.

It appears that the article refers to a little-known pseudoscientific practice whose only known practitioner is a particular business. This makes it not really worth including, and a form of advertising despite the skeptical text. What say you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris Schnee (talk • contribs) 06:52, 12 January 2007

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, looks to be pretty popular among the sorts of people who would believe this sort of thing. Lots of google hits and even a feature article from no less an authority than Yoga Magazine. Recury 17:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I often support keeping this sort of thing, but this particular exemplar is too nonsensical even for me. If kept, first step would be to stubbify the article. DGG 22:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with DGG, this article needs to either be deleted entirely or stubbified and then rebuilt. If it is so popular that there is a feature article on it from Yoga Magazine, why is the Wiki article not much more than a regurgitated version of the Vortex Healing business' webpage? Arcticwoman 22:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above... Addhoc 23:14, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Broadhurst[edit]

Does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Unsuccessful candidate for state legislative office in November's election. Received under 3% of the votes (403, to be precise). Lincolnite 13:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per precedent, being a state legislator does not confer adequate notability on its own for inclusion. This would mean that unsuccessful fringe-party candidates for a seat in a state legislature are nowhere near notable enough (assuming that was their sole claim to fame). Caknuck 16:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far from meeting WP:BIO as either a candidate or an activist. Eluchil404 07:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above... Addhoc 19:43, 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 delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FashionIQ[edit]

NN website/corporation per WP:CORP/WP:WEB. The article has been speedy deleted per A7 a couple of times, I had previously prodded it, but in all honesty I think the site is explained well enough to pass the CSD test, and we should have a fair debate on it here, followed by a quick deletion. Mango juice^talk 13:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete (which I've already done 3 times). It has no evidence of any notability per WP:WEB I'm afraid.Tyrenius 14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we can G4 this, because it's a contested speedy. Doesn't it have to go through AfD at this point? Caknuck 16:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right. No point speedying again (A7) as it can be recreated. Let's leave it to AfD. Tyrenius 16:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And I think it's questionable whether A7 should apply. When we ask for articles on corporations to make claims that their company is important or significant, we're actually pushing them to write spam. In my view, if the article explains the company enough that we can get a good idea what it is, and it seems unique or at least not heavily duplicated, A7 should not apply. If it seems heavily duplicated (say, an article on a dry cleaning establishment), some kind of claim of importance must be needed. Mango juice^talk 16:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB & WP:CORP. Author has yet to make a case for notability. Caknuck 16:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though willing to consider a change if promised sources are provided. Not able to find a bit of non-trivial coverage myself. Seraphimblade 21:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've seen this article reposted repeatedly, though this time the author remembered not to write in the first person. Seriously, is there any method of shoe shopping that merits an encyclopedia entry? I don't think so. Magichands 23:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Commercial shopoholic unencyclopedic spam. Salt. Athænara ✉ 06:49, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World at War (Game Tournament)[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, asserts no claim to notability and has no reliable sources. BJ^Talk 13:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No non-primary sources found. Wickethewok 16:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — brighterorange (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've heard of this tournament myself, but only as part of my previous experience playing Battlefield 1942. By itself, it is not a notable subject, failing WP:WEB, as well as having no credible sources. It's not informative to readers outside of the BF1942/Forgotten Hope. --Scottie theNerd 20:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Plus the creators have made this article Goatopia that has been backlogged at CSD for some time (hint to closing admin: speedy Goatopia at the same time). ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 07:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is one of the most notable/best-known Battlefield-tournaments, and with Battlefield being one of the most popular multiplayer games, this article is certainly notable. Admittable, it could need some expanding/referecing. Ewok 20:17, 16 January 2007 (GMT+1)

You can't just say keep because its notable. Why is it notable? What about the complete lack of sources at the moment? Wickethewok 05:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am part of the World at War and I am a source and so is the owners of the World at war. it is NOT OUR FALUT there is no sources. NO one will give us the press, we need [22ndCW]Dell970 16:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a press venue, it's an encyclopedia. Sure, the standards are lenient, but there's still no verifiable indication that this tournament is notable. --Alan Au 20:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE A IDEA. WHY DONT YOU JOIN THE WORLD AT WAR TOURNY THEN YOU CANT SAY THAT THIS IS ALL NOT TRUE. [22ndCW]Dell970 22:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, I'm a fickler for wanting reliable, independant third-party sources for web content, both for the "WEB" guideline and official policy regarding verifiability of information. I'm not convinced that the current version meets these standards. Daniel.Bryant 11:46, 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 Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victory in Europe (tournament)[edit]

Fails WP:WEB and has no reliable sources. BJ^Talk 13:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability. MaxSem 12:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has no sources to quote,simply because it is its own source for information.The Tournament is sponsored by Icemat and Steelseries aswell. Crisp — Crisptbh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. I can assure you that this tournament is notable in the Day of Defeat: Source world as it is one of the largest of its kind (and DoD:S remains one of the most popular multiplayer games from Valve). I admit that in its current for the references are somewhat insufficient. That will be dealt with. As it is often the case in the online gaming world it is hard to find and mass media articles about the subject of this article, so web-based sources will have to do. On a side note I am not a member of or affiliated with the management of this tournament so please don't think I am trying to do some product placement here. Thx. Ewok 17:07, 18 January 2007 (CET)

Comment, this page doesn't have *one* source and more than one is needed to meet WP:WEB. BJ^Talk 16:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, But we are the primary source of info how they quote themselves.Crisp

Comment, you must have third party sources... BJ^Talk 18:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of published sources, the basis of Wikipedia's information. Wickethewok 04:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 12:07, 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 Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black on Blue[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystalball. "Black on Blue" + "Lisa Marie Presley" gets one hit on Google. When you replace "Black on Blue" with "Tennessee Tide" (the rumored single) you get zero. No sources given to suggest anything about this album. Metros232 13:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Since it doesn't bring any results on Google, it's most likely a hoax in addition to being a rumour. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Crystal ball? Verifiable? Hoax? The Rambling Man 16:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per crystalballing--Tainter 16:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is it 100 percent false. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.215.97.197 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHOLE Magazine[edit]

This appears to either be an advertising piece or something similar: nothing is given that asserts the notability of this magazine. SunStar Net^talk 13:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per SunStar Net. Notabilty not asserted. Teiresias84 13:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It reads like spam and Google search shows no notability or mentions. The article was speedied twice in the past week, and further attempts of the author to create this article should result in protection. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be verified using reliable sources, and notability reasonably asserted. Strong conflict of interest is also evident. Compare the name of the publisher, given on their website, with the user name of the article's creator. Wikipedia cannot be used as an advertising venue. If your magazine or website is indeed notable, someone else will write about it. (By the way, the magazine was also speedy deleted as WHOLE (magazine), so that's three.) Antandrus (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Antandrus. The original author says the magazine has been subject of several non-trivial publications - cite them and it'd be a different matter. The Rambling Man 16:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Antandrus. —dima/s-ko/ 21:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. As with Micaelas10, Yahoo searches does not demonstrate notability. Ronbo76 23:41, 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 keep, article is currently linked from the Main Page, with no prejudice for renominating later Kusma (討論) 14:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy[edit]

Individual moves are the subject matter for news articles, not encyclopedia articles. While the subject matter is clearly worth including in the article on David Beckham and possibly Los Angeles Galaxy, I think we should really wait until the dust settles to see if this has real historical significance in and of itself. Perhaps it is a shame to delete outright this work, but I think that a transwiki of the article to wikinews, and merging of appropriate parts to David Beckham and elsewhere would be appropriate. Otherwise, this is a pretty dangerous precedent of encyclopedia articles on individual transfers. Robotforaday 14:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Taking the $250 million over 5 years at face value, it's the biggest contract ever signed in the history of sport... and it's a main page article. I consider it notable enough for inclusion. ugen64 14:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to various articles per nom. SYSS Mouse 14:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge--CuentaDisponible 14:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Robotforaday 14:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the David Beckham article. dposse 14:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Mo need for individual articles on transfers when the player and club pages can cover it. WikiGull 14:53, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pet sitting[edit]

Not a very encyclopedic entry, and poorly written. Looks to have been created and updated mostly to advertise certain websites. Watchsmart 14:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that Petsitting should be considered for deletion as well. Watchsmart 15:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced. Reasonable topic for an article, but was existing as a repository for spanm (which I've tried to excise) WilyD 15:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems like a valid subject. The text that is there now is not entirely useless or beyond improvement. Spam links and how-to material could be edited out, leaving a reasonable stub. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per Smerdis; needs a complete rewrite to remove POV and guidebook content and add sources. It's a legitimate business with coverage in reliable sources (e.g., CBS). --Muchness 15:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is a real job. I stubifyed the article for now, the advert-like stuff has been deleted.--Ioannes Pragensis 15:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after good work by Ioannes. The Rambling Man 16:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten, still a stub, but an ok beginning. SkierRMH 18:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep authentic occupation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an obvious candidate for improvement, not deletion, and AFD as we all know is not cleanup. RFerreira 19:35, 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. Although many/most people would class the events of 1948 to be akin to ethnic cleansing, others would not. The title is inherently POV, and the contents are covered elsewhere. -Doc^g 23:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1948 Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine[edit]

This article is guilty of many crimes - extreme POV (beginning with the name), soap-boxing, it's unreferenced, and it's almost unreadable. It's a small part from a recently uploaded and deleted article (for copyright reason), which was based on an unpublished book. okedem 15:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inherently POV GabrielF 16:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel or Palestine-related deletion discussions. GabrielF 16:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same - crz crztalk 16:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Seems to be historical, as for PoV, that is something that should be discussed on a talk page, which no such discussion seems to exist. I have added three references, some wikilinks and a see also section. I wouldnt be surprised if this article was found elsewhere in more detail already. If one does exist I may be open to a redirect or merge, just let me know on my talk page. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 16:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole issue is dealt with in in great detail in several articles, mainly Palestinian exodus, and Palestinian refugee. Also is Arab-Israeli conflict, and 1948 Arab-Israeli War (also, by the way, the counterpart - Jewish exodus from Arab lands). okedem 16:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even the name is completely POV. okedem 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are forums to rename articles. I guess my next question would be, which of those articles deals with the actual claims of ethnic cleansing, not just mentions it as part of a larger article. If one exists I would be more then happy to change to delete. However it seems by the number of articles you can cite, there doesnt exist to be a parent article focuing on the topic only. Any info you have is well appreciated. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 16:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main claim is dealt with in full in Palestinian exodus. That's the whole point of that article, how and why so many Arabs left some areas in Palestine. Did they leave of their own accord? Were they driven out? That article deals with it. okedem 16:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV Fork of Palestinian exodus, perhaps merge additional material into that article.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fact is that the exodus of Palestinians was not originally a Israeli idea but caused by mass panic after a false news release on Palestinian radio Alf photoman 18:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE COPYVIOL Article is a copy and paste (including article title) from this website. It falls under under CSD 12 (Blatant copyright infringement), simple as that. --Eqdoktor 18:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Moreover "The purpose of this article is to make the case for ..." means that it is a political pamhlet, not an NPOV article.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK.--Jersey Devil 20:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again. I already deleted this once as unsalvageably POV. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per eqdoktor and okedem. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 21:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. "The purpose of this article is to make the case for..." makes it clear that this article was intended to push a specific point of view - the very definiton of what's not allowed. We can mention this in Palestinian exodus, if we find some more references like those NuclearZer0 found, but it doesn't need its own article. Quack 688 09:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually it says what it says because its a blatant "copy and paste" copyright violation (the links and external refs are a later addition from a different editor) from a Palestinian website. It doesn't even set out to be a neutral encyclopedic article in the first place. It should have just been speedily deleted at the outset under CSD12 but I guess since there is already a discussion in place, the admins are letting it run its course. --Eqdoktor 11:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G12 (copyright infringement) per Eqdoktor. That link didn't work for me before - it still doesn't. However, I did a bit of digging - the first Google hit for a phrase in the article is the link you provided. It's still down, but a cached copy confirms that this is a copyvio. (LOL, I guess I learned something from marking a bunch of copy-pasted essays as a uni tutor.) However, I still feel this topic should be briefly mentioned in Palestinian exodus - we just can't copy-paste this text, is all. Quack 688 12:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article deals with historical facts that has happened to the original people of Palestine, the delete requests are only POV from Israel supporters to cover the historical facts, Wikipedia is the soruce for knowledge. article is growing and more reference. will be included. 16:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.198.118 (talk • contribs)

The whole issue is covered in the Palestinian exodus article. There are so many different reason to delete this so called article, it's amazing. The copyright violation, the incomprehensibility, the extreme POV nature, starting with the very name, the fact it's completely unsourced. okedem 15:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POVFORK Shrike 18:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (copyright infringement) removed, take into account GabrielF, Shrike and Okedem blatant POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.198.118 (talk • contribs)
Okedemstop reverting talk page, I'm not voting twice, I'm just confirming my views on the historical nature of this topic, the moderaters have eyes to see. as bad as the title sounds it is something Israel has done to the Palestinians, Okedemyou confiscated thier land, here you are after them to confiscate thier right to talk about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.198.118 (talk • contribs)
Okedem DON'T REVERT THIS TALK PAGE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.198.118 (talk • contribs)

Everyone, please note that this anonymous user has already voted, above. He has also changed comments by Quack 688, and Eqdoktor, by putting a strike through their vote.

And to you, anonymous user, the whole topic is already covered in another article, so this one is a POV fork, and should thus by deleted. Perhaps you'll also learn that attacking other users is frowned upon. okedem 10:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong (and should be actually speedy) Delete Doesn't add any new information , already covered in dozens of articles on wikipedia, starting from 1948 Arab Israeli War to Palestinian exodus etc. In fact, Palestinian exodus is the NPOV name for ethnic cleansing I guess. Amoruso 00:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it adds lies - like saying "The "Jewish Quarter" in Jerusalem was created as a result of the transfer of Palestinians...", when the Jewish quarter has existed for ages, and its Jewish residents were driven out by Arabs in 1948. okedem 10:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Um, 24.209.198.118, during this AfD, you've done the following:

- Restored NuclearZer0's keep comment (a comment that he struck through himself). [32]

- Put a strike through comments from Eqdoktor and myself, not once but twice - even after Okedem used an edit summary to tell you it was inappropriate. [33] [34]

- Voted keep twice, as shown in links one and three above. For the record, saying keep in bold text twice, as you've done, is voting twice.

I've restored everyone else's posts to their original forms, but all I've done to yours is add unsigned comments. I don't know what the exact procedure around here is for acts like these, but I'm sure a kind soul will enlighten me. Quack 688 11:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All that aside, back to the article. If a few people have publicly referred to the Palestinian exodus as an "ethnic cleansing", that should be at least mentioned in that article. Some of the sources listed here could be used over there. But all this article is doing is attempting to establish an "ethnic cleansing" case by itself. Comments like "The Israeli occupation government uses a racist ID card system" are irrelevant. Does one of the sources listed actually say that this ID card is an ethnic cleansing tool? Or are you simply using this claim to build up your own argument? Quack 688 11:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Palestinian exodus has happened in the year 1948 and is not the same as the continuous “ethnic cleansing” , I have referenced many articles using the term “ethnic cleansing”.. What else do you call the “tactic” of a government using a special policy of house demolishing, special ID card system, special planning permission and building laws, temporary residency ID and ID card revocation against a sect of its own residents…. But Ethnic Cleansing tactic

Moderators please look at most of the above voters’ profiles and IPs and take NPOV into account. This topic is not covered anywhere else and deserves its own page to have extensive coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.198.118 (talk • contribs)

First off, what you're doing is attacking users for their identity and nationality. Stop it at once. My personal opinions have nothing to do with this (nor do you know anything about me, except that I'm an Israeli. Guess that makes me guilty of whatever it is you're claiming).

We can all read, and the name of that article is "The 1948 Ethnic Cleansing...". If you want to talk about other time periods, you're dealing with the wrong article. More so, what you want is a partisan article, advocating your own POV. You won't get it. If you have any meaningful, well referenced data, you can use it to enhance existing articles. Otherwise, go open up a blog for your rants. okedem 18:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um.. saying you don't have a NPOV is not attacking you, unless you want to feel so....

This article is in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines on Citing and the content is varifiable.... according to wikipedia your views fit here [bias] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.198.118 (talk • contribs)

Delete this inherently POV article, Tewfik^Talk 05:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article doens't meet the listing policy for AfD, its spelled clearly in the deletion[Policy]. no matter what the vote result outcome is, this article doen't meet the deletion policy it and shouldn't have been voted on in the first place....This topic is not covered anywhere else and deserves its own page to have extensive coverage Saying the truth 21:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although I do not endorse the existence of this article, the listing of this article for deletion was done in bad faith. No debate occured on talk page, no attempt was made to move to an appropriate name. No discussion of any sort was made to come to an agreement with a user who is apparently very new. Also, the POV argument doesn't hold in light of Rwandan genocide. I suspect the intention behind deleting this article are just as POVish as the intention behind creating thsi article.Bless sins 22:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting aside the POV fork issues, this article merits deletion as a copyvio. Tewfik^Talk 05:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The copyright violation issue has ben taken care off and dosen't exist anymore 24.209.198.118 12:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of bad faith. The article was created, and then deleted as it was a copyright violation. Then it was recreated, only shorter. It was copied from some website, based on an unpublished book. Apart from the copyright violation, it's a POV fork of Palestinian Exodus, written to advocate a certain viewpoint. As such, it should be deleted. It still should, as no one can even make up their mind what this article is trying to talk about (even the user who uploaded it called it "1948...", and then claimed it's about today as well). For allegations about current issues, there's Allegations of Israeli apartheid. This article looks like an opinion column, and has no place here. Also, the user has engaged in personal attacks, using ad hominem tactics, and attacking users (such as myself) for their nationality. okedem 21:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you keep saying based on unpublished book, which is not true

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

A you may also want to have a look at some results of a quick search on Amazon

Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948 (Paperback)
Speaking The Truth: Zionism, Israel, And Occupation (Paperback)

Ethnic Cleansing
Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (The Institute for Palestine Studies Series) (Hardcover)

if this is not enough, I could bring whole a lot more references....

If you don't remember the article you copied from, that's your problem, but it stated it was based on an unpublished book by Illan Peppe. okedem 03:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your POV out of Wikipedia 24.209.198.118 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV fork. Beit Or 20:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Maybe a reference from former US president Jimmy Carter is enough? Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid 24.209.198.118 02:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You only strengthen my claim - there's alraedy an article for this - Allegations of Israeli apartheid - thus, this article should be deleted, being a POV fork. okedem 03:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improve and keep or delete but still open for re-creation. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 10:21, 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 Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney Channel stars[edit]

This list is basically just a list version of Category:Disney Channel actors. There's no reason for it, really, and it has no real criteria other than having been on a TV show on the Disney Channel. Metros232 15:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep good enough for a category = good enough for a list which has a completely different function. Jcuk 16:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Er, what was that completely different function, again? I must have missed it. --Calton | Talk 23:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_guideline#Purpose_of_lists and remind yourself of it. Jcuk 00:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure it's even good enough for a category, and duplicating it for a list? Uh uh. --Calton | Talk 23:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, ~~works better as a category.~~ Static Universe 05:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not categorize. As it was stated another current AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nickelodeon actors, "Actor by network is bad precedent." -- Wikipedical 22:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands (with lists of shows each actor is in) it is not completely redundant to the category. It is still to indiscriminant and of limited notability to be a good list. Eluchil404 07:50, 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 per CSD G7. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XML Data Storage Models[edit]

I should not have created the article. I found an equivelant one already built. Alex Jackl 15:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close - Should be in WP:TFD. Tevildo 16:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if this was not clear - this was an article NOT a template. It should be a Speedy Close - there is no conflict about this- I created the page and I found someone else had already created a similar one immediately afterwards. I apologize if I somehow labeled this as a Template. Alex Jackl 16:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: next time, you should use the {{db-author}} template. --Dhartung | Talk 21:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Noted! Alex Jackl 23:20, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bandit Industries Inc.[edit]

Contested speedy. Spam for a company who's article offers no sources or notability. Nuttah68 16:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm with Nuttah68. Seems most likely to be a single purpose account, the editor has added other info regarding Bandit Industries products across WP. The Rambling Man 16:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though the article itself is lacking the amount of ghits suggests that this company is notable in its field. there are a lot of other sites pertaining to the company that are not official company sites. keep for now.--Tainter 16:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can we find anything that'll mean this company meets WP:CORP in that case? The Rambling Man 16:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are only 1150 Ghits for the search of "Bandit Industries" Remus (here) indicating that it is a rather small company.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. Author appears only interested in adding info about the company to Wikipedia. Recury 17:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a nn company.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:52, 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 to El Salvador. Daniel.Bryant 07:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Salvador: Gangs[edit]

This is a short article that has zero mainspace pages that link to it. While certainly a potentially encyclopedic topic, this article needs at the very least a rename and expansion. However, my suggestion is that we merge the verifiable parts of the page into El Salvador and delete it. I'm sending it here to get more opinions and attention. Eric (EWS23) 16:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into El Salvador. The topic is encyclopedic, but it should be kept in the main article about El Salvador, perhaps under the "crime" heading. The verifiable parts of this will fit comfortably into the acceptable length for an article about a nation. If one is going to create a separate article on a topic like this, it should be something to the effect of Crime in El Salvador, per naming conventions and so that all of the crime in the nation will be covered. However, I must reiterate that this section of the main article is not yet lengthy enough to split. Srose (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to merge and topic should be covered in Mara Salvatrucha and 18th Street Gang articles.--Jersey Devil 17:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to El Salvador which already has a section on Crime, where this would go nicely. Recury 17:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to El Savador Alf photoman 18:48, 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 Eluchil404 07:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Tatangelo[edit]

Notability of subject. Important in Laredo, but is that enough notability? Bellhalla 16:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If being the long-time mayor of a moderate-sized city isn't enough, getting a mention in Time for a unique idea in government and having a CBS News special report involve him should put him into the realm of notability, I'd think. Pinball22 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. I did not see the Time article in the list of references; that would certainly be notable enough. (The way the Aldo Tatangelo article is written, however, it reads as if the CBS Special is about his predecessor.) — Bellhalla 21:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I got the feeling it was mostly about his predecessor, but included discussion of the election and Tatangelo's campaign, but of course I have no way of knowing for sure. Pinball22 21:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to have an article on Tatangelo's predecessor, J.C. "Pepe" Martin, Jr. I don't think there is much on the Internet and doing an article on Martin might require "original" research.

Billy Hathorn 22:04, 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 g1, patent nonsense/hoax, unsourced and unverifiable. NawlinWiki 19:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church demolished to build a new McDonald's[edit]

No ghits for this supposed building scheme, seems like a hoax. No references, or sources cited. --SunStar Net^talk 17:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, considering that the church's homepage makes no mention of it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete hoax. The Rambling Man 17:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. — Brother Flounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 17:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -- if it were true this wouldn't be the appropriate name anyway, and the fact would belong on the church's page. Rigadoun (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Pastordavid 17:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as reposted bollocks - crz crztalk 18:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, hoax either the building does not exist or is spelled wrong, and in that case it is under landmark protection ... not even McDonalds gets past that Alf photoman 18:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its either a hoax or its going to be the worlds biggest MacDonalds outlet! --Eqdoktor 18:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rudjek 19:30, 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 per reliable sourcing (The Times and The Wall Street Journal) during this AfD, which means it now meets WP:WEB (the objection levelled by the nominator). Daniel.Bryant 07:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trendio.com[edit]

Not notable according to WP:WEB and is likely to just be an advertisement Gundato 17:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've found 2 external reputable news articles about trendio (and way too many web2.0 blogs). I think it meets WP:WEB criteria 1. But the article should be stubbed since none of those sentence have citations or are referenced. So all the links pass WP:RS but the article isn't passing WP:V at the moment. --Quirex 21:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Writeups up in Time magazine and the Wall Street Journal is plenty notable enough for me. Herostratus 18:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nice work in finding the sources... Addhoc 23:12, 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 Speedily deleted by Starblind. (aeropagitica) 17:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Nigel Briefsworth[edit]

Appears to be a hoax: absolutely no ghits for this. SunStar Net^talk 17:28, 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 22:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Lamps[edit]

Prod was removed. Non-notable musician. Google search yields 97 unique hits. Closest it comes to claiming notability is having been a member of The Profits, which is also non-notable. Also nominated: Music is Art (album), an unreleased album by this person. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 18:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability is established; also unreleased Music is Art (album). — brighterorange (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. That's it really. --RedHillian 02:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, so many red links that I've wondered if we changed our standard ink Alf photoman 16:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 19:48, 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 no consensus -- RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Mikulik[edit]

15 minutes of fame have expired. Zero reliable sources about this person, though ESPN et al. did air the footage - crz crztalk 17:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have since added links to several news articles about Mikulik. Only one of them was specifically about his tirade. I don't think it's true that there are "zero reliable sources" about him.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. - crz crztalk 17:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, so...he got really mad this one time? Recury 17:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it was pretty funny... See Youtube link there... - crz crztalk 17:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article chronicles one of the most memorable moments of American sports in 2006--Mikulik himself is not notable, but his tirade is--and the article is essentially about his tirade (we could re-name the article "Joe Mikulik tirade," but that just sounds lame). We do not have crystal balls. You might say he'll be forgotten next year. I say next time a baseball manager blows up, the ESPN wags will say he had a "Mikulik moment" or that he "went Mikulik." By the way, I consider this official team bio a reliable source and will add this reference to the article if it's not there already.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not independent of him, Fat Man. When someone uses "Mikulik moment", call us back. Until then... - crz crztalk 17:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N#Notability is generally permanent If there are multiple independent reliable published sources that have a topic as their subject, this is not changed by a lack of continued frequency of external coverage. . Neier 04:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, article lacks proper sourcing and citing demonstrating notability. That we now know who the gent was does not mean that anybody will know without references 25 years down the line. Alf photoman 15:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Alf... Addhoc 12:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and rename to something per Fat Man. Neither "will be forgotten soon" nor "not well referenced" seem like good deletion reasons to me. If it's a big news-making event then it's notable. The Macarena will be forgotten someday too but that doesn't mean it should be deleted now. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:12, 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 delete. Majorly 22:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names in world cultures[edit]

Page currently wholly redundant with a section on Personal name and the Category:Names by culture. The former, which includes the index of international conventions, has much more useful discussion on similarities and differences between them. This page could maybe redirect there (it has a few oncoming links), but I wanted more opinions on what value this page could have on its own. See Talk:Names in world cultures for an analysis of what could be on the page, but I feel they would have more context if these were added it to Personal name. Rigadoun (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per nom. — Brother Flounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 18:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Static Universe 23:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Addhoc 19:28, 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. I'll leave redirecting to someone else. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3WA[edit]

Vanity. Unverifiable. Non-notable. Advertising. And I think the "airs on E!" bit is BS. There's no such show on E!. So, add suspected hoax to the list. Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 18:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam for a nn company; "3WA wrestling" has 2,410 Ghits. Redirect per Michaelas10--Ioannes Pragensis 19:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World Wide Wrestling Alliance. An alternative name indicated by Google results and the article itself. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may sound plausible, but they clearly refer to different incarnations of such a group. Compare also the 3WA website with the WWWA website. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 06:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK then nominate WWWA for deletion, too.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually according to the WWWA article there are two different organisations fighting over the name, neither of which is this one so that makes 3 in total. Delete this 3WA, unverifiable, probable hoax. One Night In Hackney 03:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above... Addhoc 14:51, 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 (but article needs some cleanup and better attribution of existing source material). Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 12:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dannion Brinkley[edit]

Lack of Multiple nontrivial reliable sources about this person, failure of verifiability and notability. - crz crztalk 18:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A sliver of notability as author of a book published by a real publisher (Harpercollins). Also, Moody referred to the case as "The most amazing and complete near-death experience of the twenty thousand I have encountered." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A poorly written article that makes it sound like all he did was survive getting hit by lightning, but Saved by the Light was a major bestseller that got made into a TV-movie[35], spawned book sequels, and made him a New Age guru. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, there is something but is it notable? Alf photoman 15:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep if Andrew L adds his comment to the article, because then it's clear why it's of some notability.DGG 01:22, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Arts Academy[edit]

This is an advertisement for a business without clear notability. I've tried to edit it to be more encyclopedic, but I can't even keep the editors working on it from using first person and directly copying from the company website. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or demonstrate notability by neutral sources and cites Alf photoman 18:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 15:31, 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. Tawker 06:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vectra Ultima PC's[edit]

WP:CORP. I can't find anything relevant on Google (other than the HP Vectra line of computers). A lot of the article seems like silly nonsense too (e.g., " When bundled together the machine only weighs 76.3 lbs, the lightest ever made." and "The computers built in speakers can reach an amazing 435 dB's, which is able to blow your ear drums, crack your skull, and killing you in a matter of 5.646 nano-seconds." ::mikm t 18:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonsensical hoax article. Every other line in the article is nonsense joke specs. --Eqdoktor 19:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although Hewlett Packard made a line of Vectra pcs, the specifications such as memory, price, weight, and decibels of sound output make no sense, and Pong was far from the latest game in 1998. Most everything in the article is pretty unbelievable, so some quality references would be needed to keep the article. Googling "Vectra ultima" does not produce any computer results. It appears to be a hoax article with no salvagable content.Edison 19:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - CSD G1 - utter nonsense. No chance of ever being verified. It wouldn't look out of place on Uncyclopedia. --tgheretford (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So tagged. (Pong was implemented in hardware, anyway, and all of the other games listed were only available on consoles or arcade systems. This is complete nonsense.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:35, 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. Majorly 22:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell (Psychonauts)[edit]

A character from Psychonauts. Except not, because this one only exists in fanfic. Non-notable in the extreme. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as fanfic/non-canon character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fanfic character, not-notable. On an off note, Psychonauts is an awesome, and it's a shame it didn't sell so well (since it means very little chance of a sequel). TJ Spyke 02:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 19:15, 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 withdrawn, redirecting Morwen - Talk 18:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best Animated Short[edit]

This stub article is unnecessary. A detailed article already exists: Academy Award for Animated Short Film. Shawn in Montreal 19:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the person that made the original, I was unware of it already being coverd,

merge into the article Shawn in Montreal suggests and redirect Best Animated Short? ShakespeareFan00 00:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it's a Redirect, then. There's nothing really to merge, if I understand you correctly.Shawn in Montreal 19:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Academy Award for Animated Short Film. To avoid similar duplication of effort, someone should probably create redirects for all the other "Best" Academy Award category names as well (I don't have a listing to do it myself). Newyorkbrad 22:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Redirect - This didn't even need an AfD, a speedy delete would have worked. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I now realize a simple REDIRECT would have sufficed. I should have just done it. I guess it's too late for me to do so? I'm not supposed to modify the page while the AfD process is in place, right? Shawn in Montreal 17:50, 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 *. This was clipped from the main article for being too long, apparently there's not a consensus to keep this as a standalone article. So I will move "main characters" back to the main article, redirect this article so the history is preserved, and editors interested in this topic can figure out where to go from here. W.marsh 18:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty 2: Big Red One Character List[edit]

Listcruft. No citations, non-notable. Character list was taken from deleted sections in Call of Duty 2: Big Red One article, which was originally removed as a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list. Nothing makes the characters notable, and compiling all the characters along with all the randomly generated names into one list doesn't make it any more notable. Scottie theNerd 20:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the main characters back into Call of Duty 2: Big Red One, but the rest of this list is pointlessly detailed and should be deleted. — brighterorange (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a copy of it with me, but I get the feeling that the main character descriptions are taken from the manual. --Scottie theNerd 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Brighterorange. TJ Spyke 00:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete per Brighterorange, assuming no copyvios. Stifle (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as unsourced, with no objection to giving the main characters a mention in the main article. Addhoc 15:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Addhoc.--Wehwalt 18:44, 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 DELETE. -Doc^g 23:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cox (mind reader)[edit]

Self-promotion: almost all edits made by user:Nowt2do, who runs the [www.nowt2do.com] website, the domain of which is registered by Chris Cox [36]. Lack of notability in general terms, but especially: URL citations provide little support for the content of the entry. Burn the asylum 20:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable vanity, sure sign of lack of notability is the necessity to name drop other people represented by his management company.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Conflict of interest, vanity. .V. (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COI, and others. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable --Bill.matthews 02:41, 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. -Doc^g 23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Costumes Galore[edit]

Non-notable company and the owner may be gaming the system since the external article he references says that is a major part of his activities. "He is constantly tweaking the sites to improve their rankings and make them easier for customers to find. A word here, a phrase there, strategic links everywhere—it all matters. “There are hundreds of things you can do,” he says. “How the sites are ranked changes all the time, and you have to be constantly changing your site to make it rank better.”" Pigman^{talk • contribs} 20:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged. --Dennisthe2 22:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the speedy, not because I disagree with deleting the article, but because I'd like a full AfD decision on this. -- Steel 00:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also placed a "prod" on the page a few days ago and it was removed by an IP editor. I think it has to go to full AfD rather than speedy. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 01:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough then. It's right on the line, IMO. FWIW, I question the need to "game" the system, but then again, for a devil's advocate, he is trying to market his wares. --Dennisthe2 22:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears to be SEO. -- Steel 00:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Would have speedied as blatant spam except I will respect the decision of Steel. Stifle (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:COI. COntested prod does not mean it's not speediable. Created by Tomfallenstein. Nobody other than the owner would know what the 2006 sales figures are at this point, so would also fail WP:V. Ohconfucius 03:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Static Universe 14:54, 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 Speedily deleted, article contains no assertion of encyclopedic notability ~ trialsanderrors 08:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Sackett[edit]

AfD nominated by 152.3.76.161 with reason: "Evan Sackett often adds that he is a fan of this film (Poor Little Rich Girl) and makes short films himself, which is irrelevant and spamming. I have deleted these statements (though he reinstates them), and have recommended his own personal Wikipedia page (which he created himself and edits) for deletion." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 21:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite unorthodox nomination. He is not notable by any stretch of policy, his books are self-published, and the text of the article is self-aggrandizing and unsourced.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the page was created by the subject, and his user page redirects to this article.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 01:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless proper references and cites are included by end of this AfD, a little de-spamming would not hurt either Alf photoman 15:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This afd has been blanked twice by an anon IP who seems to be engaging in complex vandalism of Sackett-related pages, and claims to be Sackett on a related talk page. I left a notice on WP:ANI.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that User:C. Evan Sackett is just one of a number of users (3 at my count) claiming to be Evan Sackett, and all three users have been creating AND vandalising articles about or related to him. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Naconkantari 06:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article, while full of puffery, makes no claim of notabilty. Pete.Hurd 07:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D): All of the above.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Pure self-promotion. Gan fon 00:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI am David, the author of this page. Evan Sackett IS NOT the author of this page. Yes, my screename is User:Evan Sackett. This is because I was trying to make the page and I incorrectly labeled it. If feel Mr. Sackett deserves this page. He is currently being published and I worked hard on this page. I shouldn't have added the material I did to Andy Warhol's page, even though it was true. There is a strange occurance happening with me. There is another user claiming to be Evan Sackett and all this. It's a mess we're getting straightened out. But give me time to work on this article. I'll fix it, please don't delete it. Review article I have severely edited my article. I have removed all of what you call "spam". I hope it suits you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.251.89 (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visual Circle (talk • contribs)

Delete Per all above. Note also that the abusive IP that Dmz5 referred to and reported was used by "David," the "author" of the Evan Sackett page and of the nomination above. The above comment was then added to by the user Visual Circle (check the logs). Something fishy is going on. Rockstar915 02:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New Info: Please Observe My user account is C. Evan Sackett. I am Evan sAckett, NOT DAVID. His account is under Evan Sackett (I don't know why he did that) but my account is C. Evan sAckett. I don't know David personally, but he wrote me an e-mail. I am a member of Wikopeida, and he didn't know. I sent him some references which he added to my boigraphy page. I hope this will help. If not, I will stay out of this matter. I am not interested in self-promotion. 02:14 15 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. Evan Sackett (talk • contribs)
Comment The page was created by C. Evan Sackett. CiaranG 20:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apart from Evan Sackett's Visual Circle's own website, the two other references are a) the Knoxville News-Sentinal and b) Authorhouse Publishing. The Knoxville News-Sentinal yields no results to a search of Evan Sackett, and Authorhouse Publishing is a self-publshing website. No suitable other references are given. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rockstar915 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete - this is (some witty Elaragirl (talk · contribs) descriptor) ... nonsense, and non-notable as well as containing no reliable sources. Tagged with "db-bio". Yuser31415 05:58, 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. -Doc^g 22:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Realms of past worlds[edit]

This is an article about a non-notable MMORPG. It reads like an instruction manual for the game, and the only links are to a list of items in the game and to the forum for the game, which only has 43 members. — Brother Flounder 20:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nom says it all.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, who may want to add List of ropw items to the nomination. (It's on prod, but there's no harm in adding it to the AFD.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind - it just got speedied. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's back but I'm not sure that it's a speedy, in any case WP:WEB applies and WP:NOT a game guide. Stifle (talk) 22:34, 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 Userfy. (Business article has aleady been deleted). —Wknight94 (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Fallenstein[edit]

Autobiographical entry, possibly gaming system for his business Costumes Galore. Pigman^{talk • contribs} 20:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy the person and delete the business. Fails WP:BIO/WP:CORP and WP:AUTO/WP:COI. Caknuck 21:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, autobiography. Stifle (talk) 22:07, 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. -Doc^g 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Business culture in England[edit]

It's more a bad essay than an encyclopaedia article. An article with this name is bound to be very subjective so I don't think WP is the place for it at all anyway. This is supported by the fact that it is not linked to from any articles. RupertMillard (Talk) 20:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT a publisher of original thought.--Jersey Devil 20:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an essay, not an encyclopaedia article. I would also not be surprised if it was found to have been copied from somewhere, say a Foreign Office guide telling people how to do business with the UK. Sam Blacketer 21:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a copyvio. If not, transwiki to Wikibooks or get the author to resubmit to Wikitravel. Otherwise delete. Stifle (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's an awful lot written about the business culture and etiquette of the British, starting with the whole of chapter 6 of ISBN 0595323316. But this content isn't a good start to an encyclopaedia article on the subject, for the simple reason that it has patently (given the presence in the text of Harvard-style cross-links to absent citations) been copied from somewhere. Delete without prejudice against a proper article based upon the multitude of sources that exist on this subject, including ISBN 1885073283, being written. Uncle G 22:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Delete this one, but someone could write a proper WP article on the subject later. (PS I work in business in England) NBeale 08:00, 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 Merge. I'll merge the whole article. Someone else can trim it. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tupac Shakur's Tattoos[edit]

Although Tupac is notable, his tattoos are not, and no indication is made as to why they might be notable (outside of being his). Doesn't seem appropriate to merge into Tupac Shakur Leebo⁸⁶ 20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 21:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inkcruft? Caknuck 21:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While not all the information in the article is useful, I think a brief section in the main article is appropriate, especially given the iconic status of his "Thug Life" tattoo. Pinball22 22:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge, deserves at most a mention in the main article. This appears crufty in the extreme. Stifle (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a shortened version into Tupac Shakur. There's actually scholarly commentary about his tattoos [37], but there's no point in separating the tattoos from the person who wore them. --Metropolitan90 19:49, 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. - Bobet 00:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galacticos FC[edit]

The notability threshold in WP:CORP is level 10 of the English football league system. This team is not in the pyramid and do not even play 11 a side games. Delete. BlueValour 21:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. BlueValour 21:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Bpmullins | Talk 23:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and preferably Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7. Absolutely non-notable. Qwghlm 03:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-notable Robotforaday 04:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above ChrisTheDude 08:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bluevalour. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per everyone. м info 22:28, 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, it's a hoax (same user created an article at Kevin McIlhennon, first it was about a gaelic footballer, then a golfer). Protected redirect created instead. - Bobet 00:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Mc Ilhennon[edit]

I don't really think that this darts player is famous. I can't find any information on him - whether, for example, he has won competitions. The page is not linked to anything NotMuchToSay 21:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, unverified.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To save other editors the trouble, Kevin McIlhennon was protected from re-creation per AFD three months ago. The two appear to be different people. Eludium-q36 10:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced and cited by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 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 speedily deleted by User:Nae'blis. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turd life[edit]

Nom - Neologism with less than 200 Google hits (and this is supposed to be a web-based phenom). Created by a novice editor not quite clear on WP:NOT etc. Rklawton 21:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as nonsense (looks like someone's already tagged it). WP:NOT Urban Dictionary. Seraphimblade 21:17, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acceleo[edit]

Reads like an advertisement. I don't think it's a notable or well-known enough product to warrant an encyclopedia article. 743 Ghits for acceleo code generator -wikipedia, mostly canned text from download sites; 21700 with "wikipedia". Looks like we're unintentionally giving its reputation quite a boost. Quuxplusone 21:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (nominator's vote). Note that "but it's open-source!" is not a reason to keep the article. --Quuxplusone 21:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert, etc. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. I stumbled across this page as I was looking for a different company called "Obeo". McKay 19:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. Addhoc 15:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I would have to disagree with you on some points :
- First, When I make the search you pointed out on google (acceleo code generator -wikipedia), I get 10700 results which is not bad. Acceleo is a young opensource code generator (April 2006) but is now quite well known and has a good community of users. Now we do have more related links in french as the project was initially french.
- I do agree that beeing an opensource software is not a reason to keep an article, but there is nothing commercial in the article, it is explaining what the features are
- Obeo is the company that has started the project so Acceleo and Obeo are related

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

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

The result was delete. Luna Santin 23:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S/Y Lulworth[edit]

Failed notability, IP deleted prod for same. Kghusker 21:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (nominator's vote). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.131.192 (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory of boats. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 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. Luna Santin 23:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Lawrence McGuire, Ed.D.[edit]

This person appears to not be notable enough for an article. The only thread that her notability rides is that she was (1) the first African-American female to be hired by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as a Special Agent and (2) the first female to complete a U.S. Coast Guard Patrol on the high seas and to board a foreign vessel, and a couple of other even more minor female firsts. However, there is a first female for everything. Some may deserve articles, the great majority do not. The first female FBI agent might be notable. The first African-American female (not even the first female) NMFS agent is not, in my opinion, the NMFS being far less notable and important than the FBI. "First female to complete a U.S. Coast Guard Patrol on the high seas and to board a foreign vessel" also does not, in my mind, confer sufficient notability for the person to have an encyclopedia article. Herostratus 21:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm undecided about notability, but there are no sources, and it strongly smells of copyvio. It's also boarderline spam or CV-writing. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced and cited by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to questionable notability, reads like resumé, and no sources cited. If kept, rename to remove the qualification. Stifle (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Clearly not notable enough. Lincolnite 22:45, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Levicoff[edit]

Does not satisfy notability requirements. The only thing that could be argued as notable here is his affiliation with the Zophar's Domain website, but there is nothing notable about the person himself in that respect. None of his music projects described here are at all notable. Furthermore, there is no substantial content in this stub to even consider merging into the other page. radimvice 16:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DIE!!! Feh. ~ Flame vip e r 22:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. NN. John Vandenberg 07:25, 12 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, GRBerry 21:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisters Comment This was open a while, but nobody noticed and mentioned the prior VfD that was removed from the talk page in this edit [38], nor the prior AFD February 2006 AFD. Given that nobody mentioned them, and they both resulted in keeps, more discussion is needed. GRBerry 21:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The previous Afd (Feb 2006) was a non-event IMO; no rationale for deletion, and none given for keep. The Dec 2004 VFD appears to be overwhelmingly "merge and redirect", but the VFD has been fiddled with so maybe what I am reading there cant be taken at face value. The subject appears no more notable than in Dec 2004. John Vandenberg 21:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless proper proof of meeting WP:BIO provided. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Addhoc 15:09, 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. Luna Santin 23:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Watkins-Sully[edit]

Vanity/Spam. Please see author's contributions. — goethean ॐ 21:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable author of a non-notable book--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some evidence of notability is included by the end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Alf. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 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 keep for now, although there seems to be some support for a merge, if anybody wants to try it. Luna Santin 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nano reef[edit]

Article subject inherently unverifiable; article does not reference sources. BFD1 21:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Please see also the argument at Talk:Nano reef#Serious concerns. BFD1 21:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to retain. Nano reef and pico reef (also covered in the article) are valid terms and merit an article devoted to them. Given some time we can add references. Mmoyer 00:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any referenced info with the Marine aquarium article. There's enough unique information about keeping small tanks to warrant a section in the broader article about reefkeeping, assuming references can be provided. Right now the page reads more like a hobbyist's how-to than an encyclopedia article. BFD1 15:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Marine aquarium. Merge and delete is not accepted due to GFDL issues. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a primary reference to tank size and a reference about boxed seawater. I still believe this article has value, especially since a Google search for "pico reef" lists this Wikipedia article as the seventh from the top, and a Google search for "Nano reef" comes up number 9. Mmoyer 18:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The ranking of wikipedia in a google search is not at all germaine to the question. Wikipedia ranks highly in searches in general. BFD1 19:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is the single fastest growing aspect in the industry, and I have several books in which I can verify the information, and cite the article. Although it's a specific type of aquarium, it is much different (and probably more popular) than a Reef aquarium or a Brackish water aquarium which both have there own respective articles. Dark jedi requiem 18:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- You're changing the question; I am talking about a merge with Marine aquarium. How is it "much different" from a Marine aquarium? A nano reef is an aquarium with saltwater and marine organisms. Nano reefs are by definition a subset of marine aquaria. BFD1 19:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Point of order: BFD, you nominated the article for deletion, so that's what we are voting on. Let's resolve this single issue, and if the vote is to keep, then you can later nominate it for MergeTo with Marine aquarium. Mmoyer 17:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though I'd argue whether it's more popular than either a reef or brackish water aquarium! Growth rate isn't much of a criterion, either, and however popular nano reef tanks get, they're surely going to be outnumber by goldfish tanks and tropical aquaria 100 to 1. But yes, it's an increasingly popular branch of the hobby, and probably deserves an entry of its own. That said, this article is lacking in many ways. I'd like to see the specifics about the procedural / technological differences between nano reefs and regular reefs, and I'd also like a potted history, emphasising the aquarists that pioneered the discipline. I'd like to see the article say why nano reef tanks in specifics, not generalities. All aquaria have issues with pH, ammonium, etc. What's different is the thermal / chemical instability of small volumes of water, the sensitivity of the fish compared with freshwater fish in small aquaria, and so on. The section Pico Reef should be merged with the introduction (e.g., ...very small nano reef tanks are sometimes called pico reefs). Otherwise, it's repetitive and not really saying anything new, just "as above, but more so". Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 19:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Dark jedi requiem. Also, I think deletion is an overreaction, according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The reasons BFD1 gave do not justify deletion. With some clean-up and references, the article will be perfectly fine. --Melanochromis 19:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks alright, just needs improvement. It's something that I've seen before, and they're growing quite popular. --Emevas 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'keep AfD is not supposed to be the way to get articles improved, but if people don't do it right the first time, it do seem to provide an incentive.DGG 22:02, 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. - brenneman 05:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conspicuous conservation[edit]

Neologism, no sources, POV Schizobullet 21:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom echoes my thoughts. Sort of sounds like them saying "if you do these things, you do it whether you want to or not". --Dennisthe2 22:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Proquest Newspapers search turned up some uses of the term, but not really enough to write an article that goes beyond a dicdef. Delete unless solid sources are found. For the record, this was the best source I found:

Yet even with gasoline selling for well above $2 a gallon, alternative-fuel vehicles may save their owners only a few hundred dollars a year in fuel costs. For many motorists, that may not be enough to offset the extra expense of purchasing such a vehicle, said Edwin Stafford, a Utah State University marketing researcher.... In the case of hybrid and natural-gas-fueled vehicles, there is the benefit of "conspicuous conservation." Status can be gained from being among a growing number of motorists driving a socially conscious vehicle that helps the environment, Stafford said.

Stafford, Edwin; Richard Kolodziej (May 7, 2005). "Driving Green". The Salt Lake Tribune. pp. D9.

—Cel ithemis 00:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is why there is a guideline for neologisms, any two words put together in a unique combination by more than one person could have its own article.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless shown to have been used in a reliable source. Dmz5 puts it excellently. Stifle (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 08:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Conspicuous consumption. I find a smattering of mentions in the Veblenite sense (A Shama, Journal of Marketing, 1981, so not quite a neologism) and a few mentions with completely different meanings. The sources merit a comment in the conspicuous consumption article, but don't really amount to established usage which should be the threshold for an independent article. ~ trialsanderrors 09:00, 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. Luna Santin 23:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The~Brick[edit]

Delete, no evidence that this publication is remotely close to noteworthy based on WP:RS. The more I look at it and the photographs, the more it looks like something made up in a school in Glendale one day, despite the grandiose claims of "boasted readership on four continents," but I'll pass it on to other sets of eyes. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. By their very nature, zines tend to be very limited in their scope, generally having little more than a following within a very, VERY narrow scope. Two, this is already a dead zine. Three, as per the nom, no reliable sources. --Dennisthe2 22:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was a student in the Bay Area during that time and never heard/saw of that 'zine, and I'm very eclectic in my reading! Beside that, fails WP:V, WP:RS and notability issues. SkierRMH 23:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and no sources to back it up. See above comments.Gan fon 00:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT and Dennisthe2. Stifle (talk) 20:08, 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. Luna Santin 23:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quickoffice[edit]

Contesting a prod: reasoning was that software is non-notable, but google came up with a pretty good number of hits, so I decided to bring to afd for those more knowledgeable to help out. For now, I am neutral. Patstuart^talk|edits 22:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless context and sources addded. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate referencing, and no evidence that this software is any more notable than other document viewers. WMMartin 22:41, 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 A7 Opabinia regalis 01:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kosta J. Moustakas (Cheif Executive Officer)[edit]

Looks like autobio of the head of a company that does not look remotely Notable. Was Prod'ed previously, author blanked the page, so it was speedied. Recreated fifteen hours later. Does not look like Notable Person, in addition to problems with WP:AUTO and WP:COI. -- Fan-1967 22:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No references establishing notability. - Jhinman 22:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 (db-bio). So tagged. --Dennisthe2 00:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, recommend salting if it's going to be recreated. --Dennisthe2 00:05, 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.

The issue of a reliable source is raised in the nomination and never adressed. WMMartin's comments about ease of finding sources and cleanup are noted, but (without casting aspersions) no sourced are cited by him. Lacking such, and noting that per the verification policy the burden is on those wishing the article kept, the decision is clear.

brenneman 05:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lineal heavyweight champions[edit]

Appears to be original research and lacks proper references. The opening paragraph claims this is a "mythical" championship and the only references given are a vague mention of The Ring magazine and three external links which all end up at [39] which isn't a reliable source and doesn't mention what a lineal championship is, only maintains a list of lineal champions. Ultimately the decision about who the lineal champion is appears to be down to editors' WP:POV decisions which makes this unmaintainable Gwernol 22:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gwernol, except far less politely. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete article is very well known and the term lineal heavy weight is very popular, it's simply rediculous just to talk about this... .User_talk: BoxingWear

Yea, i noticed word mythical, who knows what confused person put it there, this is by no means mythical, if you search all over, the term lineal is always considered a recognized champ, especially if there are no others.

With respect, its not ridiculous. As noted, the article has no reliable sources. If the this championship is used as you describe, it should be straightforward to find multiple reliable sources and cite them in the article. If you can do this, I'll happily see the article kept. As it stands, none of the information in the article can be verified Gwernol 21:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete This is a well known boxing term, anyone who doesn't know that already could find out with a search engine. The article is pretty decent, if you can do better then do so. To delete it is absurd, but that's what you get when you give control of something like Wikipedia over to elitist pedants who never would have countenanced it's existence in the first place. It's sad that even after Wikipedia ALREADY exists, some people's greatest aspiration in the world is to turn it into another Encyclopedia Britannica.User_talk: Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.36.201.115 (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Do Not Delete In the boxing world, discussions about the linear heavyweight title are fairly commonplace. It is a way of distinguishing between real champions and lesser titlists who only hold sanctioning body belts. It is a real concept, too, dating from the championship of John L. Sullivan. There is no reason to delete this topic. MKil 17:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]
It was relatively easy for me, as a non-expert, to find evidence of this term and its meaning from multiple sources. The topic clearly exists and is notable amongst boxing afficionados. The article does seem to contain some POV comments and suffers from poor construction, but these are not reasons to delete. Further, this is one of those rare cases where a list is useful: it provides order and context that would otherwise be missing. I suggest Keep, and tag for substantial Cleanup, including better and more consistent referencing, and a request that someone tidy up the table at the end. WMMartin 22:39, 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 Speedy delete as nn-hoaxbio-vandalism. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Peter Lawrence Wooler[edit]

Totally unnotable. The only google hit on "Harry Wooler" with poet is this page and at 18 years of age his claims appear just too much to be true. Also note the language: in 1989 (supposedly at the age of 1) he released his first album on his own label. Just delete this please. Roleplayer 22:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have agonised over whether to tag it {{db-bio}} or {{db-nonsense}}--Anthony.bradbury 23:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete typical schoolkid nonsense. Too silly (i.e. the releasing of an album at one year old) to even be a hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G1 (nonsense). Silly, but no less nonsense. --Dennisthe2 00:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete obvious vandalism in the form of a hoax.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:37, 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 delete. Luna Santin 23:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Grosvenor[edit]

Minor sports reporter. PROD tag added, but removed without comment by anon IP. Calton | Talk 22:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, almost certainly a self-created bio. Stifle (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Nowhere near being notable. Lincolnite 22:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm more notable than this guy, and I don't ( and shouldn't ) have an article about me. And anyway, where are the references ? WMMartin 22:28, 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. Luna Santin 00:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Barr[edit]

Non-notable individual, happens to work for a football club. Fails WP:BIO - not far from being a candidate for speedy deletion as no-context Springnuts 23:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and PS I note that the wiki article on St Johnstone does not list him as a notable player!<g>. Springnuts 00:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their notable-players sections is for past players. - Dudesleeper 14:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional who plays for St Johnstone F.C. in the Scottish League First Division. Very odd nomination, to say the least! Jcuk 00:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it is a speedy delete candidate. According to the article he is yet to play for St Johnstone. --Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not particularly bothered either way. I started his article and have saved the text, so if the article is deleted I'll just start it anew when he is notable. - Dudesleeper 18:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, professional football player, per ~~Ben MacDui~~ Jcuk. Stifle (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he has made 0 appearances for St Johnstone makes me lean towards delete. If he becomes notable in 6/12/24 months time by virtue of being selected to play, scoring goals, etc. then by all means the page can be re-created then. Lincolnite 22:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 16:34, 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. Luna Santin 23:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casino money management[edit]

Unencyclopedic, chatty, second person poppycock. The Wikipedia does not reccomend what "you" should do. 2005 23:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a short and obvious essay. It is not an encyclopedia article.--Anthony.bradbury 23:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, or transwiki to Wikibooks if they'll have it. Stifle (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an advice column. Lincolnite 22:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as giving advice is by definition POV. This would be better kept on the author's personal webpages. WMMartin 22:26, 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, noting also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamburger Evron & Co.. Luna Santin 23:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amnon Evron[edit]

Non-notable lawyer. No verifiable claim of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Edcolins 23:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial, etc. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In some cases a lawyer might be notable, perhaps most commonly by being a defense attorney in a high profile case such as Johnny Cochran. A look through this lawyer's name on Google however revealed no independent media coverage so I cannot see evidence that this lawyer meets the notability threshold. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He may well have been a fine man, but what made him notable ? Not the supporting charities: that's pretty standard for successful professional people; not his fine professional career: he may well have been a great real estate lawyer, but did he make a contribution to the field that new lawyers will study for the next fifty years ? As always, we need to see evidence that he was notable. Sorry, but this should go. WMMartin 22:22, 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. Luna Santin 23:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburger Evron & Co.[edit]

Non-notable law firm. Fails WP:CORP. Edcolins 23:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the nom, fails WP:CORP by a longshot. Google search of the company name in quotes turns up 90 hits; distilled to remove WP and answers.com, turns up only business listings and pseudo-dictionaries that include the company name for some reason. --Dennisthe2 00:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. —Mets501 (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CORP. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. WMMartin 22:17, 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 Speedy delete per CSD:A7 - non-notable people or groups. Stifle (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Our Families[edit]

Promotional article Media anthro 23:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fixed listing for Media. Dooms Day349 23:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An embarrased thanks to you...--Media anthro 23:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. :) Quite welcome. But anyway, promotional material only. Dooms Day349 00:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 (db-web). Borderline spam. --Dennisthe2 00:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 as noted. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 02:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. Pure spam. Manning 06:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as above Bwithh 07:25, 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 Nose Game
^ Urban Dictionary: Nose Game

[1] The Nose Game

[2] Urban Dictionary: Nose Game

[1]

[2]