Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 19 January 21 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of sagas[edit]

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

Since the definition given is very vague - "a saga is a long story", that's all - it looks as if any TV series, any movie, book or video game with sequels can be listed there. If a list is likely to contain several thousands elements, I think it's useless. Sigo 21:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listcruft and too vague. p.s. new additions to this list go at the bottom. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 21:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete another entry in the "removal of listcruft" saga. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Unless refined it is a bit vague. I am not sure I understand the point although it may be useful to some. TonyTheTiger 21:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point may have something to do with trying to establish Norse sagas as the only sagas in wikipedia. Vegaswikian 03:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
votes after introduction expanded and refined
  • Keep. I have updated the introduction for the article from wiktionary and other sources. This article needs to actually define saga and maybe expand it to a full article status is possible since saga is currently, and correctly so, a disambiguation page. Vegaswikian 03:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete still far too ambiguous to have any merit. The word SAGA, and hence any attempt to base a list on it, is hopelessly POV outside of the strict original definition. Does my saga of trying to get to work in a storm get included? Nuttah68 16:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only meaning of saga well-defined enough to use for a list is something like "Old Norse prose literature". Haukur 16:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Haukurth.--Berig 16:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss East Africa UK[edit]

Miss East Africa UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I am nominating for this to be deleted as because it doesn't give itself a reason for notability apart from the listing non-notable "celebrities". Dr Tobias Funke 01:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clean-Up, but Keep Seems notable to me. If more context and sources were added I think you'd see it as being more notable then it is in it's current state. Ganfon 01:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources demonstrating notability found via Google, Google News, or Google News Archive (only press releases & other promotional material). The 2006 event was the first. --Dhartung | Talk 03:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it pains me to say so because commendable it is but it just does not give sources or a reason to be notable enough for a premier event which is not say it might not be in the future but now it isn't. As it is now it looks like it's using Wikipedia for advertising.--Solent 08:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of any kind of notability. Will change my mind with pleasure if someone wants to demonstrate otherwise. CiaranG 10:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources or other indicia of notability.-- danntm T C 16:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fairly good web coverage considering the event was held in 2006 for the first time[1], but the competition isn't established enough. Julius Sahara 18:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: There are a good few hits and potential sources on google, but I am not quite convinced that it is notable. J Milburn 18:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-It was just established last year. Maybe if it runs a little longer it will become notable, but for now delete. (and as a side note, the name seems to contradict itself: Miss East Africa UK. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 21:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable. Needs editing and could use additional external sources. Noticket 22:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One of a huge plethora of beauty pageants, this one for East Africans in the UK. probably about the same level of notability as "Miss Nigeria in America". 61 unique Ghits, most of which are myspace, press releases, events listings. Fails WP:RS. Ohconfucius 03:25, 22 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 and protect from recreation. --Coredesat 00:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remit2Home (2nd nomination)[edit]

Remit2Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

See the first nomination at [2] (which was about 2 days ago, by the way). I recommend salting this after the deletion for non-notability. N Shar 00:05, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger Of Shit[edit]

Passenger Of Shit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
  • AFD closed, Artist is non-notable and no references - Makiyu 08:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod removed with argument "Artist is notable however difficult to find sources for due to nature of the music. Discogs is a good source. Corrected sloppy grammar and spelling." It actually appears to be impossible to find reliable sources that would show the subject to be notable. Seraphimblade 00:14, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashes fall[edit]

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

Ashes Fall are no strangers to on stage injuries or blood and sweat . . . But they are strangers to meeting the requirements of WP:N and WP:BAND. The article was tagged for notability earlier in the month and no notability information was added. They have a single EP and the article is full of POV phrases ("the band members "flail around" etc janejellyroll 00:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no indication why this passes WP:BAND. Seraphimblade 00:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, page is just a cut and paste of their website. They could be a noteable in the future, but not at the moment. Neonblak 00:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You would be correct on that, good catch. I've removed the two paragraphs that were copyvios accordingly. Seraphimblade 01:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not, as yet, satisfy WP:MUSIC--Anthony.bradbury 01:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not pass WP:BAND. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 01:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BAND. Arjun 02:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet with WP:BAND, it's not neutral, and it's not verifiable to me. --Tohru Honda13Talk•Sign here 04:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failing WP:BAND. Static Universe 07:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Hate to jump on the WP:BAND wagon, but the group seems non-notable at this time.
  • Delete a single EP and a POV article is not enough to pass WP:MUSIC.-- danntm T C 17:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: One of their ex-drummers is now a member of Mortal Treason, who certainly appear to be notable. WP:MUSIC states- Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. as criteria for notability. J Milburn 18:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:MUSIC does not say that any band that ever featured anyone who went on to play in a notable is thereby notable, it says that this may be an indication that sufficient sources will exist. Aside from the fact that Mortal Treason barely passes WP:MUSIC, I could not find a single reliable independent source for this band anywhere on the internets, and that means policy says no article whatever guidelines might think. The primary notability criterion is multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. I was not able to find any provably independent coverage for this band, trivial or not. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy. And that sentence that the nom listed sounds like something you would find on a fansite or theirs, or a newspaper article. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 21:54, 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 and mention in Bobby Fischer article. As a side note, I turned the page into a redirect after deleting it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fischer's endgame[edit]

Fischer's endgame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No Few other references to it, may refer to a single game. Bubba73 (talk), 00:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not heard of this other than on Wikipedia. I searched for the phrase on Google, and all I found (other than WP and mirrors) were uses of the phrase in the context of a sentence such as "Fischer's endgame technique was ...". It may refer to the ending in a single game. Bubba73 (talk), 00:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to refer to the ending of a single game (see article's external link). Soltak | Talk 00:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Certainly the game Fischer/Taimanov existed as described. But as the ending therein is fully described in the well-known book on chess endgames by Reuben Fine, which was written well before this game, the article appears unnecessary.--Anthony.bradbury 01:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is the length within the category (Chess endgames), might be merged to Fischer after deletion. --Brand спойт 01:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem in putting that info in the Bobby Fischer article. In Western literature, I haven't seen any reference to this as "Fischer's endgame", so one of the reasons why deleting it should be considered is that it isn't WP:Notable. Bubba73 (talk), 02:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged a copyedited version to the Fischer article. --Brand спойт 15:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bubba. The only reference to the term "Fischer's endgame" is in a Russian source which might make it suitable for the Russian wikipedia, but there's no evidence that this term is ever used in English. That makes it a neologism at best. As noted by others, the endgame itself was well known both in tournament practice and in endgame literature decades before the Fischer-Taimanov game at issue. Quale 10:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Quale and Bubba. Only one single source (I am not even sure if that book really wanted to call such endgames Fischer's endgames in general) and not in any way a common term. (That Rook+Bishop is stronger than Rook+Knight is also quite debatable, there are great variations from position to position) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Strong keep - I used to play chess on a high school team and this was a classic match Fischer was involved in. After winning the match, Fischer became a big fan of this endgame and advocated it. A Yahoo search for the term, Fischer's endgame 1971 Taimanov yields several commentaries of it including this Java enabled version of the match, PDF analysis and other articles. The article is poorly written and could stand wikification and cleanup. Ronbo76 16:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The endgame did occur twice in the 1971 Taimanov match and once between them in the interzonal tournament the previous year. It is also the second most common type of endgame (see Endgame#Table of the most common endings). The external article you link to states that Fischer was especially good at playing the side with the bishop (with those three impressive wins over Taimanov, for example). However, I haven't found any English reference naming it "Fischer's Endgame". Bubba73 (talk), 05:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This was one of Fischer's candidate matches which was a requirement to challenge the chess champion, Boris Spassky in 1971 (please see our Wiki article on Bobby Fischer and the paragraph, The road to the world championship (1969-1972). This is also commentated in this article. It is over time that this endgame has been proved to have a weakness (as all new winning variations usually do). The reason you see pathetic is a commentary on Fischer's eccentric life especially after he failed to defend beating Spassky for the championship in 1972. This might be a better candidate for a merge. Ronbo76 16:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing specifically about this game in the external article you link to. It was one game out of quite a few, although it was an interesting game. Bubba73 (talk), 04:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. If this title is a neologism in English, it is also ambiguous: the article might be about Bobby Fischer's endgame play generally, rather than a specific combination of pieces on each side. On the other hand, an article on chess endgames with Rook+Knight vs Rook+Bishop describes a real position and has potential for expansion. I'm certainly open to suggestions about where it might be moved to. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Fischer's endgame 1971 and expand. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 22:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per TeckWiz. -Toptomcat 00:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this information is simply wrong. This type of endgame, or evaluation of such, is not named after Fischer like the article suggests. This is either a mis-translation of the Russian cited , or the original author took some serious liberties. You won't find any other sources to corroborate. The 1971 game(s) vs. Taimanov are not really notable by themselves either. At best they should get a brief mention in the Bobby Fischer article. SubSeven 01:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I added the endgame at Zugzwang#Example from actual play because it contains two zugzwang positions, and the article didn't have an example of zugzwang in the endgame from an actual game. However, it is later in the endgame after the rooks have been exchanged. Bubba73 (talk), 03:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Translation I had AltaVista translate a paragraph from the Russian source, and it does say that the endgame is named after Fischer:

    Many generations of chess players made their first motions on the board with the aid of the brilliant textbook of the second champion of the peace Jose Raoult Capablanca. There among the wise councils of great knots are similar: in the ends the boat and elephant, as a rule, are stronger than the boat and horse, as a rule, this the sufficiently open nature of position. Then in the match Robert Fisher- Mark taymanov (1971) were played several endgames surprising on the beauty precisely with this relationship, after which this relationship began to bear the name - Fisher endgame. Specifically, this end obtained computer. Although in its cold memory all parties of Robert Fisher are stored, to demonstrate anything similar for computer it was impossible. It is here necessary to note the very good protection of blacks. Motions: 24....Kg", 35... L.d', 47....fshch - this is evidence of the deepest penetration into the secrets of position.

    Bubba73 (talk), 15:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have a reasonably strong acquaintance with post-1980 literature chess endgame theory. Fischer-Taimanov 1971 (4) is generally considered a technical masterpiece (see Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, vol. 54, pp. 389-93); Kasparov does cite its influence on his generation, but more for the pure bishop vs. knight ending (p. 393). Also see Shereshevsky, Endgame Strategy, pp. 179-81. Are we going to have articles on Fischer-Unzicker, Siegen 1970 (another masterpiece), or Capablanca-Tartakover, NY 1924 (whose influence can be seen in the final game of the Kramnik-Leko WC match or Topalov's win against Kasimjanov in the 2006 WC)? Nonstandard, even in the Russian literature. Billbrock 16:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. Fischer botched a won ending in game 2 of the same match: Balashov called 50.c5?! "a surprising error for a player of such a high class"; and Kasparov writes that Fischer's 52.Ra2? "shows that Fischer has lost the thread of the game" (MGP 4:383). Billbrock 16:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC) corrected typo Billbrock 23:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Bill means volume 4, not volume 5 above. Bubba73 (talk), 16:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Billbrock's comments on delete seem to indicate it was cited by Kasparov which means it meets WP:BIO in that this person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronbo76 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment No one doubts Fischer's contributions to chess. (There is plenty of information about Fischer in WP.) The issue is whether or not the endgame of rook and bishop versus rook and knight (with pawns) is commonly known as "Fischer's endgame", and whether or not it is notable (WP:NOTE), which says that there should be two independant sources in order to be notable. Fifty years before the 1971 match, Capablanca's 1921 book Chess Fundamentals states that the bishop is better. The endgame is also discussed thirty years earlier in Fine's 1941 Basic Chess Endings. Recently, this article by endgame expert Karsten Muller discusses three games between Fischer and Taimanov in 1970 and 71, but does not call it "Fischer's endgame". Also recently, My Great Predecessors by Kasparov discusses it but does not call it "Fischer's endgame". The only source we have been able to find is the Russian one, and it is a little wishy-washy. The translation says that "it began to be called...". Perhaps it did began to be called "Fischer's endgame", but the name doesn't seem to have stuck. I favor deletion on the basis that it is a non-notable stub. Bubba73 (talk), 17:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In adition, Soltis examines one of these games in Bobby Fischer Rediscovered (game 90) and even says it is "perhaps Fischer's most famous endgame", but does not mention "Fischer's Endgame". And the Oxford Companion to Chess (first edition) lists "Fischer Attack" and "Fischer defense", but no "Fischer endgame". Bubba73 (talk), 23:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reference found. Well, after quite a bit of searching, I found a reference in English. From Fundamental Chess Endings, by Karsten Muller and Frank Lamprecht, page 304, "... has sometimes been dubbed the 'Fischer Endgame' in view of a number of instructive wins by Fischer." This has a bearing on my earlier remarks. However, I'm still in favor of deleting it because it isn't very significant. I think it can be mentioned in the Bobby Fischer article. Bubba73 (talk), 01:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is notable; the term (and thus the encylopedia entry) is not. I refer the interested reader to Kasparov and Agur to get an appreciation of the wide variety of Fischer's contributions to chess theory. Does each one of these ideas get an article? The catalogue would be Borgesian. Billbrock 16:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It (the idea) is notable, as a lot of others are too, but it doesn't deserve an article under this title. Bubba73 (talk), 18:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have several books about Fischer and I will look and try to find further references. I have recently published an article on a specific endgame (K+R vs K+R+B) in http://www.chessville.com/Dothan/index.htm (article 10) and it seems that a deep analysis of an endgame should be on a chess site and not in wikipedia, unless we want to develop a branch of wikipedia that deals with endgame technique. After reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chess_games and seeing 16 games (there could be much more!!!) I thought why not do a similiar category of famous endgames? This is certainly one of them. --YoavD 11:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few articles on endgames, but they are general and not from specific games. Bubba73 (talk), 15:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both Endgame Strategy by Shereshevsky and Secrets of Chess Endgame Strategy by Hansen discuss the ending between Fischer and Taimanov, but neither of them call it the "Fischer endgame". I like the idea of an article about famous endgames from actual games, but I still think this article should be deleted. Bubba73 (talk), 18:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The brand-new book Silman's Complete Endgame Course by Jeremy Silman also discusses the Fischer-Taimanov endgame, but it does not mention it being called the "Fischer endgame" either. Bubba73 (talk), 18:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added this information to the Fischer article Bobby Fischer#Fischer Endgame. Bubba73 (talk), 19:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First of all, if this were about any other board game besides chess, it wouldn't even have gotten to AfD. I don't even think a general-interest encyclopedia should be covering individual chess matches, much less parts of individual chess matches. We certainly wouldn't tolerate an article on, say, an individual inning of a baseball game, for example. Besides, given the wealth of information on Fischer, including a number of full-length books, we should have plenty of sources for this if it's something he's famous for, but I couldn't even manage a single Google Books hit for either "Fischer's endgame" or "Fischer endgame". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If anyone seriously believes that before Fischer, folks didn't know that R & B (in the general case, with many exceptions) were stronger than R & N, they're naive. If someone can't articulate a particular contribution to endgame theory made by Fischer in game 4 of the Taimanov match, this article should go. Game 2 of the same match is notable only for the atypically blunder-filled play of both players; the Palma 1970 game was well-played but otherwise non-notable.
  • Delete Quite simply put, there's no indication that this is widely known as Fischer's endgame. Pascal.Tesson 23:38, 27 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.

added a link to his article "Fischer teaches the endgame" --YoavD 05:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC) "Kamsky's woes continued, as he was outplayed positionally by Ivanchuk in a Kan Sicilian. The latter is on record as having named Fischer as his chess hero, and today he turned his pressure into the "Fischer endgame" of rooks and bishop v rooks and knight. (Those of you to whom this terminology is unfamiliar are strongly recommended to buy a copy of Mihai Marin's wonderful book Learn from the Legends, after which all will become clear). Kamsky showed his usual tenacious defence, but with the more passive pieces and several pawn weaknesses, he never looked likely to hold the ending, and went down to defeat in 54 moves. " [3] --YoavD 05:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 22:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series[edit]

Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete OK I've been looking further into the guidelines, policies and various other bits connected to video games.

The Video Games Wiki (yes I know it's not policy but seems to the "considered" viewpoint on what should and should not be done with video game articles) has the following to say: A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable. I'd say this article fails that test, I do not see how content such as: Light Arrows are also featured in The Minish Cap as an arrow upgrade. They are the first item ever that can be missed. If Link doesn't save Gregal before officially visiting the Wind Tribe, Gregal dies and Link will not get the Light Arrows ever. is of much interest to someone who is not playing that game.

It also says that other content that might be moved to a gaming wiki includes: Lists of mere statistics, items, or other minutiae. The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; neither are all the swords available in the game. I'd say this article seems to fail one as well: Bottles are an essential part to many of Link's quests. These containers are used and often required to carry various things, such as: <list of all the bottles that link encountered Larry laptop 01:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added this six days ago, I also raised it here on the talkpage with no effect, and it was also mentioned here . For anyone about to suggest MERGE I would suggest they read this --Larry laptop 01:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clearly against WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list and not a game guide. This article is literally a game guide covering the entire Legend of Zelda series and is unhelpful to anyone who hasn't played the games. The article also lacks sources as per WP:V and is probably original research. --Scottie theNerd 01:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commenting on my own stance: in light of points made in this debate, I actually do think that it is possible to cleanup and/or rewrite the article in such a way that it would not appear to be a game guide/indiscriminate list, hence negating the proposed reason for deletion. I too think that the subject is worthy of its article, though it seriously needs credible sources to back up such a claim. --Scottie theNerd 00:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. --Scottie theNerd 01:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unnecessary. (also per WP:NOT and WP:V) Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 01:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: This article is informing about parts of one of the biggest game-series ever, and has been created because the article of the series itself was already too big. The fact it's only of interest to gamers is bullocks. Are we going to delete the article about the Pope, because Muslims and non-catholics don't find it interesting?
  • Comment" This article is not written as a game guide. It does not explain the location or anything how to get it. It (generally) explains the items in the most encyclopedic way possible. JackSparrow Ninja 01:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You consider this encyclopedic (this is random, I could pick 100s of other examples) - The Mirror Shield is also required in order to solve several puzzles in The Wind Waker. In The Minish Cap, whenever an enemy fired a projectile and you block it with the Mirror Shield, the shield emits a small damaging beam of light (roughly equivalent to half the power of the Four Sword) back to the enemy. Interestingly, this is the first time an item cannot be obtained on the first playthrough. Only when the is finished can the Mirror Shield be obtained. Therefore, it's rather useless in The Minish Cap. It is formed by Biggoron eating the normal shield and spitting it out a few days later. Really?
how about Ooccoo is a being who acts like a warp item in Twilight Princess, much like Farore's Wind in Ocarina of Time. She will let you set a warp point in a dungeon by staying there and having her son, Ooccoo Jr., warp you outside and, if used again, back to the original warp point inside the dungeon. Unlike other warp items, she must be found again in each dungeon. She also doesn't appear in the final two dungeons or return with Link to already completed dungeons for storyline reasons.
and clear this is not a games guide In The Wind Waker, Link can buy All-Purpose Bait at Beedle's Shop Ship and store it in his Bait Bag. It is purchased in groups of three servings. A purchasable group of this bait will occupy one pouch in the Bait Bag, regardless of how many servings are left. Throwing some bait on the ground can cause pigs to dig there; throwing it near a rat hole causes rats to offer various helpful items for purchase. It can also distract Miniblins, and if thrown onto the sea near Fishman, he can fill in Link's Sea Chart and offer advice about the area. and I've seen some wonky "what about article X" views but you think that compares to an article on one of the world's major religious leaders? really? --Larry laptop 01:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just because it is interesting and useful does not mean it is encyclopedic according to Wikipedia guidelines. See WP:ILIKEIT. --Scottie theNerd 02:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Given that I'm packing at the moment I don't have time to go into my usual depth of argument. However, let me summarize as such: WP:FICT specifically allows for the creation of list articles when the sheer volume of content is enough to outright disrupt the article. This is one such case. This article may go into somewhat excessive detail in a few places, but by and large it is perfectly justified. At most this calls for a cleanup. Additionally, once the Link fans get wind of this, be prepared to face the reality of WP:SNOW. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 02:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
once the Link fans get wind of this, be prepared to face the reality of WP:SNOW - yeah I already know the special interest group will flood the afd and force no-concensus but one has to try. But don't worry if you are stuck with of the deku stick, it can be swung by using the assigned "C" button. They inflict double the damage to that of the Kokiri Sword, and double still when set ablaze, making them the most powerful weapon available to Young Link. --Larry laptop 02:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes, it is obvious that there is no way you might be wrong with this afd, and any keep means it's just by Link fanboys. JackSparrow Ninja 03:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article is obviously not perfect, but as I said, that merely warrants cleanup. All of your concerns can be addressed without deleting the article. Additionally, both you and JackSparrow's comments fail WP:SARCASM. :P -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 04:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is not supposed to be a game guide, and is in line with the proper list of items style in most of its locations. It contains some game guide content, but that can be removed. --tjstrf talk 03:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether or not the content of the article is a game guide, the subject itself is notable enough (and verifiable enough) to have an article. --- RockMFR 03:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This isn't a game guide. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is game guide material and is not encyclopedic. This kind of information is more appropriate for a website such as gamefaqs.com. Furthermore, much of the article appears to suffer from original research and the article provides absolutely no real-world context. This information is of absolutely no use outside of playing the game; when is someone going to need to look up this sort of information other than when they are playing? Those who argue that it should be kept because it is too long for the main article on the game are missing the point that this sort of information shouldn't be in an encyclopedia at all. --The Way 05:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Yukichigai. The Legend of Zelda series is huge and this is a logical subarticle. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability asserted, yes, the game itself is notable, but what, specifically, is notable about a specific sword in the game? I consider items and such within games kinda like celebrities' wives, they may warrant a mention in the main article, but they hardly ever warrant seperate articles. There is no encyclopedic reason for a list of items within games, there are game wikis and gamefaqs for that reason. In addition, the definition of "game guide" per WP:NOT suggests that anytime something is useful primarily only to someone actually playing the game, it's not encyclopedic. In all honesty speedy delete criterion for "no context" and "no notability asserted" may well apply to the numerous lists of this kind, descriptions of game items offer us no commentary or context to ascertain why they are important. Wintermut3 05:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Wikipedia is not a game guide. Otto4711 06:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To anyone claiming this page is a game guide: go read the article game guide. Game guides are strategy guides: collections of tips, plans, and statistics to be used for defeating your enemies, not this. While this may be an article designed to explain a game, that is not the same as being a game guide. --tjstrf talk 06:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The intention of the article may not be a game guide, but parts of it (such as the sections quoted above) clearly are. As the article stands, I would consider it more a guide than an informative article on items in a popular video game series. --Scottie theNerd 06:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable per WP:FICT, game guide elements can be cleaned up. Resolute 06:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per tjstrf. AFD isn't for pointing out that an article needs cleanup. Yzak Jule 07:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The only time WP:NOT mentions games guides is under the Instruction manuals section. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This is none of those things. It would only violate policy if it included a guide on how to get these items, suggestions on how/where to use them, or advice on how to use them. An article about these items does not violate policy.VegaDark 10:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm as much a Link boy as the next guy that never in his life owned a Nintendo, but I think that the article in itself should stay, since there is clearly enough material to warrant an article, on a subject that seems reasonably notable. Surely, a thorough clean-up could solve the game-guide issue. It just seems like a such a waste to delete what is clearly hours of well-intended work. The article desperately needs a clean-up, sure enough, to remove game-guide content as well as to make it less sprawling, but deleting seems unjustified. Just my two-pence. Druworos 10:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep So what if it's a bit of a game guide, I like it a lot. I've found it very useful when playing as I don't have to search all over the net to find a decent guide. I think the article actually needs expanding. oh and a big up to the person who linked this AFD. --ICRArmy 12:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Classic case of WP:ILIKEIT. Just because you like it and find it useful doesn't necessarily means it belongs on Wikipedia. --Scottie theNerd 16:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just a long and unwieldy list of pointless trivia. P Ingerson (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The game is notable... but the individual weapons and items used in the game are not. Trivia.Blueboar 17:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Verifiable, notable, and is not a game guide, so WP:NOT does not apply. --Falcorian (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tag for cleanup. Some of the quotes here are indeed a bit too much detail/trivia oriented (and should be removed), but given the importance of this game (and its focus on item/weapon collection) the subject is clearly notable. User:VegaDark is exactly right about WP:NOT a game guide; it does not exclude articles about games or their contents, it only excludes how-to material. The material is certainly verifiable; descriptive claims can be sourced to the primary sources and multiple independent published guides for these games exist. (And though WP:NOT a game guide, they can of course be used as references.) — brighterorange (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: to me, what makes this a more like a game guide than an encyclopedia article is that it's entirely written from an in-game-universe perspective. Are sources talking about the real-world impact of these objects? That's what an encyclopedia article would contain. What we have here belongs in a game wiki, not an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand what an in-universe perspective has to do with being a guide. WP:NOT clearly excludes game guides because they are instuctional, how-to material. Most of this article is not (and what's there should be removed). Compare List of Shakespearean characters for another mammoth list of in-universe descriptions of elements of notable fiction. I'd certainly vote to keep that article as well. — brighterorange (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In universe description is a nono based on the writing about fiction guidelines not just the wp:not a game guide criteria. Basically, an article must provide context in addition to content in order to fulfill the encyclopedic requirement. Things written from an entirely in-univese perspective about fiction also tend to result in confusion when they don't assert the character is fictional or why they're important in a more general sense. For example writing that a character is "the captain of the 124th lancer division of the galactic empire" could result in confusion, whereas "In sci/fi story Admiral soandso is the leader of the 124th lancer division, the protagonist's unit..." makes it explicitly clear the universe and importance to the story of the character. Wintermut3 22:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, of course, and the article does in fact do that. (Actually, looking over the list it seems that much of it is not in-universe at all.) Being in-universe is not grounds for deletion, anyway, since that can easily be corrected. What I don't understand is User:Friday's supposed alleged link between in universe and game guide. — brighterorange (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it can be fixed- that's my point. If proper sources are not talking about the real-world impact of these fictional objects, there's no encyclopedia article that can cover these subjects. If it were just a matter of writing style, this would surely be a candidate to be fixed by editing, rather than deletion. Friday (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems fairly useful. CosmicWaffles 21:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable, notable. All this article needs is cleanup, and this reads nothing at all like a game guide. And I'm gonna be a bit of a rebel (jokingly) and say It's useful(I'm just playing!). --Tohru Honda13Talk•Sign here 22:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If any videogame series deserves an article like this, it's Legend of Zelda. -Toptomcat 00:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough. Killroy4 07:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in response to the MOS point - when the "sheer volume of content is enough to outright disrupt the article" why can't such content just be prunned off wikipedia? Especially when it's cruft, and not notable. Notable game series, yes. But is each item in the Zelda series really notable enough that we have an entry (and in many cases, a picture) in the encyclopedia? I see no point in keeping the article in its current state. It would need a massive cleanup before i would see it as not violating WP:NOT. We don't *need* a list of all weapons and items from Zelda, whether that's an independant list or a list that's part of another article. --`/aksha 10:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - your WP:NOT also states that
"Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." JackSparrow Ninja 17:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The problem is that you are applying notability standards for determining the inclusion of articles to the process of determining the inclusion of sections of articles. Furthermore, as to not "needing" a list of Zelda weapons: technically, Wikipedia doesn't *need* to exist either. This is not an exercise in minimalism, it's an exercise in consensus information gathering. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 23:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MAJOR COMMENT The article under discussion has been trimmed to about a tenth its previous size, and no longer covers any items that could possibly be considered minutia. It's basically not the same article anymore, so everyone should reconsider their positions in light of this fact. --tjstrf talk 08:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks more appropriate, but it still resembles a comprehensive list of trivial information that belongs on a game wiki rather than Wikipedia. --Scottie theNerd 08:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, now it's a non-comprehensive list of non-trivial information and is still just as useless of a game guide as ever. --tjstrf talk 08:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good Lord, I didn't realize the version I read was after a major overhaul. The version when the AfD tag was applied is downright scary. Still, while Zelda is notable, weapons of Zelda don't get much in the line of reliable third party coverage and the likes, and the article as it stands still strikes me as mainly trivial. It's much better than it was, but it seems like there ought to be a way to condense it far more. GassyGuy 09:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the recuring nature of a significant number weapons, and their importance to the evoltion of the series, I'd say it is notable. That's not to say the article couldn't use work though. JQF • Talk • Contribs 17:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nobody brought up the Pokemon yet? Because I'd argue that Pokemon and Zelda's items are damn near the same thing. At least nobody's listed Zelda items as individual entries yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.44.220 (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. As it stands currently, the article is not (just) a game guide and is an aggregation entries on items from a notable fictional series much as invisioned by WP:FICT. More clean-up may be desirable but I think that this is a logical and encyclopedic sub-article of Legend of Zelda series that should not be deleted. Eluchil404 14:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Take this type of article to a video game Wiki. RobJ1981 06:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP It's fine. You people, (specifically the guy who posted direct links to a bunch of other articles like they form a legal precedent) have far to much time on your hands. The page shows the items involved in the series, as well as how they progress from title to title. It needs to be cleaned up, that's about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.215.53.167 (talk • contribs) 2007-01-26T09:10:42 (UTC)
  • Keep or at worst relist the AFD. I can see why contributors were up in arms about the previous version, it had eschewed all traces of wanting to be an encyclopedia article and was running wild. However, unlike most (if not all) of the examples given of weapon-pages deleted, LoZ isn't a single game which happens to feature weapons or items, it's one of the longest running still-active game series. Since a great deal of the weapons feature in different games of the series, a page about them seems perfectly reasonable. Master Sword has a seperate article, could it not be merged in? If the article is kept, it certainly needs continued cleanup and referencing, but I think this does justify a stay of execution.
    As a side-issue, since RuneScape was mentioned, can I point out that the contributors to RuneScape themselves voted for deletion or merge of many of the articles they themselves worked on. Despite of a lack of familiarity with the policies and guidelines and having to cope with one of the most heavily editted articles on WP with an army of anons who've never editted before bombarding it constantly, the RS contributors are well on the way to getting the article to GA status and have tried to reign-in the sub-articles. Credit where it's due please, 'RuneCruft' is getting old. QuagmireDog 17:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry if you were offended by that. I do honestly wish the RuneScape editors the best of luck with cleaning those articles up, even though I remain pessimistic about their chances and the state of video game articles in general. — Kaustuv CHAUDHURI 18:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's good of you to respond, I really appreciate that. Rather thank taking offense, it's worry more than anything that any RS article which may get listed for AFD immediately conjures the thought "It's those bloody RS fanatics again!", especially when so many rogue articles appear from new contributors being bold, but which weren't wanted by those trying to build the RS series within the policies. I'll do my bit to try and keep gaming articles up to scratch and encourage others to do the same. :) QuagmireDog 18:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless you can prove nobody would be interested in this.--Nelson Ricardo 16:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, we don't have to prove no one would be interested, all we have to prove is that this information is not of encyclopaedic merit. There are many useful things or things people are interested in that we cannot cover (per WP:Not a howto guide, a directory, ect.) In fact WP:Not is entirely about things that, while useful/interesting/important do not belong on Wikipedia. The trimmed article is better, but I still think it asserts no significance. why is that sword *Important* is the key question here, and why is it important beyond the context of the game itself? This is still material primarily of interest only to people actually playing the game. Wintermut3 16:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rainbow Six: Vegas Weapons[edit]

List of Rainbow Six: Vegas Weapons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Close-ended list of real-life weapons in video game, does not comply with WP:NOT: not an indiscriminate list/game guide. Scottie theNerd 01:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. --Scottie theNerd 01:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per my reasons above for the simular Zelda list, lists of items provide no useful context or information regarding the notability or importance of the items. If a guide WERE to (for instance a well-sourced list of iconic gaming items) then that might be different, but this is a game guide. Wintermut3 05:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless list that isn't encyclopedic and doesnt belong on wikipedia. DurinsBane87 08:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. P Ingerson (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have been bold and merged it with the article, pointing this page as a redirect. The list is just a bunch of names, without importance or extra information, so there's no reason to keep it outside of the article. I'd suggest closing this AfD and continuing to discuss it on Talk:Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas. --Falcorian (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Unlike the Zelda list, there is no information in this article to justify a list. But still, how is this a game guide? A game guide is an instruction manual (this is quite clear at WP:NOT) and this list says nothing about how to play the game. — brighterorange (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't have to be an instruction manual, anything "primarily of use to someone actually playing the game" is suspect. Even so, lacking verifiable information on the notability of the weapons violates WP:V and WP:N right off the bat. Wintermut3 19:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above, game guides aren't purely instruction manuals. Game guides often contain miscellaneous lists that would be of interest to a player but not to a general reader. A full list of weapons does not belong in a game article as it directly violates WP:NOT - Not an indiscriminate list. There's no reason to list all the weapons in a game. --Scottie theNerd 21:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete n-n per nom DaveApter 19:38, 21 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 consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Freese[edit]

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

No sources... unless you count the livejournal at the bottom... and thats not of very good (if any quality) at all. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 01:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral, only a few news hits[4] (many of those the same article), an IMDB entry[5]. He's included in the Green Day template as a secondary musician (arguably typical), but seems to fail WP:MUSIC by himself (although that guideline does not specify a standard for members or temporary members of a notable group). The WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument is that innumberable bands have articles for all their members anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 03:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the lack of reliable sources, changing vote to delete. --Dhartung | Talk 00:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, I actually own the community that's listed at the bottom, and for the most part Mr. Freese has been uninterested in anything having to do with it. It's mainly just there to collect google hits, to be honest, because no one ever visits it anymore. I think that Mr. Freese is a very talented man, but I understand his notability is in question, and I can't answer for it. I stay "weak keep" until someone can help me source the information in the article, because I've tried my best. I found a source this time around, and I'm digging up more, currently. I'm adding a note to the Green Day Wikipedia Project and see if I can get some help sourcing the article.--Jude 04:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added one source. I'm working on finding more. I'm sure I can dig some up, but all the information in the article is sourced at the link provided.--Jude 04:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now there's a reference. Seems like a fairly prolific backing musician. Chovain(t|c) 12:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is now a reference and there is an effort being made to source the article.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 18:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a referenced article about a notable performer. Performing with so many such notable bands in such a manner makes him notable. J Milburn 18:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has a reference. FirefoxMan 23:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. WP:N requires two references where the article subject is the primary topic. The reference provided is also not a WP:RS, it's a fansite for Green Day. --Dhartung | Talk 00:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are plenty of references that verify that this fellow is a notable session musician. Google News Archive comes up with 21 references referring to his performances with Green Day [6] and his work with Tommy Stinson. [7]

Clearly verifiable and notable enough for mine and we should use common sense about sources. Capitalistroadster 01:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm not convinced that the source meets WP:RS, but it indicates that the claims are verifiable. If no reliable source were to turn up in a reasonable time, re-list. Eludium-q36 10:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Can you point me to where in the deletion policy "unreferenced" is? If so, I think several thousand articles will have to disappear -137.222.10.67 20:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XPyUnit[edit]

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

Topic is NN software (436 google hits). Article violates WP:NOT (original research & how-to). -- JLaTondre 02:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wikibooks:Computer_software_bookshelf. -- MarcoTolo 02:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It can be C&Ped across to wikibooks while the afd happens perhaps. The history is not rich enough to worry about transwikied, IMO. Chovain(t|c) 12:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Chovain. Seems a shame that it is such a well written article. J Milburn 18:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Good Article", but not notible. FirefoxMan 23:27, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Everett Morrison[edit]

Glenn Everett Morrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable person --Infrangible 02:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no assertation of notability. -- MarcoTolo 02:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google scholar at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=GE+Morrison+Kooy lists a number of papers by GE Morrison which have been cited by others. This suggests some notability. --Eastmain 03:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hard to tell which papers are his on ISI, but he seems to have an h-index of about 4 or 5 at the very most, not enough to pass WP:PROF via the impact of his published work at this stage, IMHO. Pete.Hurd 19:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He's not there yet. GS is tricky to interpret, some are acknowledgments in a paper & some are just citing the papers. Since this is biomedicine, I use PubMed: there are only 3 real articles, the other 11 listed with his name are other people. all three of them he were with his professor. the most recent was in 2001. There is no indication of any scientific work since then. I am very ready to accept any claim of notability for a researcher, but 3 pubs while a grad student and none since is below the average. Didn't even go for a post-doc, which is sort of the minimum qualification for a bio researcher. DGG 04:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with User:DGG, he only got his PhD in 2000, I'd expect it to take longer for him to establish notability in academia.-- danntm T C 17:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG and danntm. --Dhartung | Talk 18:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per DGG. Seems like he could become notable in the future. J Milburn 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG. Pete.Hurd 19:18, 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 speedy delete as spam --BigDT 04:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aikido Of Maine[edit]

Aikido Of Maine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Advert for non-notable aikido dojo. Contested PROD. ➥the Epopt 02:46, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy's lullaby[edit]

Ivy's lullaby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article seems to be somewhat esoteric and lacking in encyclopedic value. Seriously, do we need an article about some tune sung by some character in some movie? Larry V (talk | e-mail) 02:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, seems to exist only to copyvio the lyrics. No notability outside of the film asserted, fails WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 03:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Someone seems to have removed the lyrics, eliminating the copyvio issue. Regardless, I still feel that the article is unencyclopedic and deserves to be deleted. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 03:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A song sung in a brief scene in a single movie is trivial and non-notable. No real-world context. --The Way 05:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does it even have enough significance to consider merging to The Village (film)? I think not. CiaranG 10:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing useful or notable. P Ingerson (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too trivial, and thus fails WP:FICT.-- danntm T C 17:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definately trivial- I have seen the film, and have no memory of the lullaby. J Milburn 18:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above FirefoxMan 23:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Outlaw[edit]

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

High school football coach. Interestingly there's another John Outlaw who had a brief NFL career. The John Outlaw that this article is about, while having enjoyed, or so it seems, a nice career as a high school coach is still, as any football coach, not someone about whom scholarly references abound. What one can find are multiple mentions of his name or a quick quote in local newspapers or websites about high school football. As far as I could tell from my quick research, there are no reliable sources to build a significant article. Pascal.Tesson 03:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. Half of all high school coaches have winning careers, statistically. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete FirefoxMan 23:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons above and then some. House of Scandal 11:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of toll roads[edit]

This nomination includes:

List of toll bridges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information, nor is it a directory of places. I argue that this page be deleted as per these reasons. Yuser31415 03:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don't really like "listcruft" with too broad of a focus (I'd delete list of unused highways if I were in charge), but this seems to be a reasonably bounded set of notable items. Maybe the bridges should be split off from the roads (and we can argue over a few edge cases), but in general this is a very discriminate list that links to many articles. If you think it's too big, you could consider splitting list of toll roads in the United States or list of toll roads in North America. --NE2 03:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What's the harm? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that having this as a category would be more suitable, if only for maintainability. As such, Merge to Category and redirect. Otherwise, keep per precedent. --Dennisthe2 04:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly not an indiscriminate collection of information. Do people just like using that word? Does anyone actually know what indiscriminate means? --- RockMFR 04:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Per RockMFR, it is certainly not an indiscriminate collection of information. I also happen to like it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, properly scoped list, information is useful and in no way indiscriminate. Lists and categories serve different purposes, as NE2 stated. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I question whether these lists are maintainable. Is this a complete list? Hard to tell without sources. Resolute 07:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources are within the articles. There is no need to cite, for example, that the West Virginia Turnpike is a tolled facility when it clearly states in the article itself that it is tolled. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. I don't really want to have to cyphon through hundreds of articles to verify that this list is accurate. Maintainability remains in question. Specific to these lists, how can I know that this list is complete? Resolute 07:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can't know that it's complete, and that's the point. There at least four countries not even mentioned that I know have toll roads (France, Italy, Spain, Portugal) and surely dozens more. As I don't see how this list can ever be authoritative, I suggest delete Emeraude 12:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC) See comment below. Emeraude 12:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please see Template:Dynamic list. --NE2 13:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Delete because incomplete? I'm seeing this argument more frequently, and it baffles me. There is no assertion that lists must be complete in WP:LIST, so I must assume that this is a personal opinion and not an argument from any guideline. --Dhartung | Talk 16:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have an idea Emeraude. Why not contribute to Wikipedia by adding these toll roads instead of taking the easy way out by deleting via a weak AFD? You know, Wikipedia would operate much more smoothly if everyone would constructively contribute to the encylopedia. Just because its incomplete does not mean it should be deleted -- that's why we have editors to help complete the process. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Emeraude, with all due respect, it is much easier to add these countries and their toll roads than it is to submit an AFD. --Dennisthe2 04:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • [Comment: My point about the incompleteness (real word?) was a reply to the question immediately before, not a reason for deletion. I am not prepared to add other countries and their toll roads because, quite simply, I have neither the time nor resources, and it is most definitely NOT much easier to add them than submit an AfD - anyone know how many toll roads there are in France for example? However, in view of other comments made I am changing my view to neutral, my main concern being maintainability.] Emeraude 12:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reasonable list which also happens to tie in with the large number of articles on highways. There aren't so many of these that such a list couldn't be maintainable (toll roads rarely become non-toll roads). 23skidoo 17:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per RockMFR. (And well said I must say!) --Falcorian (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the list is verifiable and of limited scope. I also concur with RockMFR's sentiment.-- danntm T C 19:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful and verifiable. TonyTheTiger 21:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Usefull, lots of content and lots of potential. Thatperson 21:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being a list is not a reason to delete. --Kevin Murray 00:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please the reason for deletion does not make any sense to me at all yuckfoo 20:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Attack Iran Coalition[edit]

Don't Attack Iran Coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable local organization. About 90 non-wikipedia google hits, of which about 24 are unique.[8]. No Google news hits - [9]. There are certainly many notable and encyclopedic anti-war organizations, but this is not one of them. GabrielF 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable organization. --tjstrf talk 14:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable organization. Madman 15:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:NN living-room-sized organization with no mention in the reputable press. Morton DevonshireYo 19:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. I did my own Google search to be sure. The very few hits were unconvincing of any notability. Therefore, delete. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 19:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above --BenWhitey 21:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sounds like something someone started up in an afternoon. Non-notable to the extreme --TommyOliver 03:50, 21 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 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of jazz standards[edit]

List of jazz standards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Del Inherently POV and unmaintainable list. For example, [10] contains 1000 standards and [11] already 3000 (!) jazz standards. The only possible approach would be List of jazz standards per Jazz Radio UK or something, kind of "Forbes List of Tycoons" or how you call it. `'mikka 03:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This could be a worthy and useful list (currently it's worse than useless), but I reluctantly agree with the nominator regarding POV and unmaintainability. I don't think there is much point duplicating someone else's list either - Jazz standards explains the concept, and provides external links to others' lists, which I think is the encyclopedic way to deal with it. CiaranG 09:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per many articles on here, it lacks notability and I agree with nomination. Tellyaddict 17:23, 26 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 from roster. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peltosaaren Nikkarit[edit]

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

Possibly not notable enough hockey team. No article in the corresponding Finnish WP and no article on the league it is in (II-Divisioona). After some research here's the Finnish order of Finnish hockey leagues: (highest, 1st) SM-liiga, (2nd) Mestis, (3rd) Suomi-sarja, and then (4th) this II-Divisioona (2 Divisioona). P.S. WP needs an article on the order of Finnish hockey leagues feydey 12:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are 43 Finnish teams playing at a higher level and 52 teams playing at the "II divisioona" level. Of these 95 teams, only the 14 teams at SM-liiga level really have any players that might have some international recognition. --Park70 02:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless sourced... Addhoc 19:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisted: This was started on January 15 but added to the January 12 page. Back of the line... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:33, 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 Spam is out of stock and deleted from the inventory.. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rack N Road[edit]

Rack N Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article is about a chain of ten stores in the Western United States. I edited it to make it read less like an ad, but consider it not notable enough for WP. The user who created this article also added links related to this article and business to the Bicycle article. Figma 03:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable local company. Ghits produced nothing but links to their own homepage. --Tainter 23:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:CSD#g4 --Hu12 01:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aploximodoais[edit]

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

Possible hoax. I can find no mention of this term. Joyous! | Talk 04:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Absolutely a hoax. "J. Porter Tash", "Porter Tash", and "Essae IIV" all return the gold medal of zero Google hits whatsoever. "Principia Malum Debello" returns only this WP article, as does "Revelatio Decaratio". And that doesn't even address that none of these purported titles are particularly literate Latin, and that the word itself is etymologically unlikely, to say the least (-oai- is an incredibly unlikely letter sequence in either Latin or English). Serpent's Choice 05:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term is not in my Webster's Ninth Collegiate dictionary nor in any of the on-line dictionaries I consulted. It shows zero non-Wikipedia google hits. As Serpent points out, the alleged sources are dubious and, so far, unverified. The opening paragraph referencing "an unpublished manuscript by an unknown author" is particularly suspicious. Unless this can be definitively sourced by the end of the discussion period, delete as a hoax. Rossami (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, but alas, not amusing enough for BJAODN. --Dhartung | Talk 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per hoax. "Aploximodoais" is apparently only the name of a myspace user. Static Universe 07:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 07:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the worst kind of hoax- a hoax with hoax sources. There should be a speedy delete criteria that this can fall under... J Milburn 19:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JuJube. "The aploximodoais terms... are involving wolves, alligartos, and the fictional chimera"?? Fvasconcellos 20:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy Keep - I would like to change my vote to KEEP after seeing the above. I, personally, was unaware of the Dyer Critique, but I will definitely add it to me research. Other words with 'OAI' halloaing, hilloaing, holloaing, hulloaing, psoai, stoai, also please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unusual_English_words Below is my original posting: I wrote this article. While I do have the sources in my library, (old, dry books that are on the verge of disintigrating, quite sadly) and do not question the existence of the word myself, I admit that what I cannot meet is Wikipedia's standards of verifiability (but I see that others have now added verifiable sources). My books cannot be scanned, due to their fragility, and I have made countless efforts to photograph the pages, but no amount of lighting, or steadying can capture the characters properly. However, as for issues you have noted in this article: I myself have been trying to track down these authors, but to no avail. I can be quite certain these books are from the 1700s, as they meet the criteria for dating books of this time, however the authors themselves are difficult to trace. I believe that since they may, themselves, have been dealing with Black Magic or writing about it, they may have either have written under pen-names, or in other cases were ordinary, non-authoring citizens. As for the 'an unpublished manuscript by an unknown author' I agree, that it sounds quite suspicious, and my only explanation is that, to my embarassment, I have an original, but partial manuscript which I have dated to be from the early 1700s. Unfortunatly, I cannot find mention or clue of the author, or to the piece itself. Finally, the alligarto was my own typographical error, and the chimera is a mythical animal mentioned in philosophical pieces (Descartes' Meditiations comes to mind). Scientists have since named a certain biological anamoly 'Chimera' due to the original mythical meaning. I am, myself, writing on a book that will be about 'aploximodoais', and other such words that had once appeared in texts, but then ceased to exist. Perhaps then, I will try to change this article, as it will then have a verifiable source, though the source would be myself. I should also note, I am not affiliated with the MySpace user account. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.87.152 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    I wanted to take a closer look at the -oai- vowel grouping also. Of the six words provided above, four are alternate spellings of hallooing (present participles of halloo, to call on hunting dogs), one is a valid plural of psoas, and one is an improperly formed plural of stoa (which could allow stoas or stoae, but not stoai). Regardless, the term under discussion is not formed from either the addition of the present participle -ing nor from the pluralization of -as to -ai. I cannot envision any etymology that would permit this term. Serpent's Choice 06:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RFerreira 11:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I myself have seen this word in a critique of Dyer. I have edited the main article page accordingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.235.153.9 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 22 January 2007.
  • Keep I'm a graduate student at the University of Toronto, and I have come across the word 'Aploximodoais' myself. The exact source I am unsure of (I'll have to do some digging around to find out where I saw it, but it was in the stacks of one the libraries, one of the more sensitive materials, I'm sure. I'll try finding the book when I get a free moment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.116.135.248 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 22 January 2007.
  • Comment regarding the most recently added "source". It is no better than the rest. Although "Nathan ben Saddi"'s Chronicle of the Kings of England is a real work (albeit published after the 1739 date given), the quoted text is mysteriously elusive. Despite the fact that this public domain work is readily available online, these two Google searches for distinctive phrases from the purported quote return nothing at all.[12][13] In fact, Google shows no intersection at all between that work and John Dyer.[14] It bears note that the only non-blog (and only 2 or 3 of those!), non-mirror use of this word I've been able to find anywhere is from a USENET post citing WP content.[15] Any effort to demonstrate that this word has ever been used, in any legitimate source, anywhere, is going to require a precise reference. "Unsure" sources, "unpublished manuscript[s]", and "sensitive materials" somewhere in a library (especially ones that cannot be scanned or photographed and that no other scholars seem to have heard of) simply do not meet the needs of Wikipedia's policy on verifiable content from reliable sources. Serpent's Choice 05:51, 23 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, attack page. Mak (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mat fluet[edit]

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

Completely NN, nevertheless, an editor has removed "speedy delete" tags placed by two difference editors. janejellyroll 04:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Page is very useless, and doesn't follow WP:BIO. --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 04:33, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Barnes (Sailor)[edit]

Ken Barnes (Sailor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Not notable. His attempt was not very notable, privately funded attempt, there are a few every year. His rescue is of minor notability in that it got some minor media coverage. Page also does not conform to wikipedia standards or cite references. Russeasby 04:51, 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 delete. --Coredesat 04:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ignatius-Sacred Heart rivalry[edit]

St. Ignatius-Sacred Heart rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Mentioning a rivalry on a high school's page is fine. But having an entire page devoted to it is another thing. If we had a page on every high school rivalry in the US, we'd be overloaded with pages. Need to just have notable ones and I don't think this is notable. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Why did this article go to AfD within 5 minutes of its creation and not even prodded? [17] --Oakshade 05:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the author objected and I felt like it should be given more input before deletion. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE this article is redundant to Bruce-Mahoney Trophy, which is the official name for this contest. --Kevin Murray 00:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This rivalry is notable to the entire San Francisco Bay Area which has millions of people in it and notable rivalries have millions of people knowing about it too. Why can't this article get it or other high school articles get it? And isn't the point of Wikipedia to create an informative online encyclopedia based on created topics that might not be easy to find online? Wikpedia English has over 1.5 million articles now. Their are probably only about 100,000 high school rivalries in the US. Would it make a difference at all to have 100,000 more articles. That's just a fraction compared to the whole Wikipedia English website. Every rivalry also has a deep history to people and is a tradtion and Wikipedia doesn't discourage users to not write about a local tradition. This article should be able to stay on Wikipedia and all articles that have the same rivalry topic should stay on Wikipedia. --Gndawydiak 06:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Your first sentence basically states the problem. It is known locally and that is all. It would be like having separate articles on every principal of every high school or every superintendent of every district. There has to be a limit somewhere. We already allow any high school to have a page. I just don't see the point in going beyond that and including non-notable rivalries such as this one. What's the problem with just including the information in the pages themselves?

--WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - Actually I'd say "known locally only to people who follow local HS sports", because I'm local and I've never even heard of the schools, much less the rivalry. If we kept this sort of thing, it would grow exponentially - in my HS football division alone there were 11 teams and 5 long-standing rivalries. Anyone remember Bell-Trinity? Didn't think so. --Jamoche 19:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. This information is best handled in the pages for the individual schools. --Dhartung | Talk 06:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In the Bay Area there is millions of people and that makes it very notable and there's records of it on newspapers and websites [18]. Writing about every principal and superintendent for every school and district is different. Rivalries people care and listen about it and high school rivalries shouldn't be limited. It shows the rich history of their culture and city or town and shouldn't be discouraged from creating their own article on it and shouldn't just be limited a section on the school's article where it can't flourish like an article. Their are hundreds of thousands of alumni of these school's that would feel the same way as I do and probably the general public of the Bay Area and Northern California would feel the same way. --Gndawydiak 07:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's already a page for Bruce-Mahoney Trophy which has existed for over a year, although I suspect that isn't notable either. Static Universe
  • Comment - Bruce-Mahoney Trophy just explains the trophy and the game and this article explains the whole rivalry which should be told if local or not. --Gndawydiak 07:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether the vote is to keep or delete this article, we definitely do not need 2 articles on essentially the same topic. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Madman 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a school rivalry between the Christian Brothers all-male high school and Jesuit all male high-school (there's no need for in the same city is nothing new, and certainly not notable for its own encyclopedia article, myself being party to the La Salle College High School-Saint Joseph's Preparatory rivalry, although the rivalry possibly could be mentioned in the article on the schools. The article certainly also does not need a the list of pranks done in furtherance of the rivalry, less anyone gets ideas.-- danntm T C 19:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bruce-Mahoney Trophy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To begin with, an article of this nature is going to be a magnet for original research; this particular article has no citations. Secondly, rivalries of this nature, especially at the high school level, are simply not notable. The fact that the rivalry concerns schools in a big city makes no difference, it may be somewhat notable locally but notability needs to extend outside of the locale where the rivalry exists. Almost all high schools are going to have these 'rivalries' and many high schools are going to have multiple rivalries and most of the time these rivalries are going to be rather subjective as rivalries of this sort are, quite frankly, rather arbitrary constructs. I doubt, though am unsure, that there are articles on rivalries between major national teams or college teams, either, and for good reason. --The Way 00:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - actually being in a large metro area makes it less notable because HS football is not a major event, unlike someplace like Odessa, Texas - the Odessa-Permian rivalry has been subject of documentaries and movies, yet there's no article for it (and no, I'm not proposing it needs one). --Jamoche 06:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well this one is mentioned in newspapers and is well known even though its a high school sport. In the Bay Area, high school sports between different high schools are a big thing here. People go these games and come from very far away and is mentioned across the area. If somebody wanted to, they would make a documentary about this rivalry and mention it to the country. It doesn't make a difference on if they have a documentary or not. --Gndawydiak 06:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Redirect Redirect to Bruce-Mahoney Trophy. I agree with Static Universe in everything except keeping this as an independent article. Yes, I see WP as being a source which stores info. not available elsewhere, but I don't see the title as being a likely search, and why not call it Sacred Heart - St. Ignatius rivalry. Only if the articles about the schools are overly long would I support a separate article -- there are precedents for this. Since there is already an article on this subject at Bruce-Mahoney Trophy this is a less complete redundancy --Kevin Murray 00:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I researched the deletion policy and this article is against the policy in all ways possible so this is an unneeded deletion and is taken to a level that was not needed. You could of just put a clean up tag on it or something like that at a lower level but this is un-needed. I take this deletion as really offensive and if this article is deleted, I'll bring it back no matter what anyone says and I'll fight for it. All users that want this article deleted don't understand any of this and are just following a corrupt user that takes everything at a big level when it's something small. And I don't care if this hurts my future nomination for administrator because I'd rather fight for these articles as a user. Hit me on a personal level hard, I'll hit you on a personal level harder. --Gndawydiak 00:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well known rivalry in major metropolitan area. There's too much subject-specific information here to be merged to Bruce-Mahoney Trophy article. Added one ref to article [19]--Oakshade 02:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because Aunt Mildred's masterful crochet doesn't get an article either. GassyGuy 04:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The San Francisco Bay Area with a population of over 7 million is not a "local village" as the example WP:AADD refers to. --Oakshade 05:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The area of the Bay Area that knows/cares about this rivalry is not the same as the population of the Bay Area. GassyGuy 05:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the big rivalry of San Francisco and I am glad that I have more users to go against your deletion. This shows we are large and a large ammount of people know about this. Everybody doesn't know about it because they're not from the Bay Area or Nothern California and actually have to research this like every other Wikipedian would do. --Gndawydiak 05:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I hope they know better than to try finding it an encyclopaedia, though I'm not sure how/why they'd research it if they don't know about it in the first place? GassyGuy 05:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well what about the 7 million or more people that know about and that want to research about this? Why don't you think about them then you? Why can't you understand that this is a notbale rivalry? How would you feel if you we're in my place? --Gndawydiak 05:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a ton of WP articles on subjects most people don't know anything about. Teaching people about these subjects is one of the most basic principles behind an encyclopedia. --Oakshade 05:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not my point. I was saying that "people might want to know about this" is true of almost everything, but does not make a topic encyclopaedic. My other point was simply that Gndawydiak seemed to be contradicting himself/herself. GassyGuy 06:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not contradicting myself. For the record I am a guy and this and all of what is stated is true for this article. The topic is perfectly encyclopaedic for Wikipedia and doesn't discourage any kind of article. --Gndawydiak 06:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just looked over what you should look over before nominating an article for deletion. I says that some articles start out bad if they were just created. This article got a deletion notice five minutes after getting it created. This article needs to have a clean up instead of a deletion because as I stated before, the "attacking" user gave this article no chance and is letting it drown in the water with no mercy at all. This user took it to an un-needed level and any administrator who believes in me should remove the deletion and put a clean up tag instead. Here's the page itself that says this. Before Nominating an AfD --Gndawydiak 08:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has already been nominated and the nominating user is within rights, so it is a waste of your energy to contest the nomination (as opposed to the deletion). It is a waste of your energy to make unsupported claims of notability. What you need to be doing here is demonstrating why this article should stay. If you've said what you have to say about that, the best idea would be to simply allow this to run its course and see what the rest of the community has to say. GassyGuy 08:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the rest of the community is turning a deaf ear to me and listen to a corrupt user that believes that this article is not notable. It is notable and it's being deleted for reasons that are stupid. I'll waste my energy if I want to to keeping this article alive and I won't let this article get deleted for reasons that are not true in which you believe in. I can look up a list of newspaper articles with this issue and give them to you and this article wasn't given a thought before being nominated for deletion. --Gndawydiak 08:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well this has ceased to be at all productive, so I'll do what I should have done a while ago and ignore this debate now. However, while you're up for some newspaper reading, I hope you find time for some of this material, too: 1) WP:AGF 2) WP:CIVIL 3) WP:OWN. GassyGuy 09:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bruce-Mahoney Trophy. And either someone straighten out Gndawydiak or ban him. Statements like "I'll recreate this article no matter what" and taking it to deletion review before the deletion is even over, and calling other users "corrupt" is simply not acceptable behavior. Stop hurling insults now. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 16:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ok I'm going to shut up after this comment because I'm tired of dealing with these users. What I want to say before I stop is that this article shouldn't be on for deletion just after 5 minutes of its creation. Woohookitty went and over reacted and nominated it for deletion instead of following the Before nominating an AfD and reading that you should consider putting a clean-up tag instead. If he/she put that up, the article probably would of changed over a while making the article better than it is. Now this article is going to be deleted because of an over-reaction of an administrator that didn't look over the deletion policy. This article is notable to millions of people and can be supported by countless articles about this in newspapers. This article can't be merged with Bruce-Mahoney Trophy because these articles are different things but have some similarites but are different topics. I am sorry for my behavior for this debate but I over-react when somebody does something personal to me and I felt like I have to fight for this because this administrator didn't give this article a chance. Again, I am sorry for my behavior and you may accept this apology or not. If this article is reviewed by anyone else, look at the things that matter about the article and not my behavior or behavior of others. Look at this things that matter for this article. --Gndawydiak 18:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gndawydiak, the process can be frustrating. When I first began with WP, an article could begin as a seed and grow with time. However, the huge volume of junk that is submitted each day has forced WP into a defensive posture to battle the junk and spam. As volunteers we have to be efficient in nipping the junk in the bud ASAP. Now I develop my articles off-line and cut & paste something substantial enough to avoid the deletion process. This is respectful of the efforts by dilligent volunteers who are looking out for our mutual interest in having a credible WP. It is the spammers etc. at whom you should direct your anger. Good Luck. --Kevin Murray 19:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Bay Area resident and Stuart Hall Alum[reply]
  • Delete, it's only notable inside the city of San Francisco, and only amongst the Catholic community there. Nobody else cares. Fails WP:LOCAL. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter what the religion of the participants may be the rivalry is noticed by the general community. To say that "nobody else cares" is shallow thought. This is about an athletic rivalry with a long tradition. WP calls for notablility not broad ranged fame or importance --Kevin Murray 02:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This rivalry is notable to the entire San Francisco Bay Area which has millions of people in it and notable rivalries have millions of people knowing about it too, as per above. I was attempting to show that the overinflated claims of the supporters are untrue. I grew up in the Bay Area. I repeat. Nobody cares. User:Zoe|(talk)
  • Delete. Trivia; not encyclopedic or of notability outside of one part of the world. Agent 86 21:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense The Boston Marathon is a local event but is clearly notable. Just because it isn't famous doesn't mean that it isn't notable -- read the WP guidlelines. --Kevin Murray 02:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Read what Agent 86 said. Notability outside of one part of the world. That isn't saying "local". It's saying that it's unknown outside of the Bay Area. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this belongs on the school blog or somewhere. Not an encyclopaedic subject. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic (see for example the "pranks" section). For a fairly encyclopedic tratment of the same basic topic, see Bruce-Mahoney Trophy. I don't think this is worth a redirect though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There isn't an article on the Cal-Stanford rivalry (even though there is an article on the Big Game and The Play), and a rivalry between two teams which can't beat De La Salle High School just isn't that important, even in the Bay Area. Argyriou (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not proven. I have advocated retention of other articles on rivalries, but here notability is not adequately demonstrated. Sorry. ( I don't advocate a re-direct either. ) WMMartin 16:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subject matter inherently non-notable. Slac speak up! 04:34, 25 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. ST47Talk 11:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Shepherd[edit]

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

non-notable biography. Article asserts no real encyclopedic value; seems to be just another university prof, and an adjunct at that. Agent 86 06:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. "University professor" does not meet BIO by itself. Madman 15:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment His awards (see my comment near the end) make him pass both WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Do you not agree? --Quirex 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Author of several books, but might not pass WP:BOOK. He is a full-time professor at one university-level institution (Tyndale University College and Seminary), and adjunct at another, the University of Toronto and its school of theology. The honorary degree would be proof of notability if it were from a more pretigious institution. I was only able to find one published review of his books, although a Google search for "nature and function of faith in the theology of John Calvin" turns up a few citations of that book. --Eastmain 18:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment an area he preaches/teaches/writes/studies is Methodism. Wesley was the founder of methodism and thus the institution which bears his name might be very notable in the study of Methodism. --Quirex 07:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability, does not appear to pass WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd 19:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Pete Hurd is citing a proposed guideline;WP:PROF has not been adopted and is heavilly disputed. The current professor test at BIO states: "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors), they can and should be included."--Kevin Murray 00:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence that WP:PROF is "heavily disupted". To the contrary, a quick look through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators shows it to be the accepted standard for academics. Pete.Hurd 05:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pete, please read the tag at the top of the page for WP:PROF: "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".--Kevin Murray 08:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators is not WP policy. It is an opinion statement by a group of Wikipedians. You've been duped! --Kevin Murray 08:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, I didn't say that page was policy, I merely note that it's a deletion sorting list, which allows one to view all the AfD's for educators and academics together in one place. I've removed the "proposed" template you put on the page, since it's not a proposal, it's a sorting list. Pete.Hurd 19:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, your statement is misleading. The fact is that there is only one recognized Prof standard and that is the one at BIO. WP is getting overburdened by rule-mongering, and micro-lawyering. BIO is relatively simple and comprehensive. The ongoing efforts to "clarify" seem to just become more and more restrictive, redundant, and conflicting. --Kevin Murray 20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Notability (academics) supports Pete's assessment. WP:PROF is frequently applied when discussing academics. ~ trialsanderrors 05:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From the information provided in the article, this particular professor does not meet notability requirements. I have several professors at my graduate school who have done much more than this person and still don't merit having articles of their own. If some sources can be provided that show that his books are notable then I'd be willing to change my 'vote' to keep. --The Way 00:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say that--I congratulate you on the excellence of your graduate school judging from the apparent notability of your teachers: you most certainly should write articles about them, or enter on the list of requested articlesDGG
Excellent remark! Ohconfucius 03:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Passes professor test absolutely and seems to make it as an author as well. He only needs to pass one test to be deemed notable. I see a review of his work by an independent source, and a biography at another independent source. What's the problem? --Kevin Murray 00:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To establish notability you need multiple reviews, the article supplies only one and that one source is rather non-notable itself. Also, there is no independent biography; I believe the biography you consider to be independent is a biography on a Writer's Union website, in other words that biography is likely to have been submitted by Victor himself since he is a member of that union. This is supported by the fact that that biography gives Victor's email address for responses... --The Way 01:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right and wrong (a) he doesn't have to pass all tests; the multiple reviews is just one test. The Professor Test has different criteria (b) from what you say the Writer's Union website may not be an independent source. --Kevin Murray 08:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per The Way. Subject does not appear to pass WP:PROF; of 7 books listed on Amazon.com, the highest ranking one is in the 1.5millionsths, the other ones languish in the 3 - 4 millionsths region, and there are no signs of published reviews. Ohconfucius 03:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Academic works in theology are not expected to be best sellers and should not be judged by the Amazon rank. Popular ones, yes, but thats not what he has been writing. DGG 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep according to WP:PROF, if the subject has been given an award or honor they meet one of the 6 criteria for inclusion. Dr. Shepherd has an honorary doctorate given to him for his work. A note in WP:PROF says that a professorship at a prestigious institution is enough to grant inclusion. Unfortunately WP:PROF is not specific and does not mention honorary doctorates. Although his CV does list a bunch of awards. According to WP:BIO one criteria for inclusion is "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." 2 awards of possible note would be: "Award of Excellence for Outstanding Contribution in the Fields of Historical-Systematic Theology and Preaching, Center for Mentorship and Theological Reflection, 2004" and "Scholarship Excellence Award, Tyndale University College & Seminary, 2006". So it seems he meets both WP:PROF and WP:BIO primarily due to his awards. --Quirex 07:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability I believe is establised. Dwain 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if I'm allowed to comment since I created the original entry, but the comments regarding Amazon sales rankings are not a fair comparison given that (1) the Dr. Shepherd is Canadian and (2) the books are Christian in content which would mean they would usually be sold through the CBA market rather than secular channels. Dr. Shepherd teaches theology at the largest evangelical university/seminary in this country -- does this not count for something?Robclem 04:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep since I see I didnt actually express an opinion. This time there are external articles, just as for non professors. There is nothing special about professors that isn't implied by the general N policy. "another prof" and may we have many thousand more--all N--just like major league athletes. (""Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, "--WP:N)--there a a few thousand of them also. DGG 06:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have improved this article to demonstrate notability, and would like to point out that the media coverage on [20] should be accepted as factual, because this man is very respected, holding positions at the most reputable divinity institutions of the world, and these publications are either not online, or only recently online and their archives dont go back this far. Refer to United Church Observer, a stub I have created for one of these publications. John Vandenberg 08:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Prosified CV. No notability outside common accomplishments within the profession established or even asserted. ~ trialsanderrors 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. A search on Wikipedia for "Victor Shepherd" brought up four articles, which I have now linked to the article. (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Victor_Shepherd) Three of those were using Victor's biography of the subject as a reference: Menno Simons, Thomas Torrance and Thomas Coke (bishop). These were all published in his book "Witnesses to the Word". The book isnt terribly notable in its own right, but it covers a lot of notable people, so I expect it will be useful to fill in missing articles. John Vandenberg 03:19, 26 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. Jaranda wat's sup 03:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of HD DVD releases[edit]

List of HD DVD releases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This is a list that doesn't seem to have a place on Wikipedia. The external links (which can be added to the HD DVD article instead) are better suited to list these releases. We don't have a List of VHS releases article. This article is likely to be constantly out-of-date, and its inclusion on Wikipedia adds no value. —Cleared as filed. 06:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete List will very soon become completely unmaintainable, if it is not already. Resolute 07:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list would have been useful when only a few were available but now that HD DVD is being sold in large quantities this will become too long and would be outdated daily. A category could replace this but even that would be rather pointless if HD DVD replaces DVD. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. James086Talk 07:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the long term, this is unmaintainable, especially if HD-DVD ends up being the prevailing format. There is no List of Beta releases, so even if HD DVD goes the way of the dodo, it still is too broad a topic for a list. 23skidoo 14:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete all per above -   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 17:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per y'all above. Caknuck 17:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This may have been notable if the fact that something has been released in this format is an interesting fact, but the fact that so many are, and will be, means that this is irrelevent, so much so that it does not even deserve a category. J Milburn 19:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but possibly reinstate if Blu-ray wins the war. -Toptomcat 00:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, I have changed the American releases to ABC order. The list can be maintained but users will need to work on it each week. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.82.220.77 (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: Just because something is maintainable, does not mean that it should be kept. This has no real encyclopedic value. J Milburn 15:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've also nominated List of Blu-ray releases for deletion along the same lines; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Blu-ray releases. —Cleared as filed. 16:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I can only see this being useful as a shopping guide for the short period of time when we only have a few HD-DVD releases, and that's not something for Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 18:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ... again*** While this isnt the usual wikipedia type article , it is highly useful as a shopping guide and could become very active if blu ray fails. At some point this must be deleated, however until we see such a flurry of titles that this becomes unmaintainable or unneccesseray, I vfeel that this article should be updated periodically to help out the consumer. EDIT : I Compleatly agree with DGG —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.82.220.77 (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • A shopping guide is something which Wikipedia is pretty definitely not. Also, you've already !voted. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Eventually there will be way too many releases on the HD-DVD format to keep track of. Maniac 00:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep eventually there will be too many, but not for a while. We can then rename it something like list of early HD releases in 2007(or possibly 2007 and 8), DGG 04:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Teply 02:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Great idea for a list!!! Dwain 00:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Static Universe talk|edits 05:34, 25 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. Jaranda wat's sup 03:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Solidarity[edit]

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

Defunct British anti-war group with no real assertion of notability. Googling the phrase "Iran Solidarity" is meaningless because these are two common words, but a search for "Iran Solidarity" anti-war group gets only about 400 results of which only about 40 are unique[21]. Browsing the organization's website, I could only find one example of a protest they organized, which managed to attract about 30 people [22]. Given that this organization no longer exists and thus will never become more notable, it should be deleted. GabrielF 06:26, 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. --Coredesat 04:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WildRose[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to have the notability required by WP:MUSIC. Speedy and prod have been removed by various editors with the idea to bring it to AfD, so here it is. JuJube 09:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 18:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC but if the "statewide medi coverage" of her contract dispute can be sourced might meet WP:N directly. Article currently has no independent, reliable sources. Eluchil404 07:32, 17 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, Chick Bowen 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eluchil404... Addhoc 12:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A few mild claims to fame, but none enough to make her notable. J Milburn 19:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Static Universe 19:41, 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 Merge useful content and Delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Action Iran[edit]

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

Defunct British anti-war group. A Google search for "Action Iran" is meaningless because the words are very common, but a search for "Action Iran" anti-war group gets only about 600 results, of which only about 200 are unique. Of these 200 results, many are sites that contain a phrase such as "...action. Iran" or "...action, Iran..." Browsing through the organization's website, I don't see any evidence that they did anything notable such as organized a significant protest. Given that the organization no longer exists and will never become notable, the article should be deleted. GabrielF 06:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Gets '1' hit in the blog Payvand's Iran News, and as such, violates our WP:Notability rules. Morton DevonshireYo 18:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Static Universe 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. This group formally merged in to larger umbrella group, thus merger is more appropriate than deletion. --70.51.231.96 21:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A google search on "Action Iran" anti-war gets 13,700 hits ("Action Iran" anti-war group gets 601 hits - i agree). WP:Notability is not about popularity nor about wikipedia editors' subjective judgments of notability. The article now includes five references from different sources, most of whom themselves are notable in the wikipedia sense. Boud 03:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the results for a search on "Action Iran" anti-war beyond the first four or five are irrelevant. The article cites seven sources, two are from the organization, one is from the group Action Iran merged into, one is from Internet Archive which accepts submissions from anyone and doesn't meet WP:RS, the remaining three are from anti-war websites. None of these demonstrates the group's notability. GabrielF 17:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • one is from the group Action Iran merged into: that only implies that the groups have a common interest, it does not provide any evidence that prior to the merger, they should be considered as a single organisation; the Internet Archive is in-depth material (to some extent) - it presents a video; the remaining three are from anti-war websites - so are you claiming that anti-war websites are not reliable sources? That's your personal POV. Alex Callinicos may call himself a "Marxist", but he nevertheless has a reasonably solid wikipedia page. Boud 20:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read: Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations). It is sufficient that the scope of the organisation is international (which it clearly is) and that it's verified by a third party (which it clearly is, by several third parties). It may have been a small organisation, in fact this seems fairly clear, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a "third-party-confirmed" organisation whose "scope of activities was international". i've written this in a more structured form on the talk page Talk:Action Iran. Boud 20:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This is what we did with Peace Action, where the groups that made up Peace Action were described under a "history" heading. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I agree with SchuminWeb
    • They do have a "website or anything". Please look at "External links" in the article. You'll find: http://www.actioniran.org.uk/ Boud 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, sorry. I got mixed up, thinking of a different article. SeanWDP 20:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:17, 26 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: Despite all the keep arguments, the original concerns were never addressed. WP:WEB requires multiple non-trivial sources - one is not multiple, and that one source was never really provided (given that I Love Music is a web forum, it is also not a non-trivial source). --Coredesat 04:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potter Puppet Pals[edit]

Potter Puppet Pals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Random Harry Potter parody. No proper assertion of notability. No independent, reliable coverage. Prod was removed. Drat (Talk) 09:37, 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, Daniel.Bryant 07:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this is a popular parody and Internet cartoon. -/- Warren 09:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the nom states, no independent reliable sources have been provided. If none show up, this fails WP:V. WarpstarRider 14:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable independent coverage, fails WP:N. Sandstein 14:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do not assert notibility at all. Fails WP:N and WP:WEB because of no decent sources. I follow HP community and passed by it once.--Dacium 15:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, despite fanboy assurances that this is encyclopedic. Madman 15:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Neil Cicierega. —Dark•Shikari[T] 15:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hang on, hang on, whoa' whoa, whoa! A fairly huge claim to notability has just been made. Can we give Releeshan/Kittychick a chance to source that claim to a Boston Globe article before we proceed? That alone should be more than enough. -Toptomcat 00:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentThat's just one source. There needs to be multiple. That I Love Music "mention" hasn't been explained or sourced. Is it a full article? Or is it just a trivial "Hey, go check this funny flash thing"? Besides, as far as I can see, it's a forum, so anyone can post there, rendering it unreliable.--Drat (Talk) 02:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment-Eep, nevermind. The article in question was more about Neil himself, and has already been linked to on the Neil Cicierega page.--Releeshan 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see those freakin' puppets everywhere! It's a very popular flash cartoon. --Candy-Panda 09:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Neil Cicierga. Of course I WANT to say keep because I love this flash cartoon, but its notability is in question.--Wizardman 19:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Hall (St Andrews)[edit]

New Hall (St Andrews) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

absoluely nothing notable about these halls outside of St Andrews Uni. Delete this one, just like the others: Gannochy House, John Burnet Hall, St Salvator's Hall, University Hall (University of St Andrews). Ohconfucius 07:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I spent a drunken year of my life in John Burnet Hall. I can't possibly think of a reason why it would deserve an article and the same applies to New Hall. User:EricDuffy should probably take a look at WP:COI and WP:AUTO before Wikilinking to his user page from within articles he's written about himself. -- IslaySolomon | talk 15:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are any of these buildings of special architectural merit? --Eastmain 16:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well New Hall is (or at least was) pretty luxurious by British student accommodation standards (double beds, satellite TV etc.) but I don't think there's anything architecturally significant about it and it's only been there since 1993. I've really no idea if any of the other buildings are of any particular significance beyond age and former royal inhabitants. Hamilton Hall is probably the most recognisable building (if only because of an appearance in Chariots of Fire) and that's no longer a university building anyway. [23] -- IslaySolomon | talk 21:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete individual residence halls tend not to be notable.-- danntm T C 20:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no more notable than the others. Nuttah68 17:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When it was first built there was some controversy about the principle of charging higher fees for higher standard accommocation within the University (I was on the Students' Representative Council executive at the time) but this would hardly make it notable --Captdoc 22:40, 21 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 consensus. (Actually, only three people have commented, so that's consensus, isn't it? :) Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BIIAB[edit]

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

not notable, fails WP:ORG Carabinieri 19:48, 13 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, Daniel.Bryant 07:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • conditional keep and holdon If the legal requirement for certification can be sourced, then this is clearly notable. They appear to be an important regulatory and industry body. I'm looking for sources right now, so if you can bear with me a bit I can probably improve the article. Wintermut3 19:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if it can be sourced and clean up. The article wording at the moment implies more than the BIIAB is. It is not a regulatory body, it offers training (along with many others) to meet the regulations. Nuttah68 17:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nuttah68, I've made a cleanup pass to clarify that it's only one body offering liscensing, but it seems that they do do a fair share of the governmental training for certain required certifications. I'd compare it to ServSafe in the US, yes there are other food safety training programs availible, but ServSafe is definately the primary certification I've ever encountered (though that might be geographical). As such I still think it's probably notable. Wintermut3 20:52, 21 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 (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Against Urban 4x4s[edit]

Alliance Against Urban 4x4s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

WP:N not established. TonyTheTiger 20:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Googling mostly turns up this group's own websites and press releases on fringe politics sites. Fails WP:ORG and WP:RS Dragomiloff 05:51, 15 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, Daniel.Bryant 07:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. CiaranG 10:04, 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 as non-notable. While the citations seem to indicate that the center has garnered local and national attention, and (through its director) a small amount of international attention, the same can be said of a large number of youth centers that receive awards from mayors, governors, presidents, and other leaders. There is nothing asserted in the article or through the citations that indicates that this particular youth center is more notable than any others with similar credentials. The center should be mentioned in the Stepanavan article, and would even help bring it out of stubiness. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stepanavan Youth Center[edit]

Stepanavan Youth Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Unclear notability, sound like advertising. A notability tag has been removed twice. Chris 73 | Talk 19:33, 13 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, Daniel.Bryant 07:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SPAM, as well as WP:N and WP:V. No assertion of notability, no verifiable sources given, just an email address (which is a bad idea anyway). -- Kesh 21:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable youth center/organization.--Tainter 23:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete n-n and spam. DaveApter 19:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm looking into this one. Some suggestion of notability (I'm not convinced yet, myself) is that "Lilit Simonyan, MPA Candidate; Founder, Former CEO, International Director, Stepanavan Youth Center NGO Armenia" will be speaking in that capacity at "Unite For Sight's Fourth Annual International Health Conference ... April 14-15, 2007 - Stanford University School of Medicine".[24] That's one point in this org's favor. I'll go look for more. — coelacan talk — 02:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems the "Unite for Sight" group is independent of "Stepanavan Youth Center" but collaborates on work that they can do together in Armenia. Here's some coverage of that from UFS's website.[25] I'm not adding this stuff into the article yet, not until I'm satisfied that it actually does pass WP:N. — coelacan talk — 02:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Okay, here it is. YouthActionNet is an initiative of Nokia and the International Youth Foundation. YouthActionNet has given an award for the work of the Stepanavan Youth Center.[26] [27] Then the Prime Minister of Armenia, Andranik Margaryan, recognized the work as well, and honored the coordinator as "Outstanding Youth Worker". This award is given to only two people per year, and the coordinator was specifically "recognized for her work in the implementation of state youth policy as president of the Stepanavan Youth Center."[28] That's good enough for me, and I'll go put this into the article. — coelacan talk — 03:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After incorporation of new citations[edit]

  • Comment: The new citations mentioned above are now incorporated at Stepanavan Youth Center#Recognition. The article could still use some cleanup, but that is no argument for deletion. I believe the new citations establish notability, particularly the recognition of the Prime Minister of Armenia. If anyone makes serious arguments to the contrary, please notify me on my talk page so that I may consider those arguments. — coelacan talk — 07:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to say even by the title it seems to be non notable. If wikipedia had an article for every youth or community centre in the world it would have about 10 million articles so I do think it should be deleted. Tellyaddict 17:27, 26 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 (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack_Leasure[edit]

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

Not Notable Bill.matthews 18:04, 13 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, Daniel.Bryant 07:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly non-notable. CiaranG 12:47, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 23:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Ribbon College Basketball Yearbook[edit]

College yearbookof unclear notability. A notability tag was removed without comment, hence I initiated the more formal AfD process. Chris 73 | Talk 17:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep revised version, notable and now also NPOV -- Chris 73 | Talk 19:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think it's probably notable, but it's also probably spam. Reads like a cut-and-paste of their promotional materials. I'll change if it's rewritten and sourced at the end of the discussion period. Change to keep. Good job. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)(timestamp last ... Bpmullins | Talk 05:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:47, 14 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, Daniel.Bryant 07:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The yearbook is pretty notable in college basketball circles. Using Factiva, I found 232 newspaper articles referencing the guide, including 26 that mention the title of the book in their headlines or lead paragraphs. At least 99 libraries carry the yearbooks, as well (according to WorldCat). The article is kind of spammy, but it doesn't appear to be a straight cut-and-paste job. Just tag it for cleanup; maybe I'll get to it later. Zagalejo 20:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Potentially notable, but no attempt at verifiability at all. Perhaps it can be cited, but someone needs to do it before this AfD closes. If the article can't be updated within a week to add references, it's not being maintained enough to be worth keeping. -- Kesh 21:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep - With the current references, I'm revising my vote to Keep. Good job tagging and cleaning it up! Hopefully more information can be added later to expand this article. It'd be good to see a History section about where it came from, and why it's referred to as the "Bible" for basketball. -- Kesh
  • Comment I just turned it into a stub, removing the promotional language and adding a few references. I'm sure it can be expanded further, but I have other things I should be doing right now. Anyone else want to take a crack at it? Zagalejo 21:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The newly revised and reformatted version is a keeper although the original was not necessarily so. This is used as a resource across the country as is easily seen by the references. TonyTheTiger 21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This new version meets verifiability and notability standards. Good job, Zagalego. --The Way 00:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Blossom Tattoo[edit]

Cherry Blossom Tattoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Complete original research; reads like an essay; trivia John Reaves (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—I agree with deleting the Cherry Blossom Tattoo article. Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete junk. JuJube 08:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Maustrauser 08:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to see how there can be anything notable about this. The article seems to have been written to confirm that point of view. CiaranG 10:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one of a zillion potential tattoo designs/subjects. I can't really see individual tattoo designs being encyclopedic anyway: we don't even have Heart tattoo or Skull tattoo, for example. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, essay, promotional, and copyvio. --Dhartung | Talk 17:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:OR. Static Universe 19:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essay like and WP:OR so not notable enough for tattoo Thatperson 21:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is the sort of article that pisses me off. Not only shouldn't it have been created, there has been no effort to Wikify it. House of Scandal 11:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Non-notable tattoo design. Plus if nothing else the bit that states: It is easy to see why as the delicate nature of a cherry blossom and beauty of the flower makes a wonderful compliment to the natural beauty of a woman. makes it beyond saving. Who wrote this article, Swiss Toni?! Keresaspa 14:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable, massive POV problems, and one of so many possibilities for tattoo design, most of them probably being non-notable (unless someone actually gets the Wiki Logo/globe tattooed!!)SkierRMH 02:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per commenters above, read like original research material. Yamaguchi先生 00:40, 25 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 Drop a Daisy Cutter on it (delete). --Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of killed, threatened or kidnapped Iraqi academics[edit]

List of killed, threatened or kidnapped Iraqi academics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

First, wikipedia is not a memorial. There is a lot of precedent for deleting lists of otherwise non-notable people who died in a particular event. Even if casualty lists were acceptable, this list is downright weird. First, there is almost no information provided about these people. Although this is supposedly a list of "academics" it includes people like hotel managers, consultants, doctors, etc. In most cases there isn't even a date of death. Second, almost everyone is unsourced and thus impossible to verify. If a person listed here was kidnapped or killed, how do we know that this had anything to do with his being an academic? GabrielF 08:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This topic -- the violent purge of Iraqi intelligencia -- is worthy of encyclopedia space, but I find a list of the particular targets problematic at best. In addition to the nominator's concerns about the broadly inclusive view of "academics" taken by the list, I am concerned about its premise. Tracking everyone in any field who has been threatened in what is essentially an active civil war is simply beyond the scope of Wikipedia. With verification also uniquely unlikely, WP:BLP issues seems a plausible hazard as well. With all that said, this might be an idea to revisit after the situation calms down in the region and some more objective reporting can occur. But not now, not like this. Serpent's Choice 11:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Try a category instead. Madman 15:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Academic intimidation in Iraq since 2003 (perhaps, open to other suggestions) and delete the list. The introduction could be a start to a real article. The list is not our responsibility and it's just a bad uncategorized list of non-notable people. It's much more useful to say "The University of Najaf closed on April 31, 2005 after 13 department heads and 37 academics fled the country" than to just list them.--Dhartung | Talk 17:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hopelessly original research and unsourced by reputable citation. Morton DevonshireYo 18:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • wikisource it. Derex 23:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fully agree with Serpent's Choice, the broader topic of the purging of Iraqi intellectuals is certainly an encyclopedic topic. However, a list of this sort is too problematic. What, precicely, constitutes an 'academic?' How are we going to verify all of this, especially those being threatened... and what constitutes a threat in this instance? And, to add some really dark humor, isn't this unmaintainable too? --The Way 00:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the topic definitely warrants an article. It is one of the most disturbing things I've seen on wikipedia. The problem is that the list doesn't really tell us very much about what is actually happening. Were these people targeted because of their profession? Their politics? Their sect? Were they targeted randomly? Who is doing the "threatening"? Are Shi'ites and Sunnis being targeted equally? If we want to create an article about it we need to do more research and not just use the existing text as a starting point. GabrielF 00:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've started a preliminary article at Violence against academics in post-invasion Iraq GabrielF 02:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'keep and improve as needed. I guess I'm the only one, but perhaps my comments may be useful in recreation. I do not find the definition of academics very much over-broad: they are almost all of the college lectures or faculty; the new list might be specifically limited to that, and then have list of Physicians, etc.etc. I think perhaps threatened is too broad a term, for who there is not? Killed/kidnapped is more verifiable. OR it is not, it is compilation from sources, as is the rest of WP. I cannot understand ""the list is not our responsibility" Our responsibility is encyclopedic coverage , limited of course to those articles where someone is willing to do the work. The list would look more professional with a more sophisticated table. DGG 03:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crufty McCruft. --Tbeatty 04:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely circumspect misinformation and soapboxing.--MONGO 08:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the id list in itself is unencyclopedic. Just copy what's worth to Violence against academics in post-invasion Iraq. Ultrogothe 12:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Wine Tasting of 2005[edit]

Ottawa Wine Tasting of 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This 'event' was insignificant. An internet search shows only one page (the cited source) that mentions this tasting (apart from the dozens of pages that just mirror wikipedia). The source in turn just cites two articles in local newspapers (Phillips, Rod. Battle of the bottles. Ottawa Citizen, October 19, 2005; Schreiner, John. Millenium tasting. Kelowna Daily Courier, October 22, 2005.) The event is about as important as a village flower show and does not merit an encyclopedia entry. Nunquam Dormio 09:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Qualified Delete I found the content interesting and a little surprising. That said, this wiki page seems to have been pretty-much lifted from a section of the referenced webpage http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1099940232.html (article by David Hanson) and it may merit deletion on those grounds. Insignificant content? Maybe, but then maybe not. The Hanson article also talks about a 1981 Ottowa tasting. While I love Bordeaux I do think it's interesting to see them go up against lesser known wines in a blind test with sometimes surprising results. I would vote to delete the page for copyright reasons but would hope to see the Hanson article referenced from some other wiki page. Steve.Moulding 17:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete On further consideraton, an interesting article does not necessarily belong in an encyclopedia. Steve.Moulding 21:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. A quick search shows lots of other references including
      • Statement by John Reynolds, MP, in the House of Commons of Canada (about the importance of this wine competition)
      • Tim Pawsey, B.C. wine scores big out East, Vancouver Courier, 20 October, 2005.
      • Shari Darling, Canadian wines go head-to-head with those from France, Petersborough Examiner, 20 October, 2005.

There's no possible copyright problem if the guy who wrote it approves. Does he? Grove2394Grove2394 19:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Grove2394's references seem more about promoting the Canadian wine industry than the actual wine tasting event. Static Universe 19:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Does seem to be a notable wine tasting event; The four references noted above in this AfD seem to be sufficient enough and the 1981 Ottawa Wine Tasting event seems to be rather notable which may further imply notability for this, its 'successor.' Also, http://www.blinkbits.com/blinks/wine mentions this event. Though the mention is in passing, it is included in a list of 'important' and 'historic' wine tastings... and its one of only a handful of such events. --The Way 00:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Blinkbits site is just one of many that copies from wikipedia (see lines "Wine Wikipedia RSS Feed shared by wikipedia into Wine Bio 11 months ago via source URL") Nunquam Dormio 09:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are numerous blind wine tastings conducted every year. Why is this any more significant than a tasting any wine enthusiast might host? Mikecase00 20:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Luke!
  • Delete because of copyright vio per Steve.Moulding. There is no assertion of permission of any sort from the author. Slp1 12:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence that this event was particularly significant or memorable or even that this is a longstanding annual event of any standing. Hansard is a good source but MPs during Members Statements will also mention a lot of trivial affairs such as fun fairs and that year's local high school valedictorian. Sixth Estate 19:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the competition is notable for its results, which are notable and unique. Yes 'numerous blind tastings are conducted every year', but how many organized wine tastings occur that place involving Canadian wines versus quality wines from Bordeaux? None that I know of other than this one. The Canadian wine industry is small but emergent, and events like this have potential future significance. That said, I think the article should be improved with citations. Ryandaum 04:41, 26 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, duplicate "not delete" argument ignored. --Coredesat 04:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat O'Malley martial artist[edit]

Pat O'Malley martial artist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
  • DeleteThe author is writting about himself which violates the WP:BIO, WP:OR and WP:COI guidelines. It is also missing and lacking neutral references but includes spam. Peter Rehse 09:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Potentially notable I suppose, but needs sources to convince me and WP:BIO. It certainly does look like autobiography but I'm not one for making such accusations without indisuputable evidence. Especially not against this chap. ;) CiaranG 10:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per PRehnse. Maustrauser 12:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. There are no neutral references for the article. CloudNine 12:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per PRehnse. Static Universe 19:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above, spamalicious. RFerreira 11:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete The referance is relevant to the page it is linked from Rapid Arnis an explains who the executive cheif instructor and founder of the style is. Pat OMalley
  • Not Delete I have tried to edit the article to make it more relevant to the site, any other advise you can give will be appreaciated. Pat OMalley
I've explained what's necessary on your talk page - hope that helps. CiaranG 13:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A similar situation was resolved with the moving of content to the user page (see User:Donald Munro). Peter Rehse 08:16, 23 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 16:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. We can't transwiki to Wikinews, and there is otherwise a consensus to delete. --Coredesat 04:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy[edit]

David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

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. (This is a repeat nomination. The first nomination (which had four calls to merge and one to keep) ended in a speedy keep because the article was linked from the front page, but with no prejudice for renominating the article for deletion once it was off the front page.) Robotforaday 12:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note we can't transwiki to Wikinews (according to the main afd page). Trebor 13:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason being that Wikinews does not use the GFDL.--Dhartung | Talk 16:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • News item, not an encyclopaedia entry. Needs mentioning in other articles (David Beckham, LA Galaxy, Real Madrid for example) when it finally happens, but not a whole article for itself. Delete Emeraude 13:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki (if they don't already have a suitable article in Wikinews). It may be notable right now, but in 12 months time it'll be a distant memory and in 10 years nobody will care: ergo, it's a news item. Some of it may be suitable for Merge with David Beckham --John24601 13:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not as if it's badly written; it's just completely pointless. As the nominator says, individual transfers are not encyclopedic. High profile transfers go on all the time in football, and this doesn't warrant special treatment. I'd suggest mergeing some of it with David Beckham. Stevefarrell 14:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Existing articles such as David Beckham, Los Angeles Galaxy, Designated Player Rule and Major League Soccer 2007 season can handle this transfer just fine. As nom says, keeping this sets a dangerous precedent. – Elisson • T • C • 14:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not merge. As well-written as this is, the articles it would be merged into already cover the event, and are also well-written. This is not an appropriate encyclopedia topic. Mangojuicetalk 15:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without merge, the current reference on David Beckham is quite enough --Angelo 16:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mangojuice since the Beckham article is has content about this already. --Howard the Duck 16:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, covered sufficiently in other articles. --Dhartung | Talk 16:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the other good reasons. Yeah, David Beckham is a good player, but Wikipedia doesn't need to follow his every move. PTO 18:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I was waiting for this to come off the main page so that this could be nominated. Merge anything worth saying into a subheading in the David Beckham article, much like the Gretzky trade is amply covered in a subsection of the Wayne Gretzky article. Agent 86 18:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a news article, not an encyclopedic article. Cream147 18:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • TransWiki to WikiNews.--Revolutionfan 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't do this. WN uses CC-BY, not the GFDL. --Rory096 18:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT the sports page, no merge needed as Beckham's main article already covers this adequately. Seraphimblade 19:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything warranted into the main article if needed. Just H 19:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge if there's any good information here that's not yet in the other relevent pages (David Beckham, Major League Soccer, Los Angeles Galaxy) Cogswobble 21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge s/b in bio article. TonyTheTiger 22:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I don't know how so many could support a delete of a such a well-referenced article. It should be merged into the appropriate articles. // Laughing Man 22:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. And Laughing Man, all the relevant information is already located in the appropriate articles so this is really just a duplication of information that is already properly located elsewhere. Furthermore, a 'vote' for merge is, at heart, also a vote for deletion since after content is merged, the article gets deleted. --The Way 00:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if all the referenced information is other related articles go ahead with deletion -- I just thought it was a shame to let all the hard work go to waste initially. I do now notice that Soccer in the United States, David Beckham look like they have most the information. I would like to point out though that the Major League Soccer#MLS and foreign stars section is lacking with updated information. // Laughing Man 05:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete but move page I moved it to Soccer in the United States anyway.Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Delete - this is of transient news interest, a brief mention in both the David Beckham and LA Galaxy articles suffices. This article takes it to unreal and un-needed depths. - fchd 17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone has placed the contents of this article into the article Soccer in the United States so now more than half of that article discusses David Beckham signing with the LA Galaxy. This is not an appropriate means of saving this article, it would be nice if other editors would take a look at that article and maybe comment on its talk page... --The Way 17:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic recentism, should have been written at Wikinews. --Rory096 18:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT Wikinews. Sandstein 21:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is not an encyclopedia article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikinews and extract appropriate encyclopedic content which should be merged with David Beckham. QmunkE 12:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't do the first part, as Wikinews is CC-BY, not GFDL. --Rory096 17:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we could, transwiki-(I know we can't) or rewrite at WikiNews. Merge actual encyclopedic content with the "David Beckham" page. This is a good bit of information, but it's the subject for New, not an encyclopedia. --tennisman sign here! 21:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not an encyclopedia article. Archibald99 21:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I really don't see how anyone could say that this article is "pointless." I agree that only time will tell how historic this event is, but should it be deleted just because it may not be "historicall significant" in a number of years? This is certainly a topic that interests a large number of people throughout the world. There is an extremely large amount of money involved in the deal. It has demanded a great amount of media attention. I don't see how that is pointless. Cougs2000 18:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this doesn't need its own article; all the relevant information can already be found (appropriately) in the David Beckham and Los Angeles Galaxy articles. We don't need a separate article for information that is better placed elsewhere (ie. information in those articles is actually placed in a broader context). --The Way 06:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Come on! It is developed into a very decent article.It is an important move for USA soccer in general, and I am very surprised that this is termed as an unencyclopedic news event! Before the Iraq war, who talked about Viet Nam?! By that logic, Viet Nam war articles were to be deleted. It shouldn't be merge as well, since I feel the article can stand on its own.Also, in the USA it has died down, but in UK and Europe I speculate with a high degree of certainty that sport shows are buzzing like when Gretzky got trade to LA. Wake up! This an important world sports issue.!! Mbralchenko 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Wayne Gretzky move you refer to is perfectly adequately dealt with in the Wayne Gretzky article- just as this move can be perfectly adequately dealt with in the David Beckham article. Robotforaday 23:19, 24 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. Jaranda wat's sup 03:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Genung[edit]

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

The article has not asserted the notability of the person in question, and many people have lived a 'pioneer lifestyle', or had great 'gardening skills'. It doesn't mean they deserve a Wikipedia article CloudNine 12:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Calling someone "a regional celebrity" does not mean they're notable (and I suspect that Peeples Valley, Arizona is not a particluarly important 'region'). I can find nothing in this 'biography' that is out of the ordinary, given the time and location, and nothing on the topics for which she is supposed to be famous - healing and gardening. Interesting lifestory of someone who lived to a good age in sometimes trying conditions. Encyclopaedia worthy? No. Delete. Emeraude 13:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced. A "regional celebrity" suggests a claim to notability so it can't be speedied, but searching for "Ida Genung" on Google comes up with Wikipedia mirrors and not a lot else. Admittedly, there may be only offline sources because she died quite a while ago, but the burden is on anyone wishing to keep. Without sources, this person is not-notable. Trebor 13:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the refrences are to no so notable sources and the ghits are mostly wikipedia mirrors.--Tainter 23:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Improve I think that this is a diamond in the rough. I'm seeing about 300 g-hits for a long-dead pioneer. The terms "gardening skills" and "regional celebrity" were unfortunate choices by the author -- shoot the author, but don't chuck the subject. Let's work on improving this worthy article! --Kevin Murray 01:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are about 100 unique hits, and they are almost all mirrors of Wikipedia. The mention given to her in the link provided is pretty trivial. The book is more interesting, but to be notable this needs multiple non-trivial sources. Unless this is further sourced, notability isn't established. Trebor 13:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe the subject is worthwhile but the article isn't. I'm tired of pulling junk like this out of the fire. House of Scandal 11:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amen to that; it is a lot of work. Still this shouldn't be a reason for deletion --Kevin Murray 21:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both sources already in the article are reliable. Google web tests are essentially useless for historical figures, which is why they are not part of WP:BIO or any of our other notability criteria. Google Scholar and Google Books are much more useful, but didn't help in this case. Looking at the article on the book, we she she gets one of 16 chapters in it. Using special:booksources by clicking on the ISBN, we can go to the Library of Congress website and learn that the book has 137 pages, so there should be roughly 8 pages on her in that book. Local history museums are generally a source of content that is at least as reliable as the typical newspaper, and that is what the linked web-source is. Sources don't have to be notable, the article's topic does. However, the history museum webpage is only a passing mention, so we only have one source thus far. GRBerry 03:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable historic person. Interesting article! Dwain 00:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article is a WP:ILIKEIT argument. If she is a notable historic person, could you provide the multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable independent sources. Trebor 07:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gun politics worldwide[edit]

Gun politics worldwide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Vacuous article. All it contains is a table listing some countries (not all countries in the world), and whether they "have gun control" and if so, since what year. Of course, this table is a complete oversimplification of the issues; gun control is not as simple as a yes/no, and there are no sources. Merging is proposed to gun politics, but this would be bad because the article contains nothing worth keeping. Gun politics should perhaps be written with a more worldwide view, but that won't be assisted by including this table. Mangojuicetalk 12:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it has no useful information to merge. As you say, a simple yes/no on "gun control" is far too simplistic and won't help in writing a more worldwide Gun politics article. Possibly a well-referenced List of gun politics worldwide could exist one day, along with explanatory notes for each country's policy, but this isn't it. Trebor 13:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which brings up another point, actually. Wouldn't that article be better titled List of gun policies worldwide? It's hard to imagine what a "list of politics" would be. Mangojuicetalk 22:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that would make sense. I'm not sure this topic is suited to a list at all, to be honest, given the specific nuances of each country's policies. I would be happy to be proved wrong but at present, this is the wrong article at the wrong title with the wrong idea (IMO). Trebor 22:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Largely an empty article with no context (WP:CSD#A1). The table is oversimplify original research with no definition to what "gun control" is. Also I can already see one error on the table with regard to the United States, which does have some gun control laws in place, but not very strict ones. --Farix (Talk) 13:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above: no meaningful content and OR. Sandstein 14:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sandstein. Madman 15:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above GabrielF 18:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per mon Bucketsofg 19:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. (Article is also wrong on UK where licencing of guns is far far older than 1987!) Emeraude 12:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - UK entry is incorrect; "Gun control" is not defined, and as such it could be argued that all entires therein could be simply WP:POV. SkierRMH 02:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per reasons above... I mean, at least define what is meant by "gun control"! --Thisisbossi 03:11, 23 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 22:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK Best Selling Singles in 2006[edit]

UK Best Selling Singles in 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

First of all I was tempted to speedy delete per speedy delete criterion a1 ('Little of no context'). However, because the article has been there a while, I thought I'd allow a discussion.

This should go because:

  • Delete per well-explained nom. I don't see what it adds beyond 2006 in British music, and it doesn't have much context. Trebor 13:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Bucketsofg 19:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I had hoped my comment on the talk page would prompt someone to turn it into what it should be but the actual list has since been added to 2006 in British music anyway. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Rename to "Top UK Singles in 2006" which more accurately reflects the information in this article. The article could use an introduction that provides a little bit more context, but this is a valid list topic. I normally don't like lists, but this is a good example of an appropriate one; it's maintainable, well delineated and it discriminates by a rather common type of criteria for this type of subject. --The Way 00:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful list. It is not indiscriminate information as it uses #1 and top 10 singles as criteria. It provides information that a category doesn't and is useful. Needs sourcing but a useful list. It should certainly not be speedy deleted under any criteria that I could see and it would certainly be concerning if someone would speedy delete an article like this. Capitalistroadster 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary and arbitrary, in that: the #1 songs are already covered in the established series of articles xxxx in British music, and the other placings are rather arbitrary: why all the top ten singles? Why not the top 20? 40? 50? 75? Initiate a discussion on the talk page for 2006 in British music, which is a much better article for giving an overview of an actually encyclopaedic topic than this is, to see if folks would support adding this to that article, but as a standalone it is not particularly useful. GassyGuy 04:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, there's no need to even initiate the discussion re: merging this to 2006 in British music, because the top 20 singles are already covered on 2006 in music. So it's basically a pointless duplication of other articles - how many different places need to host this information? GassyGuy 04:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a list of all the top-10 singles a copyright violation? If it's not, then a specific article for this has some (limited) merit. Pending clarification of copyright, redirect to 2006 in British music as plausible search term. Eludium-q36 10:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article appears to serve very little purposem as per all the arguments above. - fchd 17:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AnimeCon[edit]

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

A one time anime convention that doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. An exhaustive Google search doesn't turn up any reliable sources and highly unlikely to be expanded beyond a short article. It's already mentioned in Anime Expo as a predecessor convention so there is nothing to merge. --Farix (Talk) 13:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. --Farix (Talk) 13:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication that this is notable. Seraphimblade 13:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I wouldn't say that it is not notable—it is attributed as the first anime convention in the United States—but there aren't enough independent non-trivial articles from a reliable source to pass WP:CORP. All I've been able to find are just brief mentions. But anything that can be said about this con could covered in Anime Expo instead, so there is not real lose. --Farix (Talk) 14:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One time non notable event. --Dacium 14:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that it was run by people who now run the most notable anime convention in the United States isn't a claim to notability. No reliable sources. Leebo86 15:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's all there is to be said about it, shove a sentence in Anime Expo and redirect there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one-time event held sixteen years ago, no real notability asserted. JIP | Talk 16:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Bucketsofg 19:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Anime Expo. Newyorkbrad 20:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment There is nothing to merge. What is in this article is already restated in Anime Expo. On top of that, there are three other conventions that call themselves Animecon. One in Finland, one in the Netherlands, and one in Louisville, Kentucky. And then there is the disambiguation page at Animecon. --Farix (Talk) 13:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. Good point. Okay, then, redirect to Animecon and add a sentence to the disambiguation there with a link to Anime Expo. Newyorkbrad 13:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- 9muses 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ... This was not the first US anime convention. It was one of the first, but that alone doesn't make it notable. --PatrickD 14:40, 24 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. Seems to exist... per AMG and others. If the article has incorrect information, that's not a reason to delete it. W.marsh 23:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bite The Dust[edit]

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

no evidence of a single, deletion of how many times how many lies unnecessary Cusulli 13:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unverified crystal balling. I think the deletion of How Many Times, How Many Lies most definitely is necessary, as it seems to be an article about something that never existed. -- IslaySolomon | talk 15:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Zevizone 15:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC) It shouldnt be deleted because lead pussycat doll confirmed it[reply]
  • Delete as crystal balling per Solomon. When it is finally released, then we can bring this back. Bucketsofg 19:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User:cusulli 15:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC) It has a reputable source, a quoted magazine, what does Bite the Dust have? and anyway this duscussion is on deleting Bite the Dust. Please read the title.[reply]

Zevizone 22:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Radio Airplay has already starting rising and radios have already stated it commercial release[reply]

Source? Country?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 arguments to keep. --Coredesat 04:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenn Dolari[edit]

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

No reliable sources, no verifiability and therefore not notable, too. The text of the article was written by Jenn Dolari herself (Previous nomination) bogdan 14:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Please don't VfD this article just because the person it's about may contribute to it, it was initially created by a fan in the first place (hence a demonstration of notability). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:58, 2005 September 2 (UTC)" [29] Krisorey 03:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication subject passes WP:BIO. Also appears webcomics mentioned in article may fail WP:WEB. Seraphimblade 14:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO unless we have multiple independent sources. Bucketsofg 19:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The less mention of me there is on a site I've grown to loathe, the happier I am. Y'all wanna AFD the comics, too? Be my guest. Jenn Dolari 01:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why the heck am I pushing so hard for deletion? Simple. If people are going to keep putting this stuff for deletion, I'm gonna make sure it gets done, and I'm going to make sure I kill it myself. Y'all started it, and I'm gonna get it finished. Jenn Dolari 08:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I vote this only because Jenn wants it that way, and because I agree with her belief that Wikipedia has grown too pretentious for its own good. JBladen 02:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If she doesn't want it here, I don't want it here. Krisorey 03:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I vote for this because Jenn is a good person, and if she wants her information removed, than dang it she should ahve every right to make it happen. Dred Lily 04:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At Jenn Dolari's personal request to me, I am also voting to delete this. 24.238.161.111 04:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject is not particularly notable, so it's probably a judgement call, and since the subject (and partial author) thinks it should be deleted, I'm voting delete. --Strange but untrue 08:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How can something written BY THE PERSON, HERSELF have 'no reliable sources and no verifiability'? I've known Jenn, in person, for ten years, and I can verify it all... and by the way, who 'verifies' me or my writing? If I'd've written this same article instead of her writing it herself, it *might* have been OK? So she and her WEBcomics are (naturally) only known for their WEB presence, and that's evidently not sufficient. This is as opposed to Wikipedia's 'presence'? At any rate, I VOTE (despite those who want all the 'power' for themselves, and who do not want to listen to the mere audience who READS the article) to have Jenn's article deleted because SHE wants it that way, NOT because there isn't demand and merit. Wikipedia may appear useful and objective on the surface, but ultimately, it is just another web community with the underlying motivation being a power trip for a few select people. So much for Wikipedia's credibility. Unfortunately for those people, whether you delete or keep the article... Jenn 'wins'. That's pretty remarkable, considering all she was trying to do was get her info out there for those who are interested in her and her work. ...My edit of the main entry was admittedly accidental, but I can't say that it bothers me much at this point. xoxo
  • Delete To hell with your "this is not a ballot." Jenn has requested her own deletion, and she's got legions of fans who will follow her to the ends of the earth. "Not notable," my arse.
  • Delete Reluctantly, at the request of the subject, but this is the only one I'm going to play along with. I really hate the deletionist mindset of too many on Wikipedia. This isn't a paper encyclopedia. It is uniquely situated to be a repository of a wide expanse of cultural phenomena that may prove all to ephemeral in nature, with future historians struggling to find information -- this is perhaps nowhere more pronounced than with bands, especially ones in countries that don't have an equivalent of the Billboard 100 (so you're in country X, therefore you're non-notable by definition and must be deleted? The feedback I've gotten from some seems to be an unapologetic and resounding 'yes'). [snip flaming rant. I'm staying here and can't start burning bridges I may need to revisit.] Can we please stop trying to destroy Wikipedia? --Strangelv 14:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it seems rather silly to say 'delete' here when I just added content to the article. Re-write -- Strangelv 22:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-write Just because the subject of the page wants it deleted, should it be? If Harrison Ford or Vladimir Putin wanted their pages deleted should they be? That would leave a gap from references in other pages that linked there. The page is linked to by at least 8 other content pages. Rather than being deleted, the page should perhaps be rewritten and updated by another wiki user. For example, the current version doesn't list the subject's organising of the Transgender Day of Remembrance Webcomics Project (and I have just added a link to this on that page. --Laura Seabrook 25 January 2007 2:57 (GMT +10:00)
  • Delete If you're so upset that she wrote the article, delete it as she's asked you to. Seems like a win-win situation to me.-SLP65.65.111.228 16:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If Ms. Dolari isn't a public figure, as some would seem to suggest, then she has a right to privacy which includes protection against publicity of her private life. If she is a public figure, then aren't some of you just a bunch of pompous asses for trying to delete a entry just because you aren't personally familiar with its subject. Ms. Dolari is well known in the web comic community and has made many convention appearances. If, however, she doesn't want to be associated with Wikipedia anymore, then you should respect her wishes. --Wiscesq 17:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-write What Laura Seabrook said. I'm sorry Jenn's feeling are hurt at the VfD, but it seems to be a bit of an over-reaction. (Can someone pull their permissions to any information from Britannica, actually? That's an interesting question...) Jenn's editing of her own page aside, she's notable and I'd say to keep her. I understand her feelings to pretty much flip wikipedia the bird (and on a personal level, support it entirely). On an editor level, though, I think the page should stay. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I am disapointed that this disscussion even came up. I go out to Jenn's pages more often than I come here. Jenn asked to be deleted. I think she is more than noteworthy enough to be listed, but you may not be noteworthy enough to do the listing. The first entry argues that her web comics MIGHT fail? How could such an argument be taken seriously based on your own guidlines? GChapman.

  • Delete, doesn't meet our notability or verifiablity standards. With no decent references, the article is all original research and personal point of view. -- Dragonfiend 04:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Jenn sent me." Coolgamer 17:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Lets just delete this article so that someone not affiliated with the author can write a new stub in a few days and make the objectors happy. Honestly, I think the idea here is to add information and correct incorrect information, not delete it. Hey its me first discussion :)" structured_spirits
  • Abstain If I had my way I'd vote for Keep because Webcomics articles on Wikipedia are deleted too zealously and the entire Notability procedure needs to be completely overhauled. Anyway, I've been through that argument before. I personally think Jenn's reasons for wanting the articles about her work deleted are wrong - Osama Bin Laden wouldn't be allowed to delete his article just because he didn't like its content or Wikipedia. On the other hand, I have to respect Jenn's wishes however wrong her reasons. Lee M 18:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whoever's taking charge of this portion of the wiki seems to have it in for the person who was working on the Texas roads list. Such personal vendettas are unbecoming. A request on the individual's part to withdraw articles about her seems prudent; it keeps the article from becoming a place for slander until the caretakers themselves are fully investigated. This crusade against Texas highway detailing must end, even if this is the only way to do it. - Doc Mackie 19:00, 25 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. Jaranda wat's sup 03:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph E. Hayes Jr.[edit]

Ralph E. Hayes Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No reliable sources, no verifiability and therefore not notable, too. (Previous nomination) bogdan 14:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete His web comics aren't notable either is he.--M8v2 19:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO Bucketsofg 19:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above; no reliable sources indicating notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per lack of proper assertion of notability. so what if he is the author of 3 webcomics? - their notability is not established.... Ohconfucius 06:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep As per the previous 2005 round where this was already discussed. The article needs work, not deletion. TMLutas 15:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Received a non-notable furry fanfic award for one of his comic strips in 2005 but that does not rise to WP:WEB or WP:BIO notability. Suggest bundling the two articles on his webcomics: Tales of the Questor and Nip and Tuck for deletion as well. ju66l3r 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. - Francis Tyers · 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable individual. Dwain 00:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reputable sources suggesting notability. -- Dragonfiend 04:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Fails WP: BIO, WP:WEB, only remotely distinguishing characteristic from any other webcomic artist is Ursa Major Award, and the article for that has been deleted as well. No reliable third-party sources for anything other than the existence of said comics, which does not automatically warrant articles or mentions on Wikipedia. 70.43.138.74 03:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shot train[edit]

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

Unnotable drinking game, articles reason for existence seems to be to promote the also-unnotable web site of its claimed inventor. VirtualDelight 14:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Madman 15:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up in one school day. PTO 18:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as school-afternoonism per PTO. Bucketsofg 19:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without question. House of Scandal 08:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Jorgedrunk.com is a defunct site. Also in Jorge Drunk "THE SHOT TRAIN©" and "And yes we have copyrighted the drink." So this wikipedia article is just promoting a not very successful commercial venture. Nunquam Dormio 09:58, 21 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 - for the fourth time. DS 15:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pink meat[edit]

original research, howto content, thoroughly unencyclopedic tone: nothing worth salvaging. Wikipedia is not a blog. Contested PROD. Sandstein 14:51, 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 Keep. ST47Talk 11:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking[edit]

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

Not only hopelessly self-referenced, but the links are deliberately screwed to prove the point. - Sikon 08:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, this AfD was accidently listed on the page of january 9, 2006 recently [30]. I just moved it here to correct the listing. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reference by John C. Dvorak, one of the most respected technology writers in history, is verification. --Oakshade 08:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is what encyclopedias are for DelPlaya 11:50, 17 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although the article needs more references, this is a valid concept with applications in web usability (I know there have been quantitative studies) and search engine optimization. The term itself is not necessarily used in formal style guides, though. It should be possible to write an article about these aspects. --Dhartung | Talk 17:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Bucketsofg 19:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Right now, the article only has a single reference, which appears to be the originator of the term. This article has been up for AfD twice before, in November 2004 and this past August. If this is all we get in two years of editing, what hope is there that this can be turned into a useful article? No one has bothered to find new sources, even since the August AfD. This suggests either the references don't exist, or the article is simply never going to be updated to meet WP:V. -- Kesh 21:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but I can't find that the article was ever tagged for cleanup, expansion, lack of references, or any of its obvious sins. It really seems like we should do something with a concept that's a recognized longstanding guideline for our own project. --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And incidentally, Dvorak is in no way the originator of the term; here's a 1995 citation, published in another form in WIRED in 1996.--Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for that info. Still, those only indicate the concept existed. Nothing suggests it to be notable, and those links do nothing but explain the concept again. Maybe this should be turned into a redirect to another article on web design, but it still doesn't seem to be enough to exist on its own. -- Kesh 22:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to web design per Kesh. There are verifiable references that permit this topic's inclusion, but no assertion of notability to justify its status as an individual article. Furthermore, the topic is not currently disucssed at web design, which means a merge earns us one stronger article in place of two weaker ones. (Fair disclosure: I was the nominator for the August AFD of this article). Serpent's Choice 04:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are plenty of sources for this. --- RockMFR 05:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it is an important topic in Wikipedia and elsewhere Saga City 13:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Kesh. (I realize this counts as a "keep" !vote, but it can be done after the article is kept.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:14, 23 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 consensus. Now referenced. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proteus (WAM-V)[edit]

Proteus (WAM-V) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable. One reliable source, however does not pass the threshhold for notability by multiple reliable sources — Nearly Headless Nick 15:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This does it, it is clearly notable. Released only recently, this passes the durability of sources test. I would wait for more opinion though. However, verifiability is possible - sources might not be available over the internet. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in addition to the Chronicle article, there's also a San Jose Mercury News article. Apparently the thing was only unveiled yesterday, but still appears to be notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a ship design that hasn't even had sea trials yet. There's lots of "probablys" in the article about it's behaviour. Non-notable borderline spam. --Steve (Slf67) talk 22:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Keep verified, and a notable prototype, with the coverage mostly because of its looks! --Steve (Slf67) talk 06:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I specifically said in the article, sea trials are yet to be completed. However they have been started, to quote the website "Sea trials are in progress. Performance details will be disclosed at a later date."[31]. Also, there is only one statement that I would class as a "probably" in the article, and that is the statement about the efficiency of the ship. But if you think about it, less surface area in contact with the water + designed to move easier through waves = more efficient. The ship has been featured on numerous websites before it's release ([32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]). Fosnez 22:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the Yachting World and News Trib links establish notability existed even prior to this week's well-covered announcement. --Dhartung | Talk 23:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's all over the place. It was in every one of the local papers this morning (except the polic beat/Paris Hilton special, but they usually lag by a day). KP Botany 01:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the links Fosnez provided. bbx 10:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Schmiteye 22:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Da Champ[edit]

Marcus Da Champ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Anthonycfc [T • C] 15:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Google search revealed nothing beyond several myspace pages. --Cynicism addict 15:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Unless reliable third party sources can back up the content, this should go. Pascal.Tesson 15:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mixtapes recorded in the back of a Bradley don't constitute a discography. Caknuck 16:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all reasons noted above. House of Scandal 11:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TTN Tonight[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that the subject of this article meets the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Notability-- JeremyA 15:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 15:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably could be speedied as db-nonsense or db-bio, in any case, complete and utter nonsense.Teiresias84 22:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - speedy A7...G1...no references....no notability ? Just delete please - Peripitus (Talk) 23:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless this is campus radio, this is no Melbourne radio show or station I can find any evidence of. Looks very strongly like a hoax. --Canley 03:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lot of garbage per WP:PN and WP:HOAX (no Google hits); should actually be speedy under WP:SPEEDY's A7. Ergo, delete per nominator. Anthonycfc [T • C] 04:03, 21 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 BJAODN. I can't think of anything witty, so I'll stick with "delete". --Coredesat 04:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinker[edit]

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

Hoax. The unit of measure was once defined as the "height of a standard poker trophy." Joyous! | Talk 16:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per above. Also, I find it amusing that the symbol for the "dinker" is ♂ -   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 17:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN most things that get BJAODNed are not actually funny. This is :-) Guy (Help!) 19:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BJAODN per Guy. They had me at "angle of..." and "0.1 n♂" was also cute. Somebody actually tried hard instead of just editing Wikipedia drunk. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BJAODN funny, but, not verifiable to say the least.-- danntm T C 22:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I've taken the liberty of guy's suggesting and BJAODNing the contents of the article.-- danntm T C 22:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN I agree with RSJ that much of what goes to BJAODN is not funny and that we send too much stuff there. This, however, is rather amusing and is pretty well put together for a hoax of this type. --The Way 00:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the authors: myself and a coworker worked hard to make this article! We were curious if there's a chance it'll get into a "Best of BJAODN" collection? Quantris 18:06, 23 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: Renominate seperately. Cbrown1023 14:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuppy Glossop[edit]

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

Violation of WP:FICT. Minor Wodehouse character, not worthy of an article. There's about forty of these, another editor and I are working on cleaning these up Wehwalt 16:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles because they concern Wodehouse minor characters (or organizations created by a fictional character), or fictional locales of little interest, and uniformly fail WP:FICT.

Roderick Glossop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lady Glossop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Honoria Glossop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Boko Fittleworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aunt Agatha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aunt Dahlia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anatole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brinkley Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Deverill Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Daphne Winkworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gussie Fink-Nottle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Watkyn Bassett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Madeline Bassett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Totleigh Towers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black Shorts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roderick Spode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Junior Ganymede Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Drones Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bingo Little (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rosie M. Banks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Daphne Braythwayt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep some of them, delete others - having read many of the Wodehouse books, I would say that Aunts Agatha and Dahlia, Fink-Nottle, Roderick and Tuppy Glossop, Anatole and Roderick Spode count as major (recurring) characters. (Anatole even appeared in Schott's Miscellanies...) From WP:FICT: "Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." (my bold text). Rather than repeat the same info about every character in each book in which they appear, better to have a separate article on each character. On the other hand, I agree that all the minor characters' articles can go, as can the country houses. Walton monarchist89 17:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some per Walton monarchist89. bogdan 17:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fine, though I think you are overly generous in bestowing the title of major character, which of course WP guidelines do not define. But there are more of these things than I thought. There may be over a hundred. I mean, Wooster's prep school (fictional) has its own article! This is going to take a while. I intend to post in groups of 10-20 and to exercise common sense based on the comments and decisions made.--Wehwalt 18:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge most to minor characters in PG Wodehouse and redirect. I suggested this ages ago and was rebuffed, it remains, in my view, a good idea. Even Gussie Fink-Nottle doesn't make much of an impact overall. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't delete any. The larger ones stand on their own and are well written. The smaller ones can be merged, but not into a biography of Wodehouse, they would be out of place there. List of P. G. Wodehouse characters is already a large article, perhaps the smallest ones can be there as a last resort. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominate Separately No question that some of these likely need to go, however there are too many nominated in one clump to develop a valid consensus as to what should stay and what should go. Renominate these separately or in smaller groupings. --The Way 00:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep almost all the characters. What counts as major? That isn't in WP:FICTION. The presence of characters (or locations or themes) that occur in more than one novel are central to the overall structure of PGW's fiction. As is, there are three degrees of significance. The major characters, who have their own articles. (I think all of these are in more than one book; PGW normally made quite sure his major characters would appear repeatedly. Then, the "minor" characters. These sometimes appeared in more than one book, but were never central to the continuing themes. These do not have their own articles. They mostly have sections in the 5 related articles
P. G. Wodehouse minor characters
Minor characters in the Blandings stories
Minor characters in the Jeeves stories
Minor characters in the Mulliner stories
Minor characters in the Ukridge stories
so there are no articles on minor characters to delete. Then, the really minor characters, who do not appear in in these lists, but only in the List of P.G.Wodehouse_characters, with only a few words of information each. Many of these would probably deserve their own sections--only the Blandings series has been excerpted thoroughly. I admire the restraint of the prior editors on these pages. There are only 61 articles on main characters. It may be possible to find a few to dispute, but the inclusion of Madeline Bassett and Bingo Little and the Drones Club in the first batch of AfDs does not bode well for the judgement of the deletors.
I would be prepared to concede Daphne Braythwayt, Watkyn Bassett, Daphne Winkworth and Boko_Fittleworth from this group. keep only a redirect to the sections among the minor characters. For those who unfortunately do not know them all, I think it reasonable to make a preliminary judgment on the basis of the length of the article.
  • merge almost all the locations to sections in a suitable article on [[Locations in ...]
  • merge most of the organizations similarly, except the Drones Club. -- and the Black Shorts, but this because of its significance in assessing the controversial attitude of PGB to fascism.
What I suggest doing is considering the comments here, and then listing individually or in related groups. Imagine deleting the Drones Club. DGG 08:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. Still, it could be redirected to an article say, "Organizations in the Wodehouse stories". Most of these articles are not long. I concur, they should be relisted individually or in smaller groups.--Wehwalt 15:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Atlant 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Put most into the minor chars page, then move back out into separate articles if enough info emerges. This is how I did the Blandings, Ukridge and Minor Chars. pages - ploughing through all the books/stories, adding any data spotted as I went along (the first two of these are almost done with, just having trouble finding the last few books). It soon becomes obvious which characters rate their own page, when a lot of info is built up about one person. I think these pages work pretty well, carrying lots of useful and interesting info without becoming too unwieldy - I hope some day to add similar for the Mr Mulliner and golf shorts, and may need to merge the school and Psmith stuff out of the main Minor Chars (which covers the misc novels) into their own page. Admittedly, the selection process was a lot simpler with the Blandings books, as a hardcore of characters appear in at least half of the books, in various configurations, and with Ukridge only the man himself got the full treatment. There's also a locations page which is fairly populated already - here - and would probably be the right spot for most of the places; I put some of the Jeeves places in there a while back, with basic info, but never got round to removing the old pages - the Black Shorts may not be a neat fit though... JohnnyZen 09:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge You will note that the policy for minor fictional characters is merge into a list, not delete wholesale. I am especially concerned with the article on Roderick Spode, whose deletion would result in a missing link on the Oswald Mosley article. --Skeenbr0 05:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It is inappropriate to throw away this much information, especially given the magnitude of notability of the author. Several of these articles that I've seen separately VfDed don't stand up on their own, but could easily hold their own weight as sections of a larger article. -- Strangelv 16:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(comment this will never be settled, since a few more PGW fanatics would sway the consensus-- There probably are a few left who haven't joined in WP. The only thing to do here is to compromise on sections of an article, with appropriate redirects. The sections can, of course, be as long and detailed as the ingenuity of those fans who are here can make them.--but putting sections for the characters without even sections but just a name on a list must come first--as well as a more accurate check of some of the golf stories etc. DGG 00:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete G11 log. Navou banter 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speakeasy-Thai[edit]

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

Delete reads like an advertisment for a non-notable book. TonyTheTiger 16:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, per WP:SPAM, and others. Clearly made as advertisement for the book. Searching google for Speakeasy-Thai suggests finding reliable sources for WP:V will be hard or impossible.Mitaphane talk 20:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per advertisement.--Tainter 23:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD G11. -- Ekjon Lok 00:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD G11. No evidence of notability and apparent conflict of interest. ShadowHalo 04:05, 22 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 rm -rf /. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Eyed OS[edit]

Blue Eyed OS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete Basically vapourware. Project announced in 2001 but hasn't released anything. Website has had "stayed tuned" message since at least August 2005. AlistairMcMillan 16:32, 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. Not quite funny enough for BJAODN. --Coredesat 04:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinkimania[edit]

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

This article is a neologism. Someone previously prodded the article, but the creator removed it. Squirepants101 16:36, 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. --Coredesat 04:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty 4[edit]

Call of Duty 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Pure speculation, violates WP:CRYSTAL. COD4 probably is in the works, but there has been no official statement. The web article used as the source is a non-notable reference that makes an ambiguous claim to an unknown reliable source. The COD4 article contains nothing as it stands except rumour, which is what we don't want on Wikipedia. Additionally, the official site has not been updated to reflect COD4 in development. Remake article when more information has been released. Scottie theNerd 16:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. --Scottie theNerd 16:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also: I've cut the article waaay down, turning into a stub as it should be. So is now significantly different from when it was first listed. Mathmo Talk 13:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Cream147 18:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or replace with substub. Of course, the page should be remade when there is some verifiable information about the game other than it being in progress. — brighterorange (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Thunderbrand 19:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete above --BenWhitey 21:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete above DurinsBane87 22:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete above --SkyWalker 09:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make stub, then expand as more news is announced. Mathmo Talk 13:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You also have to consider that even with more sources stating the development of Call of Duty 4, there are still no reliable sources. The information presented thus far are based off leaks. This does not do many favours for its accuracy or authenticity, especially as the official site has not listed the game nor any news of it. It could be months before anything is released. There's little point in keeping a stub with no conclusive content; we should follow normal procedure and delete the article until something substantial comes out. Why keep something around that is potentially misleading? --Scottie theNerd 14:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. No reliable sources are cited, and the game is barely or not at all in the development stage. –Llama man 20:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above; article can be re-created when the game is officially announced. --Alan Au 21:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral It a source, but I am unsure if it is reliable. --Exarion 03:39, 26 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 failing to make any credible claim of notability. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luke sagar[edit]

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

Seems like nonsense/a joke, but It has been reported that Phil Taylor is looking to personally train the younger himself could be loosely interpreted as an assertion of notability per WP:NOTE, although almost certainly a false one. Walton monarchist89 17:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Not verifiable, not notable, no reliable sources, almost certainly WP:NFT and couldn't even capitalise his own (WP:COI) last name. Double tops, and delete. The Rambling Man 18:54, 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 deleted per WP:SNOWBALL; sub article of admitted hoax with main article already deleted

List Of True Confessions Of A TEENAGE GIRL Episodes[edit]

List Of True Confessions Of A TEENAGE GIRL Episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Incoherent, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Walton monarchist89 17:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the article's author (User:Anamillia) already removed the speedy-delete I put there:

True Confessions Of A TEENAGE GIRL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete. Probable hoax. The article even admits this isn't a real TV series. P Ingerson (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. I added a speedy delete tag to this article. --P4k 19:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking actual content and likely hoax.-- danntm T C 23:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 00:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??? It appears that this article has already been deleted/closed... but not in a proper fashion. It surely is a hoax, though, so can an admin please remove this debate/close it properly? --The Way 00:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steware[edit]

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

This seems to be a vanity article- it is full of in-jokes and the like. The company appears to be non notable, but it does claim to have created an awful lot of games. J Milburn 17:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Seems not in fact to be a company, rather an individual. This and this provide sufficient evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.2.2.106 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete probably WP:BOLLOCKS--Tainter 23:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense bollocks hoax etc. -- Ekjon Lok 00:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge with History of the Papacy. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance Papacy (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

This article was originally nominated for deletion here as a POV essay of original reasearch. To solve these problems, it was reduced to a few sentences, which led it to be kept, many editors saying something to the effect of that they hoped it would be expanded. In the more than three months since, next to nothing has been done with it, and it remains a stub that contains no information that couldn't be included in Pope. Contrary to the statement on the tag, it has been tagged for expansion since October 2006. If this article were expanded, it might be useful, but as it stands, I don't see that it does any real service to the encyclopedia. Heimstern Läufer 17:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pope or rename as "History of the Papacy" if Pope becomes too long. Currently contains no useful content. Walton monarchist89 18:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any relevant info to Pope, then delete. I agree with Walton that if that article is too long, a History article on the Papacy should be created, though it should cover the entire history of the papacy. Finally, if an article like this does, in fact, need to exist then it should be renamed to show the years covered since 'Renaissance' is a bit ambiguous. --The Way 00:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nothing worth merging or keeping. DGG 04:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to History of the Papacy Argyriou (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to History of the Papacy; if any one time period gets too long within that article, then create articles like this one. Pastordavid 23:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jadal[edit]

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

No evidence that they pass WP:MUSIC Walton monarchist89 17:57, 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 article. W.marsh 23:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Warnock[edit]

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

Seems like a non-notable boxer. No assertion of notability. PROD notice was removed. Guinnog 18:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - notability not achieved by being the brother of somebody notable I'm afraid. The Rambling Man 18:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please leave this article alone. I am researching Billy's history and I plan to add more information in the near future. He fought in the 1930's so I have some work to do to add detail. But he is not notable for simply being Jimmy Warnock's brother. He had a very notable fighting career of his own which I will shortly show. (He was also my grandfather, which is not really notable!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darrylxxx (talk • contribs) 19:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Userfy to User:Darrylxxx/Billy Warnock and let them complete the article. /wangi 19:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy (is that really a word?) to Darrlyxxx's page to complete, as suggested by wangi. However, I think Billy only fought a few boughts, and may be just merged into his brother's article--maybe you know more as his grandson, he in addition to his brother were both rather well thought of though. Let me know, Darryl, if you eventually find more, but I'd be surprised if you do, at least in amateur or professional boxing. Please just work on your user page until you find more. Great links, though. KP Botany 20:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we have more than "seems like a non-notable boxer" as a nomination for deletion? This was an important and colorful era of boxing in that part of the world, it gets a lot of play even in the world professional boxing press in America. I don't think Billy is quite Wikipedia-worthy, because he only fought in a few matches. Still, "seems like" is just POV. KP Botany 20:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your constructive comments. Billy fought in a lot more than 4 professional fights. The correct record is what I am currently researching. Darrylxxx 20:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per Wangi. -Toptomcat 00:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, I thought it was 3. I think the boxing board is wrong. Still, keep researching, put it up when you get the information. KP Botany 01:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Billy Warnock is not notable. He appears to have fought main events, but too little is known of him to make him notable. His brother Jimmy would make the notability test since he was a ranked contender. Mentioning Billy as a piece of trivia in a bio of Jimmy, were it to exist, would suffice.--Matt1978 22:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Wells[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:PROF. Walton monarchist89 18:04, 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 Speedy Delete A7 log. Navou banter 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted Buttercup[edit]

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

Yet another band publicity page, and no evidence of passing WP:MUSIC. As seen in so many other deleted articles, a link to a band's Myspace page does not constitute evidence of notability. Walton monarchist89 18:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • query I'm not trying to be combative, but why didn't you just attach a speedy deletion tag to this article? (my vote is speedy delete, obviously). --P4k 18:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7, The Band will be recording a 3 track demo in the future and hope to be playing at there local venue, "The Green Room" in the near future.. Um, yeah. Kesac 18:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete looks about right. Let the space heater warm up the garage a bit next time. --Dhartung | Talk 21:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete -- No notability in any way shape or form...but OMG!!! THEY HACE A MYSPACE AND AN EMAIL ADDRESS SO I CAN CONTACT THEM FOR PRODUCT INFORMASHUN!!1 I <3 THEM!!!!122 Wavy G 06:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mississauga house explosion[edit]

Mississauga house explosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I tend to be very inclusionist when it comes to disaster-related articles, but in this particular instance not even I can see any notability in this article. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 18:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This isn't wikinews and isn't a memorial. We don't need individual articles for every private residence that faces explosion, fire, flood, or other disaster. Agent 86 18:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Agent 86. The Rambling Man 18:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikinews is over yonder... Guy (Help!) 19:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoo boy. There isn't even real news value here. Something similar happened here and the local newspaper's story was a fraction of this size, mostly concerned with utility shutfoffs. NN disaster. --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think I read about this over at the Darwin Awards. The guy survived, but not the cat: "The only other causality was a 12-year old cat named Smudges, who was found deceased next door to the blast inside the wreckage." - <tearful sniff> - RIP Smudges! Carcharoth 23:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable local disaster.-- danntm T C 00:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm in the media and I don't think this was even covered west of Thunder Bay. 23skidoo 03:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. One house? They've had worse. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RFerreira 11:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Luke!
  • Delete. If this were Mississaugapedia, then sure. But it isn't. Bearcat 21:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. An incidental event. Sixth Estate 19:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation joke[edit]

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

Unnotable and total OR Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 18:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:OR. The Rambling Man 18:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR. Google shows this is a new term, so WP:NEO fits here as well. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research and entirely arbitrary. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not useful or distinguishing. Potentially move to List of bad aviation jokes with all the humor sucked out of them. --Dhartung | Talk 21:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)--Dhartung | Talk 21:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete complete original research.-- danntm T C 00:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article attempts to be encylcopedic (e.g., classifying joke types), but in its current state, it is wholly original research. Black Falcon 03:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RFerreira 11:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best of Bart Simpson[edit]

Best of Bart Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No ascertion of notability; just a series of reprints; fancruft. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 18:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Guinnog 18:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, unsourced fancruft. --The Way 00:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The comic should be listed somewhere else, but the list of the comics doesn't seem notable to list just 7 issues. --Nehrams2020 03:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Barreto[edit]

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

Almost certainly an autobiography. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 18:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Barreto:

Is he notable?

1- He is the most important curator about Electronic Art in Brasil and South of America. vide:Electronic Language International Festival

2-He won the Sergio Mota's Award in Brazil and participation in XXV BIENAL OF SAO PAULO

[[38]] [[39]] [[40]] [[41]] [[42]] [[43]] [[44]]

3- Unesco Biography: http://portal.unesco.org/culture/es/ev.php-URL_ID=21129&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

3a- Itau Cultural Biography: [[45]]

4-Publications:

  • FILE’s book 2006:"Machine Art", 305 pages. Authors: Ricardo Barreto and Paula Perissinotto. Text: “The Universal Viral Machine” of Jussi Parikka. Design: Cássia Buitoni and Silvia Amstalden. ISBN: 85-89730-05-0.
  • FILE’s Rio book: (2006) 190 pages. Authors: Ricardo Barreto and Paula Perissinotto. Introduction: text “The Subject-Project: Metaformance and Endoesthetics” of Claudia Giannetti. Design: André Lenz. ISBN: 85-89730-04-2.
  • FILE’s book 2004: "File2004" 224 pages. Authors: Ricardo Barreto and Paula Perissinotto. Introduction: text “From Criticism to Creative Games in the Digital Age”, of Ricardo Barreto. Design: Fábio Prata and Flávia Nalon. ISBN 85-89730-02-6.
  • FILE’s book 2003 “Novas Mídias/New Media”  : 224 pages. Authors: Ricardo Barreto and Paula Perissinotto. text “The Anarcho-Culture”, of Ricardo Barreto. Design: Fábio Prata and Flávia Nalon. ISBN: 85-89730018.
  • FILE’s book 2002 “Internet Art”  : 160 pages. Authors: Ricardo Barreto and Paula Perissinotto. text “the_culture_of_immanence”, of Ricardo Barreto and Paula Perissinotto. Design: Fábio Prata and Maíra Ramos ISBN: 85-7060-038-0.


5-Publication about Ricardo Barreto

a-O Espaço Fluido da XXV Bienal de São Paulo Priscila Arantes [[46]]

b-[[47]] [[48]] Cristine Mello

c-[artecidadania] Carina Flosi

d-[[49]] Mirna Feitoza

e-[[50]] KISHIDA Maya (japan)

f-Hentschläger, Ursula und Wiener, Zelko (germay) Interview — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.106.132 (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:BIO. Appears to be an autobio, just a list of things he has published. No references whatsoever given in the article. Though there might be some notability, the whole article reads like an advertisement and is certainly a WP:COI. -- Kesh 21:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no discrimination to recreation. The UNESCO reference in particular indicates that this man may be notable enough for inclusion, but as it stands now the article currently does not establish notability and is a clear conflict of interest. --The Way 00:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


1-Ricardo Barreto work and biography: [[51]]

2- Authors and references in the internet [[52]]

3-Ricardo Barreto biography in São Paulo Art Biennial http://bienalsaopaulo.globo.com/artes/artistas/artista_descritivo.asp?IDArtista=11799

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.106.132 (talk • contribs) 01:24, January 21, 2007

Do you have any comments to make about this discussion? And please do not remove the AfD banner from the page. Its purpose is to let people know this discussion is happening and comment on it. -- Kesh 01:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4-Ricardo Barreto work: http://www.web3dart.org/print_ctxt.php?lid=1&sid=75 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.106.132 (talk • contribs) 01:28, January 21, 2007

Most of these links are things Richard wrote himself. We cannot take his word for it that he's famous. We need other sources. Also, please remember to sign your comments here by typing four ~ signs at the end of your comment. Would you care to discuss the article, now? -- Kesh 01:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To whoever posted the above info, please try to keep a proper format as the way you posted it really disrupts the AfD. Also, the sources above don't really seem to establish notability since they aren't from legitimate enough sources, are there any newspaper articles detailing why this man is important? And, although we are willing to accept sources in another language, it is generally important to have at least one or two sources in English since this is the English Wikipedia and the average editor should be able to read the sources and know that they establish notability. --The Way 01:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I see that Electronic Language International Festival was also created by User:Ricardo Barreto22 and the festival is run by he and his wife. This seems more and more like WP:SPAM and WP:COI rolled into one. Can we add that article to this AfD, or should it be created seperately? -- Kesh 01:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


1- Ricardo Barreto biography and work: http://www.file.org.br/works.php?works_id=2636&lang=en 2- Ricardo Barreto biography and work list [itaú cultural enciclopedia] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardobarreto22 (talk • contribs) 01:45, January 21, 2007

The first link is from Richard's own website about his own festival. That is not acceptable as a verifiable source. -- Kesh 01:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1-Ricardo Barreto international symposium ISEA 2000 the most important symposium about Electronic Art in the world: [[53]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardobarreto22 (talk • contribs) 01:56, January 21, 2007

So, he's attending another festival. Anybody can attend a festival if they pay the entry fee. How does this make him notable? You're just slapping any link that has his name in it up, now. -- Kesh 02:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i was invited by ISEA 2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardobarreto22 (talk • contribs) 02:07, January 21, 2007

Ah, so you are Ricardo Barreto. Please read WP:COI and WP:BIO. It's considered bad form to write articles about yourself and your own projects. -- Kesh 02:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Which articles about myself this one ?: http://netartreview.net/logs/2003_11_23_backlog.html

My books don't about me, but about Electronic Art:

FILE’s book 2006:"Machine Art", 305 pages. Authors: Ricardo Barreto and Paula Perissinotto. Text: “the Universal Viral Machine” of Jussi Parikka. Design: Cássia Buitoni and Silvia Amstalden FILE’s Rio book: (2006) 190 pages. Authors: Ricardo Barreto and Paula Perissinotto. Introduction: text “The Subject-Project: Metaformance and Endoesthetics” of Claudia Giannetti. Design: André Lenz FILE’s book 2005:"Hypermedia" 265 pages. Authors: Ricardo Barreto and Paula Perissinotto. Introduction: text “the Form of the Technique” of Cícero Inácio Da Silva. Design: André Lenz and Gabriel Borges FILE’s book 2004: 224 pages. Authors: Ricardo Barreto and Paula Perissinotto. Introduction: text “From Criticism to Creative Games in the Digital Age”, of Ricardo Barreto. Design: Fábio Prata and Flávia Nalon FILE’s book 2003 “Novas Mídias/New Media”  : 224 pages. Authors: Ricardo Barreto and Paula Perissinotto. text “The Anarcho-Culture”, of Ricardo Barreto. Design: Fábio Prata and Flávia Nalon FILE’s book 2002 “Internet Art”  : 160 pages. Authors: Ricardo Barreto and Paula Perissinotto. text “the_culture_of_immanence”, of Ricardo Barreto and Paula Perissinotto. Design: Fábio Prata and Maíra Ramos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardobarreto22 (talk • contribs) 02:18, January 21, 2007

First, please remember to sign your name here. It's becoming tiresome adding it in for you.
Second, I was referring to your articles here on Wikipedia: Ricardo Barreto and Electronic Language International Festival. It's not good to write articles about yourself here. Read WP:COI.
Third, you cannot use things you wrote yourself as references on Wikipedia. Please read WP:V. -- Kesh 02:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unesco about Electronic Language International Festival http://portal.unesco.org/culture/fr/ev.php-URL_ID=17211&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardobarreto22 (talk • contribs) 02:34, January 21, 2007

The UNESCO link is an interesting citation, but to me it looks like they comment on almost any press release sent to them. I'll let other editors weigh in, but it doesn't seem like a proper reference source. -- Kesh 02:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

global guide about Electronic Language International Festival [[54]]

[Interview with Ricardo Barreto germany]

[Interview with Ricardo Barreto japan]

[[55]] Interview with Paul a Perissinotto about Electronic Language International Festival in Cuba — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardobarreto22 (talk • contribs) 03:06, January 21, 2007 [[56]] Interview with Paul a Perissinotto about Electronic Language International Festival in Cuba habana radio

[[57]] e-journal barcelona text: Claudia Giannetti

  • Comment To the editor who keeps posting anonymously in defense of this artice (User:Ricardobarreto22), you are not using the AfD talk space appropriately. The way you are formatting the information is disruptive to conversation and much of what you are posting isn't helping. Please, please look at other AfD's to see how they are supposed to be formatted and please read our policies and guidelines on notability and verifiability. It appears that you are writing an article about yourself and this is not appropriate under most circumstances. --The Way 06:46, 21 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 consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neolocalism[edit]

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

Unverified, unsourced neologism; only 178 ghits; at best, it's only a dictionary definition. Agent 86 19:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A quick search reveals a number of relevant and legitimate sources indicating that this is a real and used term in the social sciences. JSTOR has several mentions of neolocalism. However, it should be noted that this article doesn't seem to encompass the entire concept. If no one else does it in the next day or so I'll add some of the sources myself... --The Way 01:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 21 articles & books in Google Scholar, including use in a book title "Marketized Redistributive Firms and Neolocalism in China". The concept does seem broader going by the titles alone, and I'm glad somebody finally started the article. DGG 01:29, 24 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. ST47Talk 11:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki farm[edit]

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

Original research. The concept of a wiki farm is no different from the concept of a server farm. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 18000 google hits outside Wikipedia, so the term is not made up. In fact a wiki farm is different from a server farm because it is not necessarily running on more than one server. Keep, tag as {{unreferenced}}. --Dhartung | Talk 21:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google hits show notability, article improvement is possible. Killroy4 08:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to server farm. bogdan 11:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Killroy - Google search confirms WP:NOTABILITY. Anthonycfc [T • C] 21:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources establishes notability. Google hits establish existence of the term, not its encyclopaedic merit. Guy (Help!) 18:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Dhartung. He makes a point: wiki farms do not always run on one server (it says that in the first line). --JB Adder | Talk 03:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as the article is currently attempting to retrospectively define a WP:NEO - what we know as a "wiki farm" is an inbred term that is inclusive of any server farm, virtual hosting or SaaS arrangement -- it doesnt warrant its own article just because its about Wiki software. Most of the hits are the term being used on a Wiki or in blog posts. Alternatively, Move to Wiki hosting (which redirects to Comparison of wiki farms and has only two links from user space) and update {{internet hosting}}. If the closing admin doesnt feel the article is ready to land at Wiki hosting, please feel free to move the article to User:Jayvdb/Saved pages/Wiki hosting where a minor rewrite can prepare it. I believe that the topic can grow further if it is not restricted by the notion that the article content needs to only be about "wiki farms", as many contributors will not feel like they sufficiently understand the term to be able to add content. John Vandenberg 01:24, 25 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. Rough consensus keeps the article– PeaceNT 08:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aerican Empire[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable, unimpressive make-believe country. Survived a seemingly votestacked AfD several months back... there were a large number of Keep votes coming almost exclusively from unestablished users or IPs, including self-proclaimed members of the club.

A couple of quotes from the article itself:

"Annually, the Empire holds story-writing contests, role-playing and wargaming days, and such events as the Dog-Biscuit Appreciation Day Scavenger Hunt."

"Nationally recognized holidays (and "niftydays") within the Empire include 2 January Procrastinator's Day, 27 February *Oops* Day, 19 March What the Heck is That Day, 14 April Tempting Fate Day, 25 May Towel Day, 28 August Significant Historical Events Day, and 26 October Topin Wagglegammon, The Niftiest Day of the Year."

Google yields 513 results for "Aerican Empire", but most seem to be passing mentions, directories (mainly stuff like this), the website for Aerican Empire, or Wikipedia links. It seems to me like a small group of individuals (the X dozen belonging to this club) trying to force notability and best the system, by getting it listed as many places as possible.

The Aerican Empire website itself states that anyone can become a citizen by filling out a simple webform. Here's a complete list of "citizens", which seems to number in the upper two-digits. The Wikipedia article proudly proclaims that the number of people who have joined is above 100.

Undeniably cute and well-written, but completely unremarkable and unencyclopedic. Strong Delete, and perhaps even protect from re-creation. Also, I urge whoever closes this AfD to PLEASE be on the lookout for meatpuppetry/votestacking. --Czj 19:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Whether or not you believe that there was 'meatpuppetry/votestacking' last time, this article is on a notable subject. All the sources that are cited are notable, verifiable and third party. J Milburn 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At first blush it seems like an article that is screaming to be deleted, however it has apparently received multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources.--RWR8189 21:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite or Delete Not an actual nation, just an organization created for humorous purposes by a bunch of kids. While there has been an attempt to explain notability, the article currently does not have an encyclopedic value. It reads like an advertisement or tourist flyer, rather than examining the organization and its history from a neutral point of view. The article needs a serious rewrite to be more encyclopedic. It does seem to have enough notability to satisfy WP:ORG, but it just isn't written to Wikipedia's standards. This would be a better fit on Uncyclopedia. If the article isn't rewritten within the scope of this AfD, it needs to be deleted. -- Kesh 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have updated my vote to 'Neutral per the discussions below. Though the subject is patently absurd, the article appears to have enough references to (barely) claim notability. An outright deletion isn't warranted at this point. However, it still needs a strong rewrite to be encyclopedic. -- Kesh 00:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per the nominator's excellent and well-reasoned research. The original AfD was a total mess, so I'm semiprotecting this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RWR8189. -Toptomcat 01:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Total Rewrite. The sources do seem to establish notability, however the entire article is written as if the empire actually existed and actually had major impacts on the wider world. Essentially, its an article about fiction thats written as if it were non-fiction. --The Way 01:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unconvinced that this has any outside notability, but if it does, this article would still need to be completely revamped. There's very little here written from a proper encyclopaedic perspective. GassyGuy 04:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Needs a rewrite though. Regarding notability, as wierd as it seems, I have actually heard of this. House of Scandal 11:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I cannot see any argument for deletion. How it was created, or whether it is technically a nation are completely irrelevent. It has featured in multiple, non-trivial sources as the subject, as displayed in the references section of the article, and is therefore notable. The fact that past AfDs have been badly handled is not criteria for deletion, just criteria to renominate, as this has been. Irrelevent of how 'silly' the groups culture, rules and joining procedure may seem, this deserves a place in the encyclopedia, and isn't even particuarly badly written. Even if it was badly written, it is not original research, it is of a NPOV and it is verified. I think this matter may well come under this policy. Just as Wikipedia is not censored for children, Wikipedia does not hide unusual information, or information on amusing subjects. J Milburn 11:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem here isn't notability. This topic may indeed be notable, the sources do seem to indicate this, so an article on this topic isn't necessarily unjustifiable. The problem is that the article is written as if this place actually existed, the article presents the Aerican Empire as being real. The entire article is written this way, presenting fictional material as being factual. The entire page needs to be deleted and rewritten. --The Way 17:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this is not a fictional empire. This is real and affects the lives of real people. Regardless of how silly it may look, please do not treat this as something out of a story book; there are people out there who believe in this and put work daily into its growth, and whether or not that sounds sane, it elevates us above Lothlorrien and The United Federation of Planets. Timcrow 17:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any individual could sit down and make infeasible claims to whatever land they wanted, but that doesn't make it true, nor does it automatically merit an article. Getting 100 people (or 150 -- whatever insignificant number we're arguing over at this point) to fill out a short web form to join a club is not that impressive. There are small MMORPGs with 5,000-10,000 players that have been deleted for lack of notability/significance, and this group is a LOT smaller. Age is not criterion for inclusion, either. It doesn't matter how old this group of friends have had this club... Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, whether that day happened to be in 2007, or 1987. --Czj 18:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've always taken "not made up in school one day" to mean it shouldn't be posted that day. After all, arguably, Microsoft was made up in school one day, and then it was built upon for years. The "made up in school" rule exists to prevent children from posting their fantasy-of-the-day and was never meant to be used to exclude organizations which simply had the misfortune to be invented in a specific place. Timcrow 18:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how much you claim it is real, it is not as real as the article makes it sound. It is not a real nation under any understanding of the term. The article makes it sound like an actual, existing country. It is not. It may indeed be a real organization with membership and whatnot, but it is not a country. The article needs to reflect what this really is in context with the actual world, not what members of the 'organization' want it to be --The Way 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fully agree, obviously, but it's an interesting point. It would be easy enough to add something about it being an "aspirant state" or that it has the eventual goal of nationhood while saying that it is not one yet. Any suggestions? Timcrow 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about beginning by actually sourcing some of the seemingly ridiculous claims throughout the article? --The Way 19:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Aerican Empire has serious goats of sovoverignty it is not fake or a "political exercise." The silliness favtor is to not scare people away from joining. I happen to know that the government is very active and they are undergoing elections as we speak. It wasn't made up "one day in school," it is a concept that has been refined and retuned over the years by and for the citizens of The Aerican Empire. The Kurds of Northern Iraq want their own nation yet they don't have one. Then why do they refer to the territory as Kurdistan? It's even well documented in Wikipedia even though they're not internationally recognized. Don't point out the humorous nature of the Empire as a sign of it being fake because you'll be very wrong. Crud3w4re 18:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm the first to admit I'm biased about this (you'll see my name in the page's history) so I won't vote keep, but to respond to some of the comments made above (this being a discussion and not a ballot: 1) CZJ's comments seem to mostly attack the humour elements of the group, while Wiki has plenty of articles about other silly societies. 2) The number of members is not in the dozen or two digits; it's currently just below 150, which while not huge is significant, and also justifies the number in the article as actually being a low estimate. 3) I freely admit that the writing is unencyclopedic, but that's because I'm not a great author. This does not invalidate the topic. There have been requests made in the article's talk page and elsewhere for other writers to help change the article to wiki standards. 4) The Empire *does* genuinly exist, although I doubt many people here will believe me. You are allowing your biases of seriousness to determine what you will accept as realistic; if a group of people believe something is a nation, then in a very real sense, it is one. Most importantly, the article cites sources from recognized news sites and does present genuine information to readers. Whether the information is a bit silly has no impact on whether or not this is a real group. The article can and should be changed to better fit wiki standards but it should not be deleted. timcrow
    • Please take a look at WP:HORSE. Just because people within the organization believe they are a nation, it does not follow that they are a nation. -- Kesh 16:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mr. Webster might disagree with you. http://www.webster.com/dictionary/nation Timcrow 16:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I doubt it, given the definition: a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government . Aerican Empire claims the entire planet (plus mars). Given the sheer silliness of that claim, they don't have any defined territory whatsoever. They're not a nation, they're an organization created for humorous purposes. -- Kesh 17:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • First, they dont claim all of Earth, they claim several well-defined small areas (and a couple of poorly defined small areas). Similarly, only a small portion of Mars is claimed, and precise coordinates are available. These territories aren't defined in the article but they are deifned in the website; if it would improve the article, I'd be happy to add the details to it. And again, I really feel that "silly" is a matter of perspective, and neither an objective nor a neutral label. Timcrow 17:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability in the real world. Invented micro-nations are best kept in people's heads, not on Wikipedia. - fchd 17:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The number of very established sources say otherwise. How can something that has been examined in the New York Times, The Montreal Mirror and The Boston Pheonix, among others, have no notability in the real world? Any admin who takes their time to look at this article instead of just counting delete votes will see that it should be kept. J Milburn 17:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this maybe needs a rewrite, and perhaps it would behoove Wiki to create a sub-catagory for micronations. The "letter of the law" concerning articles holds up, and I would argue the spirit is satisfied too, so long as the format i improved a little bit. Soch 17:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The Aerican Empire has nearly 100 active citizenry but many have had their citizenship revoked due to inactivity so there has been maybe over a thousand citizens altogether. While most micronations are unrealistic or never last Aerica has existed since the 1980's and it continues to grow and strive towards its goals. How can anyone deny this? It has its own .com website. It has an extremely active citizenry and government. The Aerican Empire is one of the oldest fully functional micronations in existence today. Aerica is a model micronation of what many want but what very few can ever aspire to become. To delete this page would be a direct insult to micronationalism and to every citizen of Aerica.

I fully object to the deletion of this page. What reason is there to delete a glorious nations Wikipedia page? When people are interested in seeing examples of successful micronations they will want to read about The Empire of Aerica. The Empire of Aerica has also been mentioned many times via newspapers and I heard even on television a few times. The documentation can all be found on the official website. Thank you. Crud3w4re 18:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: All this 'glorious nation' stuff really isn't helping the debate. If anything, it gives more fuel to those trying to delete the article. Let's stick to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and not turn this into a flame war. J Milburn 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since the AfD began, the article has really begun to contradict itself. Before the AfD was filed, "records no longer exist[ed] to indicate what the purpose of creating the Empire was." Suddenly, that changed to state that the purpose for creation was "a nation which might one day merit international recognition of soverignty (sic)." Conflicting information still exists in the article, stating that it really did begin as a joke: "the goals and ideals of the Empire matured. The Empire slowly abandoned most fictional elements and worked towards becoming a political entity rather than a hobby." So, which is it? Were "the records lost" or did it intend on becoming a nation from day one? Because of these blatant contradictions, I'm having a really hard time taking any of this seriously, and wonder if other parts of the article have been glamorized. --Czj 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I thought the idea here was for the article to get rewritten and improved. I've been working on it. I don't see the contradictions myself. The records were lost (they were all five-year olds, after all), but the goal was the same as today. And yes, it did mature... doesn't everyone and everything, ideally? Timcrow 19:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is my very point. The records were regarding the purpose of creating the nation. It was unknown, because the records had been lost. They're still lost, but suddenly it becomes known that the purpose all along was to create an internationally recognized entity? No offense, but something like this wreaks of "it's being made up as we go". --Czj 19:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original records said that records had been lost, becuse young kids didn't bother writing things down. However, given that the founders are still alive, we have the ability to ask them. This doesn't consitute proper record keeping but, since we're trying to make the article sound more like an encyclopedia and less like prose, it seemed reasonable to change it to read what the stated goal had always been. I see this as a pretty minor change, but I can see how you might disagree. The point is, there's no contradiction, merely use of a different point of view (records kept on paper versus ask somebody who was there). Timcrow 19:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Content disputes are not a valid reason for deletion. Verifiable references have been given in the article which seem to establish notability. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. If you disagree with the manner in which the article is presently written put a clean-up tag on it and work to improve it. AfD is not the correct venue.--RWR8189 19:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Tim, My reference to The Aerican Empire as a 'glorious nation' was based on my own view of the aticle. I thought it sounded glorious when I first read the article in its entirity so I saved it to my watchlist. :) I have come to the conclusion that this micronation has dropped all fictional aspects (if there was ever any fictional element?) and is now an active and widely known micronation. I haven't read anything fictional in the article and so I must say that I don't know what Czj is referring to exactly. Crud3w4re 19:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This 'micronation' has no legitimate claims to any sovereignty over anything, is not recognized by any official body, has no currency, etc. It is a made-up organization with a insignificant number of members who claim a bunch of outlandish, unsubstantiated things. It is certainly not an empire under any standard definition of the term. Furthermore, much of the article is unsourced. It's, quite frankly, little more than a practical joke that has gone on too long to be funny. The lack of a substantial number of members comined with a few trivial sources does not establish notability. It is not a country and it will never be one. As it stands, unless better sources can be supplied and the article gets properly sourced and unless the article is written to reflect what this really is then it should be deleted. --The Way 19:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again according to Webster, "multiple territories under a single authority." Seems like it fits to me. The word "empire" is actually pretty circular, if you look it up, since an "empire" is just a body ruled by an emperor and an "emperor" is whoever rules an empire. Blame the English, not us. I will, however, see what references I can put in to specific points; thank you for suggesting that. Timcrow 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your (The Way) "comment" was riddled with blatant POV. If you dispute facts take it up in the talkpage not here. All you pointed out that a rewrite is needed at the most. I have witnessed a very organized movement and (not to speak out of POV) but quite frankly it would have the best chance of any micronation to become a soverign state. This micronation was even discussed and wrote about in many reputable media outlets and you still dispute the article? hm While I have favored deletion of other micronational articles I do believe that this article is well founded. Crud3w4re 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment (in response to The Way) Trivial sources? I am a non-newspaper reading individual from a different country, yet I have still heard of the newspapers that this article references. The fact that it is not fully sourced is not criteria for deletion. Are you honestly saying that articles in The New York Times, The Montreal Mirror and The Boston Pheonix, not to mention featuring in numerous books on the subject of micronations, are trivial sources? This article is notable. Having a couple of disputed or unsourced statements is not criteria for deletion- as was said above, editors are working on this article at the moment. J Milburn 19:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several things; first of all I do admit my choice or words was poor when I called the cited sources 'poor.' There are valid, legitimate sources listed. However, if you'll look at some of my previous comments I had already admitted as much and had stated that notability has seemingly been established. You will also note that I have not been supporting a total delete, rather I've indicated that most of what is in the article needs to be deleted and rewritten (i.e. delete the article and start from scratch). The topic does seem to deserve an article, but the article as it stands needs substantial work and much should be deleted. Also, in reply to Crud, this micronation has, quite frankly (and I recognize that this particular point doesn't have any bearings on this AfD), absolutely no chance of ever becoming a recognized and sovereign state (I'd be happy to discuss why elsewhere, say on my talk page, since this has no real implications for this AfD). However, this doesn't mean there should not be an article on the subject. Also, in reply to Tim, by empire I was referring to the concept of empire in political science, not the simplified definition supplied by Webster's Dictionary. However, again this doesn't have direct implications for the AfD since the word 'Empire' is part of a proper noun rather than simply being an adjective (ie. saying "The Aerican Empire is a micronation" is fine, saying "the Aerican Empire is an Empire" is not. Finally, in response to Milburn, of course my previous comment had POV; we are arguing our interpretations of policy and such here. INPOV only fully applies to actual article writing; your comments are also POV (for example, it is your pov that this micronation has the best chance to become a sovereign state, it is also your pov that the article should be kept as is and it is my pov that it should be rewritten). All in all, please try not to be so hostile to other editors because they don't share your view in an AfD and I will do the same. --The Way 22:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It wasn't me who made the comments about the POV, although, it is understandably difficult to keep track of what everyone said when answering like that. My only concern in response to your comment you answered in the opening couple of lines of this comment, and the problem was brought about by me not linking you to your earlier comments. J Milburn 23:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re: References: Well, that's a big step done towards that. A lot more work is obviously needed in the future to set up references for the more contentious claims, but this is a start. Timcrow 20:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The references are looking rather good now. I implore The Way and other editors who said that a complete rewrite was needed to have another look at the article, and decide whether it should stay in its current state, as I definately believe it should. J Milburn 23:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are definitely still problems with the way things are stated at various points throughout the article, but mostly this is cause for a cleanup and can be discussed on the articles talk page and such. --The Way 02:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I, for one, would be genuinely happy for pointers on how to clean the article up, since I'm obviously not very good at making my writing less prose-style. We may argue a bit over what points are and are not realistic and worthy of inclusion, but that's a chance I'm prepared to take. Timcrow 02:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not for games dreamed up in school one day, even if that was 20 years ago.-gadfium 07:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most sources establishing notability are either small publications of dubious impact, or simply list Aerocam Empire among other micronations. Anything particularly interesting about this thing can be merged to Micronation. --Sneftel 07:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: In regards to the notability of sources: 1) Being listed among a short list, when literally hundreds if not thousands of these microstates exist, is still a feat of some small note. 2) Le Soleil, The Montreal Mirror, and the Leader Newspaper Group, all of which made the Empire the main focus of their articles, are all papers with readership exceeding the million mark. None of them are widely internationally-read (although Le Soleil sells fairly well across Europe) but none of them are small. Also, just to explain why this material isn't in the micronation article in the first place, the discussions at that article have long-since concluded that in general the article is dedicated to the phenomemnon and individual states should have separate entries, to keep the main article from growing too long. Hence, individual entries for Empire of Atlantium and Republic of Molossia, for example. Timcrow 15:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You're both bringing up arguments that were brought up and defeated. Crud3w4re 09:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rewrite I don't see what the problem is. This is a group of people who identify themselves in a certain way. If your argument is with its humour, then perhaps you should delete the Polish Beer-Lover's Party and other Frivolous Parties. Certainly it is no worse than these Semi-Fictional countries. Just because a group of people don't have access to their own land (just like many other ethnic and religious groups), doesn't mean they aren't entitled to it. Lewie 18:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Who cares if these whackos wanna have some fun? You can't claim that they're serious, anyway.Livingdone 15:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of being extremely repetitive, can I just once again point out that an idea stops being "made up in school one day" when a magazine article (and presumably "book chapter" also qualifies) gets written about it. It says so right in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NFT and I really don't see why this issue should be a point of contention. Timcrow 22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Timcrow. Look at the references- whether or not this was literally made up in school one day, it is now VERY notable, easily meeting the primary notability criteria. This isn't a few obscure websites either- this is books, and articles in MAJOR newspapers. J Milburn 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- multiple verifiable reliable third-party sources, so what is the problem? So maybe it's silly, but silly doesn't necessarily mean non-notable. Parts of the article are unsourced and need to be re-written or removed, but that's not a reason to delete the whole article. Neither is not liking the subject. This article looks like a perfect example of WP:NFT#The right way for things made up in school one day to get into Wikipedia. PubliusFL 00:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but Rewrite It seems as other micronations have not been deleted, such as Sealand, that even was a featured article, but it needs a rewrite. Tcpekin 02:33, 25 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. --Coredesat 05:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Nader[edit]

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

nn biography; no indication that it meets WP:BIO. Only "notable" as being Ralph Nader's sister. Being related to a notable person does not impart notability in and by itself. Agent 86 19:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Give me a break, it only mentions she's his sister, it doesn't claim she's notable because of that. She's not. Did you even try to look her up, or did you just assume that the reason the article was written was because she's Ralph Nadar's sister? The article asserts notability, no indication by nominator of how it fails to meet WP:BIO, Nadar is the subject of articles, not just the author, so it does meet WP:BIO. Being related to another notable person does not impart non-notability in and by itself. KP Botany 20:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, assertion of importance ("Nader edited and published essays from these conferences as well as authoring several books on the anthropology of law, establishing herself as an influential figure in the development of the field.") is unreferenced, and the bio is partly copyvio. Seems like she would pass WP:PROF. --Dhartung | Talk 20:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's also poorly written, but none of that is what it was nominate for. Needs serious work. KP Botany 01:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dhartung. Agree with KP Botany, this was a spurious nomination. — coelacan talk — 19:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mind people opposing the nomination, that's why it's a discussion. What I won't accept is the failure to assume good faith that the nomination is made in good faith. To me, take away the fact this person is Ralph Nader's sister, you're left with very little to distinguish this person from any other non-notable prof. If you disagree, that's fine, but leave the subtle personal attacks out of it. Agent 86 19:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, that could just be taken away. Nadar is a very well known academic--that she has a crummy Wikipedia article is a lapse that should be corrected. People write articles about her, as I said before, the record is not just what she wrote. She is an important and well known academic. KP Botany 04:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, none of that is apparent in the article. I never have any problems with people properly sourcing an article and editing it during an AfD to provide encyclopedic content. However, as the article stands, there is no indication that she is "important" (by whose standard?) or "a very well known academic" and, as I said, very little to distinguish this person from any other academic. Agent 86 04:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment My bad, it seems academics write articles about unimportant topics, and I had made the mistake of assuming that if she was important enough to be the topic of articles, in addition to writing her own, that this was some assertion of notability.[58][59][60][61] All those books[62], all those seminars and articles about her[63], all those invitations to speak, to travel the world addressing people, all about her, all her writing[64], and the only thing that matters is she is Ralph's brother, so she can't be looked at in her own right. Interesting enough, Wikipedia doesn't have an article about their older brother John, who is also an anthropology professor. Why not? He's not notable? Or he's Ralph's brother? Again, no amount of evidence will be sufficient to show she is notable, so the article might as well be deleted. KP Botany 22:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't know why you need to be so sarcastic. If you can re-write the article so that it meets the content policies and guidelines, then please do. I have always been willing to reconsider an article if it is rewritten so as to contain encyclopedic content. That otherwise non-encyclopedic entries are rewritten so as to meet the standards set in the policies and guidelines is sometimes a wonderful outcome of an AfD nom (even though that goal should never be the reason to nominate an article for AfD). If this topic is as encyclopedic as you contend, your energy might better be spent revising the article so that it is meets the content policies rather than getting angry at me for nominating the article. Agent 86 22:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • But that's not why you nominated, you nominated it because you contend she's not notable, because she's Ralph Nader's sister, not that the article needs rewritten. And, the fact that she meets some of the criteria for notable, namely there are non-trivial articles about her, did not change your nomination, in fact, you simply reiterated that there is no indication she's notable--apparently her credentials don't count for notability. She is a major mid to late 20th century academic. So what if her brother is more famous than she is? If the article is crummy, tag it crummy, not deletion. And, since all I can offer are her credentials, and they don't meet your standards for notability, there's no benefit to my revising the article to simply include the credentials you already reject wholely. Nader's notable. In this case a google check would have confirmed that quite readily, and no time would have been spent discussing it, but all time could have been spent correcting the article in any way necessary. KP Botany 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dhartung. Agree with KP Botany. --Kevin Murray 20:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some awards she has won: Morgan Spanish Prize from Wells College, the Wells College Alumnae Award, and the Radcliffe College Alumnae Award. In 1995 the Law and Society Association awarded her the Kalven Prize for distinguished research on law and society. Also someone wrote a brief bio. I'm not sure how prestigious these awards are. If someone can find her CV it'll clarify issues about if she passes WP:BIO due to recognition of her publications (awards) or not. --Quirex 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Laura Nader is definitely notable on her own, without her brother, her notability does not come so much from celebrity (not a household name) but she is very important in the field of anthropology, and perhaps the foremost scholar of the Anthropology of Law (from the special edition of the American Anthropologist she edited on this topic in the 60s to her book The Life of the Law)--she has put forth theories such as the User Theory of Law, and written extensively about the role of "harmony ideology" (the ideas harmony is necessarily good and conflict/complaining/dissent are dysfunctional and bad) and its spread & role as a mechanism to silence and to colonize and its relationship to arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution started at the Pound Conference in the 60s by the chief justice of the Supreme Court . Also, a couple examples of her frequently cited anthropological work relate to the anthropology of science (the book Naked Science) and her work about the behavior, roles and responsibilities of anthropologists (the most well-known example, and probably best-known thing she's written, "Up the Anthropologist!", which was extremely controversial in anthropology at the time it was published & helped start some important changes in the way anthropologists do anthropology, telling anthropologists that they needed to not just study "down" (study the relatively powerless), but also to study "up" (study the relatively powerful, the corporations, the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the list goes on and on)). And the list of Laura Nader's very important contributions to anthropology also goes on and on, she's contributed to many areas of anthropology, from her work on energy, to children, to her important formulation of controlling processes and ideas about cultural control (her Mintz lecture published in Current Anthropology, called "Controlling Processes: Tracing the Dynamic Components of Power" among other articles) are just a few examples. Her scholarship is also marked by its being always relevant and comparatively accessible in a time when anthropologists (especially academic ones) are increasingly writing in elitist and jargon-filled terms that hides whatever real relevance their work may have to the everyday lives of real people. I have an encyclopedia of anthropology from decades ago that already had an entry about her. I know a good amount about her work but nothing about Wikipedia content policies or anything like that otherwise I'd try and help fix it up a little. I know it's not well written and doesn't describe Laura Nader's work very well but I thought the idea of Wikipedia had to do with overtime people contribute things they know and it's all a work in progress though some things progress slower than others. (By the way, I thought her older brother's name was Shafeek, and I think he studied anthropology but I didn't know he was a prof, though I know he died some time ago, I think I read somewhere that he gave up on trying to go to law school to work and help pay for Ralph to go.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.76.117 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 25 January 2007
  • Strong Keep. I've added her long list of published books to the article, but there are many audio and video publications as well, not to mention many journal articles that have been cited by other academics. While I have faith in the nom., I also hope that recent improvements to the article mean this can become an uncontested WP:SNOWBALL. Agent 86, do you have any further concerns about the notability of the subject or with how the article covers the subject? John Vandenberg 05:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article is much improved. Despite what might be insinuated by others above:
    1. My objection was not based on who her relatives are, but as the article stood previously the only distinguishing factor was the familial relationship (which doesn't necessarily mean a lot outside the US). Absent that, there was nothing in the article to show how she was different than any other prof at any other school any other place. Most profs will publish, and one would expect that most profs works will be cited in other academic texts or journals, so the lack of any other factors seemed telling at the time.
    2. The decision or final approval isn't mine - that's why I brought it to AfD, so everyone could have some input. As with most any AfD discussion, I'm willing to abide by with whatever consensus achieves. Agent 86 07:16, 25 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 (author requests deletion). —Mets501 (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of free mathematics books[edit]

Listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. —Mets501 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a bibliography. No indication that these books are in fact "free", or what prevents someone for charging for them. Agent 86 19:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. JPD (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about if I change the title to "List of Online Mathematics Books (or Documents?)"? It's really a shame that we can't do something like this collaboratively through Wikipedia. It would make a lot of students' lives all over the world much easier! Please decide quickly. If the page is to be deleted, I'll post this info on my blog at wordpress.com, and possibly place an external link on the Mathematics Wikipedia page (if that's ok with you of course). --Roccorossi 23:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a web directory. JPD (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they're free as such, could some of them be moved to wikibooks? RHB Talk - Edits 09:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them charge for use beyond personal use, the MIT Open Courseware ones have a Creative Commons License specific to MIT, and others have varied copyright notices. Another gives a list of 'free texts' Its a big mix, and that was only seven I picked at random RHB Talk - Edits 10:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - seems pretty obvious to me. As nice as the idea is, Wikipedia is simply not a Web portal. —msikma (user, talk) 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the things listed at WP:NOT are speedy deletion criteria. —Mets501 (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go ahead and cancel the page. I'll post a link to opendocs.wordpress.com. Thanks anyway. I realize that this whole thing is problematic for you. Don't worry about it. Putting everything on my blog should be a good solution anyway. Roccorossi
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 14:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Baer[edit]

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

Seems to be non notable. Was put up for speedy but speedy tag was removed since page asserts notability. Pboyd04 22:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is notable author of cultural essays and opinion pieces promoting new policies and ideas concerning medical politics.

Breaks important cultural news on his website www.glassshallot.com. Was the first print journalist to chronicle David Lynch's meditation cult presentation and Abraham Cherrix's fight with the Virginia government over the right to use alternative medicine over chemotherapy.

I've been following Mr. Baer's work for years and he is one of a group of young cutting edge writers who is not afraid to shed some light on issues that provoke thought, such as patient advocacy, cultural criticisms, and insightful (and entertaining)essays. A prolific writer already, I look forward to Mr. Baer’s future pieces with enthusiasm. 128.125.12.140 18:49, 19 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, Bobet 19:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Does not estabilish notability, no verifiable sources given. -- Kesh 22:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Jrosen68, do not remove other user's comments from this page. -- Kesh 01:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Kesh may not understand the importance of the publications for which this subject authors articles -- or, for that matter, the importance of the articles. More than "verifiable" sources include the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, New Republic magazine, Atlantic magazine, and others. Do not delete entry based on his opinion. Subject is absolutely notable. See talk page for more evidence. Jrosen68 06:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC) — Jrosen68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • This is a tough one to deal with under WP:BIO. I see that he's written in a lot of different publications, and on a number of different topics. But, I'm having problems with the guidelines, as it appears he's a freelancer, and thus sells to those publications (or perhaps is invited to write for them, depending on the process). Problem is, WP:BIO requests multiple, non-trivial sources that are ABOUT the person involved, which seem to be missing; it also asks for independent coverage of a published author's works, also not available that I could find. Journalists are tough to place, unfortunately, and freelancers even more. At what point does a freelance journalist become well-known? Having said that, the article needs work and actual links to references. Neutral, as the guidelines don't help and he's published enough for me to not be able to flat-out say delete. Closing admin: good luck. =P Tony Fox (arf!) 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claiming "importance" does not help satisfy WP:BIO or WP:V. Further, deleting votes you don't like and insulting other editors does not help one's cause. -- Kesh 02:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No insults were rendered, just facts about the verifiable sources that this author writes for. Kesh: Do you consider the NY Times an important publication? Do you consider writing a best-selling book about 9/11 important? No one is claiming importance--we are showing you that the policy needs to be adjusted for cases like these. Tony Fox stated Neutral above and closed the admin, stating that the guidelines don't help in the case of an influential staff journalist and notable independent writer. He's right. The article should be edited as any other and left to stand. That's why the note was removed from the top of the edit page, only because the argument is now closed. We should remove the note on top of the entry, edit the entry if we like, and move on. Thanks. -- Jrosen68 02:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. I'm not an admin, I didn't close the discussion, I simply wished the person who *does* close it after the full five-day discussion period good luck. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't consider saying his job is important, compared to mine, to be an insult? Noted for the future. As for not claiming importance, you keep using the word in this discussion.
That said, the NYT itself is notable, but we can't simply give an article to everyone who gets published in the NYT. The authors themselves must be notable per WP:BIO to warrant an article here. And I do not believe Mr. Baer satisfies those requirements. -- Kesh 20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable sources exist within the paid archives of newspapers like the NY and Los Angeles Times for Adam Baer. Some of his articles can be found on the Web site glassshallot.com. His work has also been written about in Arts and Letters Daily, USA Today, The Los Angeles Times, and other publications of note. Mikebeef 17:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC) — Mikebeef (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you'd care to cite those references and add them to the article, that would go quite a way towards convincing me the article can be saved. -- Kesh 20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kesh, Do you alone have the power to save or delete this article? It seems like other people have a lot to say on this matter. One published work in the NY Times may not be notable, but when a writer is regularly engaged to write for many publications of this caliber, year after year, it is because he is a notable writer. Here, if you'd like to see it, is one notable NYT article by this author. It's the NY Times's first ever large article about the proliferation of Wi-Fi internet access. Check their database to verify this. http://www.nytimes.com/ref/open/thisweek/12wifi-OPEN.html There is also a strong literary and critical component to this author's work, as evidenced by the books mentioned and the work for the New Republic, Atlantic, and other literary publications with strong histories of publishing the country's most important voices. I'd love to convince you, but you're just one user, as am I, and hopefully this will come to a consensus one way or the other. I just took a previous user's comment as inspiration and googled the subject and found that USA today sent their reader's to Slate's 2002 "In Defense of the Viola," written by Adam Baer. Here's the link: http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/hipclicks/2002/2002-01-11-hipclicks.htm His thoughts on Apple Computer's iPhone marketing strategy was also recently quoted on the popular Web site Kottke.org here: http://www.kottke.org/07/01/iphone-roundup (scroll to the bottom). What, to you, would render this writer notable? Could he write for more publications? Be more influential in the field of patient advocacy, technology, or culture? These aren't sarcastic questions, but people outside the realm of publishing and academia should not on their own be able to verify whether or not a writer is notable--that is, if they aren't familiar with this field. The career speaks for itself. The recent cancer op-ed for the LA Times alone generated enough buzz around the media to turn Abraham Cherrix into a national story this past summer. This is a writer with an important hold on a number of subjects. I would urge you to consider Tony Fox's thoughtful comments above as well as those of the people who commented on the talk page. Here, too, are writings from the LA Times on this author:

Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times All Rights Reserved Los Angeles Times

August 5, 2006 Saturday Home Edition

SECTION: CALIFORNIA; Metro; Editorial Pages Desk; Part B; Pg. 16

LENGTH: 247 words

HEADLINE: Chemotherapy and the failure of war on cancer

BODY:


Re "A fight to say no to chemo," Opinion, July 29

Adam Baer's commentary heart-wrenchingly captures the dilemma faced by so many folks with life-threatening diseases who are treated by very imperfect and harsh regimens. Many of these harsh treatments cure people and are backed up by peer-reviewed studies in recognized medical journals. Even so-called alternative treatments are receiving scrutiny through a special institute created for this purpose at the National Institutes of Health.

Still, prisons in the United States house quacks who have hoodwinked people in their most desperate hours by promising cures using feel-good approaches. Unfortunately, the U.S. arm of the law cannot reach to other nations to cull out quacks who endanger the lives of our citizenry.

STEVEN B. OPPENHEIMER

\o7Director

Center for Cancer and

Developmental Biology

Cal State Northridge\f7

Thank you so much for publishing this valuable message. Every other day it seems we are bombarded with cancer walks, marathons and postage stamps, yet there is very little coverage of the failure of the war on cancer during the 35 years since it was declared.

This failure comes as no surprise to someone like me, who has watched a family member be blasted with radiation and chemotherapy, then die a few years later from another cancer caused by the treatment.

I can only advise others to question the medical hierarchy and not be afraid to just say no to these torturous, toxic treatments.

PAT DAVIS

\o7Woodland Hills

\f7

LOAD-DATE: August 5, 2006

Jrosen68 22:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, the information shouldn't be pasted here. That's a lot of text that has little to do with the AfD discussion. Just keep your quotes on the page itself, and we can read them there.
Second, regarding your statement: Kesh, Do you alone have the power to save or delete this article? It seems like other people have a lot to say on this matter. So far, we have a comment from an IP user which does not address policies at all; my Delete reasoning; a Neutral comment from TonyFox; your comments regarding "importance" but not policies; and Mikebeef's comments that sources exist, but not where to find them.
AfD is a discussion about whether an article meets policy. Right now, myself and TonyFox are the only ones who have addressed this. It would be helpful if some other editors would weigh in on policy here but, without that, so far my Delete per WP:BIO seems to be the outstanding policy issue.
Finally, a letter to the editor does zero to establish notability. Anyone can write them, and the only filter is whether or not the editor wants to publish them in the paper. While I'm glad some folks found his articles useful, that does not in itself establish notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. -- Kesh 22:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MikeBeef did say where to find them; I don't think most Wiki users have access to Lexis Nexis but that's one way to search those publications. Thanks for your thoughts, but Wikipedia's policy on this type of article obviously needs to be mindfully interpreted by someone with the literary and/or journalistic authority to make these decisions. Perhaps this is the reason for Larry Sanger's new Citizendium. An expert-led discussion would have quickly put this matter to bed. Lastly, letters to the editor do mean something when they're written by experts, such as, say, the director of cell biology at a major university.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrosen68 (talk • contribs) 22:52, January 23, 2007

Feel free to bring up any changes you want in policy on the Village Pump. However, for the purposes of this AfD, we have to go by current policy. And Mikebeef's comments are not a proper citation, so that does not help us actually locate any reference material. As to your final comment, no, they still don't fulfill Wikipedia's verifiability policy. -- Kesh 23:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kesh, I'm afraid you're wrong. The policies must be read and interpreted with more, deeper insight. But I appreciate your thoughts. As for whether or not MikeBeef provided citations of a specific kind, that's way less important than the fact that these verifiable sources exist and can be found with contemporary search databases. Jrosen68 01:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Trying to "read and interperet" the policies for "insight" is trying to game the system. The policies are what they are. Further, Mikebeef can claim they exist, but without properly cited references, it doesn't mean we can use them in any meaningful manner. The burden of proof is on those wanting to make claims in the article. If they can be found, please find them and cite them in the article. -- Kesh 02:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. No one is trying to game the system. No one has to. This subject would not be such a notable writer with so many avenues of influence if he didn't have all this quantifiable success in his field. Many notable publications and articles of note as well as verifiable sources have been cited. If they don't fit into your rubric, you can fix them. In the end, you're simply saying that you don't find this author important, and that's your opinion, as you noted above. The facts speak for themselves. Jrosen68 17:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Mr. Baer has written a goodly number of articles for various magazines, papers, and journals. What would it take for someone like this to "achieve notability"? Do you want someone to insert links to every article he's ever written in order to prove notability? One simply has to visit his website (www.glassshallot.com) to link to the articles he's written. NYT, LA Times, Travel and Leisure, etc. -- these are all pretty notable publications, no? 156.145.192.64 18:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)claire — 156.145.192.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The fact remains: the publications are notable, but simply publishing articles in them does not make Mr. Baer himself notable. -- Kesh 18:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kesh, I'm pretty sure that if you published something in any of those publications, it'd be notable. Publishing an article in a newspaper/magazine of note is not an easy task. The fact that Mr. Baer has been published in them multiple times lends credence to his notability. This is not just one-off letters to the editor. Mr. Baer is an accomplished journalist and writer. This debate has gotten a little absurd. He is notable. End of Discussion. 156.145.192.64 19:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)claire[reply]

The following was posted into the article in question; I moved it to the talk page, and am pasting it here as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I just stumbled upon this debate while and I wanted to contribute as the answer is clear to me.I believe that writers for highly regarded publications, who themselves become highly regarded from their journalistic work and published books should be considered notable. Since the wikipedia policy doesn't really address the definition of notable, why should we not give credit to the true work horses of information dissemination? Adam Baer had been appeared in virtually every publication I pick up, such as USA Today, LA times, NY Times, Arts & Letters Daily just to name a few. I believe his work is notable and important. Kesh appears to have one definition of notable while wikipedia has another--who's the real boss here? Is Kesh notable? Why does Kesh get to determine what entries get deleted and what remains? As a psychologist and researcher, it is simply bad science to reject information based on this one source. Leave the entry, Mr. Baer is notable. Case closed. LMDorazio 18:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC) USC Keck School of Medical — LMDorazio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Frankly, we're still lacking outside references to the author himself outside of his publishing credits. Journalists, especially freelancers, as I said before are tough to sort out. Kesh is an editor, same as everyone else, and the community has the ability to contribute in these debates. It's really going to be up to the closing administrator to decide what happens on this one. (If it is kept, the article needs serious, major work to be acceptable encyclopedic standard.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, the references exist and are findable in well-known databases that cannot be linked to (i.e. it costs money to join something like Nexis). Also, it's important to note that the subject is a *staff* correspondent for a major magazine (Travel + Leisure, owned by American Express Publishing) as well as a well-known essayist with top-selling book credits, and freelance journalist for other notable publications.Jrosen68 20:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether or not they can be linked to, they can be cited. That needs to be done. Further, you cannot use articles written by Adam Baer himself to establish notability. Wikipedia does not rely on primary sources: see WP:CITE. We need articles/references about Mr. Baer or reviews of his work to establish notability. -- Kesh 22:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of prominent reviewers. Ok, that happens all the time. Sounds as if you need to acquaint yourself with how people like this become prominent, and what their work means to the world. As for articles and refences, they have been pointed out. You can take the time to cite them in your specific way if you'd like to improve this article. Wikipedia should rely on primary sources when it comes to people who work in this and other similar profession. Read the comments above from notable researchers and others. These are people who work in academia. They know what true notability means, and how to achieve it. If you're so confident that the policies you cite are powerful and bizarre enough to keep this subject from being written about here, you would stop contributing to this dialogue. If you were an expert in writing, journalism, or publishing, and you felt that the subject wasn't important, that would be another story. You are not, and that's why can state arcane and unimportant rules all you want, but in the end logic and expertise will win. If not here then somewhere that matters more. Jrosen68 23:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. Does not estabilish notability, no verifiable sources given22mon 01:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC) — 22mon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO. Does establish notability, plenty of verifiable sources given, from Los Angeles Times and USA Today to Arts and Letters Daily and other major American newspapers and magazines. Jrosen68 03:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup - please, clean it up! --ElKevbo 23:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree with above comments that writing a lot of things in many notable publications makes him notable even if lots of things haven't necessarily been written directly about him. But, yes, please clean up! Hard to read as is! Plymouths 10:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep borderline notability, requires clean up. Addhoc 13:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TxtNation[edit]

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

Many google hits, but seems like a small company advertising on WP. TonyTheTiger 21:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I added a few external links / references but the article is basically unverified, fails WP:V. I found most of the articles I found were press releases so I don't think we even have enough reliable sources to meet WP:RS. --Quirex 21:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing there that comes close to satisfying WP:CORP for me. The few articles I've found that mention the company do so in passing. CiaranG 08:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improvement This article was absolutely not created for advertising purposes. The company has lacked a presence on WP, and while I agree the article is new and under-developed and its content needs greater verification, I don't believe it is a candidate for deletion. It would be nice to have the article improved to WP:CORP standard, however I believe this will come with time and subsequent additions/changes. Tempy 23:03, 15 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, Bobet 19:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The only things I'm finding on Google are press releases. The article makes no attempt at satisfying WP:CORP or WP:V. -- Kesh 22:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does seem to be an advertisement, though that's not a sufficient reason for deletion. What is sufficient is the total lack of legitimate sources. --The Way 01:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my comment. It just doesn't pass WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CORP. --Quirex 04:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elftor[edit]

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

Notability not asserted, no reliable sources, no verifiability, fails WP:WEB.
It was previously nominated, it got 6 delete votes and 2 keep, but it was closed as no consensus because the "keep voters are persuasive" bogdan 21:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - original AfD can be seen here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elftor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SkierRMH (talk • contribs) 04:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nifboy 05:36, 14 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, Bobet 19:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no third-party reputable sources for this article. -- Dragonfiend 19:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous AfD. --Kizor 11:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and those above. Anomo 17:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:WEB. - Francis Tyers · 23:34, 24 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 JzG per WP:CSD criteria A7 (no assertion of notability), G11 (advertisement)). Agent 86 19:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DVDRipNews[edit]

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

Article about a non notable website. Although there are many google hits, the majority of them are just the word coming up in descriptions of available illegal downloads, and of links to it from various places. No reliable independent sources, as far as I can see. J Milburn 19:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Blatant spam. --Czj 19:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Forgot to mention that it appears to be original research. J Milburn 19:25, 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 Unplug amplifier. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Treason[edit]

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

This now-defunct band released two records on a label which has since became a subsidiary of a subsidiary of BMG, but of the 200 unique Googles (of around 800 total) I could not find any which passes as a non-trivial reliable source, and that is explicitly listed as the primary criterion in WP:MUSIC. A lot are just "similar bands include" type stuff. The Christian metalcore scene would appear to be pretty small... Guy (Help!) 19:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's big, haven't you heard of bands like Paramaecium, Mortification, As I Lay Dying, Stryper, Underoath, oh wait that's only 5 bands... But i'm sure there's other bands... There has to be... Hello... Any Christian metal bands out there...? Jerry teps 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete MetalBladeX4 00:55, 24 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. W.marsh 23:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAR-PGa[edit]

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

non-notable club; article asserts only a modicum of notability, if that; 316 ghits Agent 86 19:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn advert. Just H 19:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very very weak delete as in "They've been around for a long time and I've heard of them, but that's probably not enough". This is almost like the dilemma of "famous member, unknown website"; they can and should be mentioned where relevant, but I'm not sure if they're famed enough to warrant an article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:V - this will be replaced with a redirect to Koothattukulam. --Coredesat 05:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marygiri Public School[edit]

Marygiri Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Makes no assertion of notability. Unverified, no sources, no substantive information other than date of founding, which is again unverified. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 03:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no mention of notability in the article, no sources. SkierRMH,07:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is the criteria for inclusion for articles about schools ? This school does exist but I doubt it is "notable" or if has any famous alumni. The notability requirement for the inclusion of places is very low (afaik, proof of existence is all that is needed in most cases). If the conditions are similar for schools, it shouldn't be difficult to find mentions in local newspapers (there is a link to the official site already), but if there are any decent notability requirements, it is probably deleteworthy. Tintin (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SCHOOL. The notability requirement for the inclusion of places is not "proof of existence". The plot of grassland to the west of my house exists, and can be verified from sources that are not only reliable but authoritative. Notability is not a blanket. Uncle G 14:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I abstain. I thought of commenting on it from my first hand knowledge. But there are more than one school by this name in this area and from the year of founding mentioned at their site, it is quite new and I must have been thinking about some other one. Don't want to guess. Tintin 10:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It has no sources and it needs more information, but it is not factworthy. Chickyfuzz123 18:05, 15 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, Nishkid64 19:48, 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. W.marsh 22:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teknoscape[edit]

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

This forum does not appear to meet WP:WEB guidelines. Procedural listing, as speedy deletion has been contested. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No independent sources, just another website. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The website is sometimes mentioned in the print media (source added to article). Pcorrick 07:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its one of the more popular forums for electronic music in australia, even though it has minimal references right now, its had outside 3rd party coverage, although its alexa rating is only 201,148, its the most popular site in its category (Society > Subcultures > Rave > Regional > Oceania). It's also got a higher rating than all but the top 6 sites in the north america category, which makes sense if you consider the population differences between Australia and North America. I believe the site is notable, and the article just needs beefing up.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:10, 15 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, Nishkid64 19:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it may be notable, notability is not established in the article so it should be deleted unless proper sources are provided. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Way (talk • contribs) 01:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article lists a source the Sydney Morning Herald. However, a search of Google News and Google News Archive came up empty so that appears to be the only available source from the media.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB.--cj | talk 15:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, notability not really asserted, but it looks as if it could be. I don't know enough about the subject to know how to go about doing that though. Lankiveil 03:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to William Butler Yeats. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wind Among the Reeds[edit]

The Wind Among the Reeds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article has no encyclopedic content, just a table of contents from a poetry book. Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Allen3 talk 19:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I don't see how this is qualitatively different from an album article with tracklisting. --Dhartung | Talk 00:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to William Butler Yeats. Somebody who actually wants to say something about the book can always go back and do so. GassyGuy 04:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Catchpole 10:56, 22 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 Death by snu-snu. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Olszewski[edit]

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

No references establishing notability. What separates this antipope from the hundreds of other kooks claiming to be the pope? Psychonaut 23:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sources, wholly un-notable. I accept that he exists, but an unsubstantiated and unreferenced claim does not make hin notable.--Anthony.bradbury 23:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Google doesn't bring up any reliable sources just a few lists of modern anti-popes. Eluchil404 08:58, 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, Nishkid64 19:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the sedevacantists have a community (however small) gather around them. There's no evidence from the article that this one does. If the evidence is provided, I'll possibly reconsider. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:31, 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 Mix antipope with pope. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valeriano Vestini[edit]

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

No references establishing notability. What separates this antipope from the hundreds of other kooks claiming to be the pope? Psychonaut 23:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless substantial references provided to establish notability. Stifle (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete still no reliable sources, but a few more blog hits (also in italian) than Olszewski above. Eluchil404 09:07, 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, Nishkid64 19:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. Being a self-proclaimed antipope is not inherent notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:37, 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 Kill it with fire. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Archieri[edit]

Maurice Archieri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice Archieri

No references establishing notability. What separates this antipope from the hundreds of other kooks claiming to be the pope? Psychonaut 23:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless substantial references provided to establish notability. Stifle (talk) 20:25, 16 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, Nishkid64 19:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. Being a self-proclaimed antipope is not inherent notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>> I'm new - I don't know how to do this, but please keep this article. I was doing research on Antipopes and found Maurice mentioned by: Why We Oppose Papal Claimants © 1999 by Robert F. Hess, Editor, the Saint Francis Newsletter:

Fifth in line is the Frenchman, Maurice Archieri, who goes by "Peter II." He is either in Paris, or one of its suburbs. His assistant priest originally wouldn't discuss with me who ordained and consecrated his pope. Archieri, according to his web page, was mysticly given the Papacy in 1995 "by operation of the Holy Spirit." (His web site now includes a section on the episcopal lineage of Archieri. It goes back into what appears to be Old Catholic lines.)

I wanted to learn more, so I looked Maurice up in Wikipedia. His own site is in French, so that is of limited help. That is the only reference I have at hand.

Are there "hundreds" of other people claiming to be pope? I don't know of very many. And if there are "hundreds", so what? IF they all wanted to be listed in Wikipedia, is Wikipedia unable to handle it? I guess I don't see the harm in listing it.

But, again, I'm new here and I really didn't open an account to get into these kinds of debates.

Best wishes to all BenedictX 17:57, 21 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. Jaranda wat's sup 03:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor von Pentz[edit]

Victor von Pentz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Except for a passing mention in an article on a website, there are no independent references establishing this man's notability. What separates this antipope from the hundreds of other kooks claiming to be the pope? Psychonaut 23:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete and a Probable Merge by somone more well versed on the topic. Precious few sources can be found, and the ones that have been used are by no means reliable. I honestly don't know enough on this topic in order to say for sure which way to go. Perhaps leaving it flagged for help would be a better idea. wtfunkymonkey 01:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only one passing mention in one article on one web site? Antichrist on a cracker! I found goatloads of references to him through a Google search. He's certainly noted on the Internet (which isn't saying much, I suppose, but here we all are nonetheless), and apparently he's created some stir among various argumentative sorts of Catholics. Let the anti-pope (or True Pope) remain on Wikipedia, that the heretics (or True Catholics) may expand his article for the greater glory of God (or Satan!) Whyaduck 06:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "one passing mention" I referred to is the only reference given in the article. If you have other multiple, independent sources for which von Pentz is the main subject, by all means add them to the article. I did do a cursory Google search before this nomination; the results seem to be mostly Wikipedia mirrors or passing mentions in antipope articles. —Psychonaut 12:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My recurring nightmare is logging on to the Internet and finding that every site is either a mirror of Wikipedia, a weblog commenting on Wikipedia, or a news site announcing that Earth has surrendered to the Wikipedians, a reptilian race from a distant planet. I'd say about half of Papa Linus' Google hits are mirrors of some sort, and most of the rest are indeed competing anti-pope (or anti-anti-pope) sites (Pope Michael is particularly hostile to Pope Linus.) Anyway, I'm not going to expand the article myself, I just think the contentious Catholics of various stripes ought to have time to do it themselves (though they've had over a year so far and have done nothing with it that I can see- but I've gotten more patient as I've gotten way older.) It's also a bit distressing to me that seven WP pages linking to the V von P article will now have more annoying red wikilinks on them. Some of those pages already have quite a few red name-wikilinks, which suggests to me that contentious Catholics lurking about the site are intending to create still more articles about still more anti-popes. You may have to set yourself to a long crusade to keep them from proliferating.
  • Comment I created this, in part, because I was curious if anyone claimed to be "Pope Linus II." However I'm not sure he has a significant enough following to be notable. Still there are various people in Category:20th century antipopes being AfD'd right now so I'd like to give a word of warning on that. Although I consider them all to be nuts some of them did gain minor significance or even a noticeable following. For some examples David Bawden was part of a chapter in the book What's the Matter with Kansas?, Clemente Domínguez y Gómez and Manuel Corral led the Palmarian Catholic Church, Jean-Gaston Tremblay was in Canadian news for a time, and William Kamm was covered in the Australian media.--T. Anthony 18:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I nominated only those 20th-century antipopes for whom there are no multiple, independent published sources. Rest assured that the ones you listed are safe (at least from me). —Psychonaut 01:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless more sources come up to show real notability. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 16 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, Nishkid64 19:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. Being a self-proclaimed antipope is not inherent notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I'm new here and I don't want to get into the middle of any debate. I left a comment on another antipope, I forget whom. I will say that all these antipope articles have been helpful to me in my research - I don't know where else this information would be aggregated. Thank you to whomever did the first-instance research, even if it eventually gets deleted, I appreciate it. Best wishes, BenedictX 00:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable phony. Dwain 00:05, 25 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 Eliminate with fire. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Lambert (entrepreneur)[edit]

Ryan Lambert (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

A man who created a product that might be notable (see Minuteman Salsa. However, I don't see the notability applying to him as well. The only sources given seem to establish the notability of the product but not of him. This is also largely unverifiable in a simple Google search because there's a Ryan Lambert who is an actor/singer (see Ryan Lambert (singer)) Metros232 23:00, 15 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, Nishkid64 19:59, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 22:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raspberry Software[edit]

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

Company described doesn't appear to be notable, and nothing links to it. No significant followup to notability template added several weeks ago. Seems to promote the company in question, but nothing else Cralar 21:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I interpret it as satisfying WP:CORP (1), due to the coverage received from winning the Anglian Business Awards, as well as coverage of their products in PDA magazines; But I would say that, as I created the article (NB I am not affiliated with them in any way) -- Ratarsed 21:47, 19 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, Nishkid64 19:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as they are just short of notability. Local business award is nice but there are so many of those if we started we'd never finish. The one independent review from a strong source is PocketNow's. Most other hits are press releases or simple product announcements or links to download the software. --Dhartung | Talk 00:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I found a short blurb from Pocketpcmag.com. If you add up the award and the reviews, it's borderline. So, I default to weak keep.--Kubigula (talk) 21:57, 27 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 G11, advertising. AecisBravado 18:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celebration europe[edit]

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

nn convention, advertising, no independent sources. We can deal with capitalization issues if this survives. User:Zoe

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 20:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete, This is an important event because Celebration Europe is the first of it's kind in Europe and celebrates 30 years of Star Wars, so it deserves it's own page. As well as this, I plan to expand the article today.Coruscant 12:06, 20 January 2007
  • This isn't an encyclopaedia article. It's an advertisment for a forthcoming event, telling us outright that "there are no details", that "there is currently not much specific information", and "we will update this page as we get more information". Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. It's an encyclopaedia. Delete. Uncle G 16:31, 23 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. 
RESULT. AecisBravado 18:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Battlefield 1942 mods[edit]

List of Battlefield 1942 mods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This has been nominated at least three times previous; in the time since, it has not improved, only gotten littered with cleanup tags. As I see it, fails WP:NOT, and is comprised basically of links to other sites- linkspam, anyone? The whole premise of it existing- which spawned one of the largest modding communities in the history of gaming - is unsourced and entirely POV. Looking through wikipedia, I find few other modding pages for any other video game, even those with mods up the wazoo- Warcraft III, Counterstrike, etc. The few I find are confined to one mod, such as Garry's Mod. We should put this article out of its misery, or let it be transwikied to somewhere else- but not here! Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 20:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Due to the articles gutting and improvement, I now suggest a merge/rename of the content in question, but am confident the remaining info fits WP:V, etc. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 16:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An additional note: It would make this a much better discussion if people didn't pop in and only say "Keep/Cleanup per". Right now the only people who have said anything worthwhile to the discussion are Rock, BrightOJ, and Scottie. If you don't have something to add, don't add anything. AfDs are not a vote. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 16:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the person saying "per" is referring to another editors reason, then no further reason is needed to be given. It might not be a vote, but saying the same thing over and over is redundant, which is why many say "per". Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Agree per Havok. Johntex\talk 06:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Multiple independent sources do exist that can be used to cite information in this article (obviously not all of it, thus it needs cleaned up). List of Half-Life mods and List of Half-Life 2 mods are fairly decent and show that such lists can survive if limited to notable mods. --- RockMFR 20:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And how are these mods notable? Most of them have no mention of notability, even on the HL2 mod pages, such as Obsidian Conflict. All the others basically just have 'was ranked so and so by ModDB'. I'm pretty sure that we need multiple third-party sources. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 21:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Game magazines tend to mention the most notable mods, and I'm fairly sure that with some research, independent and verifiable sources can be found asserting the notability of mods. However, the nomination concerns the list of mods, not the notability of each individual mod. If you feel that a specific mod article should be deleted, please put those up for deletion rather than argue it here. --Scottie theNerd 21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. --- RockMFR 20:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability for any of these mods, just that it attempts to be a comprehensive list of them all. Wikipedia is not a web directory. This belongs at dmoz, not here. eaolson 20:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Battlefield 1942 mods have attained public recognition, not just outside of those who play the game such as in gaming magazines- but in the national press. Bfelite 15:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Proof please. (Again.) The Kinslayer 15:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment For starters, the CNN article War games see sales spike, the Tech TV X-Play review of 1942 mods. I would point out though, it need only have wide recognition within the Gaming community to avoid NN- something it has is spades as well. Various mods regularly appearing in industry magazines such as PC Gamer in addition IGN and other online web sources results in more notability and recognition then many commerical titles. Bfelite 16:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And the reason this hasn't been put into the article at any point in the last 8 months is? And notability isn't automatically extended to every mod living and dead for this agme just because a few of them got reviewed. Only reviewed ones have established notability for themselves. The Kinslayer 16:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That link (and others) are already in the article. 17:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per RockMFR. Havok (T/C/e/c) 20:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup via RockMFR --BenWhitey 21:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article needs cleanup, but a list of mods for a notable game is as useful and encyclopedic as any other composite list, as long as they are verifiable. --Scottie theNerd 21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Directory. ~ trialsanderrors 22:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with RockMFR. Also see comments in the previous three AFDs: 3 2 1. AFD is not cleanup, nor should its role be to force cleanup on articles at the nominator's desired pace. — brighterorange (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point, however, is that it has not improved, even with all these AfDs. Unless all of the mods can be sourced for notability, and are going to be, they should be deleted. So far, despite the large amounts of time since the last AfD, little has been done to improve. Saying 'we'll fix it' doesn't fit in this case. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It really hasn't been a large amount of time since the last AFD, especially considering that there are 21,000 other articles tagged for cleanup too. — brighterorange (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it HAS been a significant amount since the AfD before that. No work was done, despite the copy and paste 'Keep and clean-up' votes. Guess what? No cleaning up happened from June (the time of the AfD) to December, the time of the last AfD. Then lo and behold, at the last AfD, the same people who said 'keep and clean up' then disappeared never to be seen turned up! Can you guess what they said? Correct! They said 'keep and clean up!'. Can you guess what happened after the AfD dissolved into a trainwreck of non-consensus? Why, absolutely NO clean-up work was done once again. And this in spite of numerous people claiming there are multiple sources of notability. So here we are, 3 non-consensus AfDs later, into our 4th one, and the article is STILL exactly the same as it was the time of the 1st AfD. Any questions? The Kinslayer 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its not exactly the same, there are more references establishing notability, such as [65] for instance. Bfelite 15:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to see exactly how much the article has changed. Here's the diff. Perhaps this is not a satisfactory pace for you, but it's certainly not "exactlty the same" (some reliable sources have been added, for instance) and it is fast enough progress for me. — brighterorange (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, lets nit-pick over a word. Geez. The point was that at no point in the last 8-9 months was enough work done on the article to address the issues raised at an AfD, and as a result is nominated again relatively quickly. The fact that the article was nominated 4 times in less than a year should be considered a teeny-tiny hint that the article must have some major failings that aren't being addressed. But if you would rather argue over my using a word in slightly the wrong situation instead of trying to address major failings in the article, that's fine by me. The Kinslayer 16:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do think it's important to rebut some of your exaggerated comments on this AFD. It is unfair to claim the lack of editing on the article to support your position that it will never be fixed, when in fact editing has been done. I don't think the insertion of at least three first-rate sources (CNN, Washington Times, PC Gamer) is insignificant, so your exaggeration is more than slight. For the second point, you're right: Four nominations (note: only by three distinct editors) suggest that some wikipedians have a problem with the article (and I do believe it needs more work still). But on the other side of the coin, the keep arguments by editors in good standing along with the work done on the article since its first nominations should suggest that other wikipedians do not believe those problems are insurmountable. That should be taken into account as well. — brighterorange (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a) We are not a link directory; b) the article had had a {{notability}} tag since November 2006 and there had been no modifications enough to prove the notability of the individual mods; c) while the topic itself is notable, the mods named there are not: the article should restrict itself to the four or five notable mods whose notability have been determined; d) Notability for software not proven. As I have demonstrated, "keep and cleanup" is not an option because, since the last nomination, there had been no efforts to clean the article up. If you say "keep", then assure the others you will work in the article to clean it up. I have just removed all the external links and the "inactive and dead" sections, which are only spam farm. -- ReyBrujo 23:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Scottie theNerd. Last nominated for deletion barely over a month ago, too soon for a new nomination in my book. VegaDark 23:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RockMFR, and also because it's too soon for yet another nomination. -Toptomcat 01:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as nominator. Combination 12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Scottie theNerd and RockMFR, plus was nominated too recently anyway. Constant renominations is just stupid. Battlefield 1942 mods are undoubted notable (not all though obviously, but then again it doesn't even come close to listing all of them), after look and see for yourself that a heap of the mods even have their own pages! Mathmo Talk 13:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, just took a second read through the nominator's reasons for deletion (not that I really needed too, for an obvious case of keep like this article I knew they would be wrong!). Anyway... I came across something which was so funny, the nominator makes references to not finding lists of mods for even big famous games such as Counter-Strike!! gee, I wonder why that is?! Could it be because Counter-Strike is itself a mod! (though of course it has some mods itself, just obviously the scope and number of mods that would exist for a mod is vastly limited compared to otherwise) It always disturbs me a little whenever somebody tries to nominate for deletion something that would be controversial (as this obviously is as it has survived several times before) while at the same time showing a complete lack of knowledge of the subject area. Mathmo Talk 13:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It is possible to "mod" a mod. While Counter-Strike isn't a particularly good example, Desert Combat for BF1942 has been expanded further by certain communities to form mods like Desert Combat Extended. You said it yourself: even Counter-Strike has mods. I don't see why you're slamming someone for having a "complete lack of knowledge" when you admitted that it's feasible at the same time. --Scottie theNerd 14:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Addendum: Re-reading it again, I do agree that the nominator isn't familiar with mods. Warcraft III doesn't have any mods. --Scottie theNerd 14:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now who has "no" knowledge- Warcraft III has plenty of mods, mate, including a Starcraft total conversion which is basically Starcraft on WCIII with an updated HUD, etc. So don't slam me for lack of knowledge, bud. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 16:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't slam you for lack of knowledge, "mate". I'm wrong in this case; I've been out of the Warcraft III scene for a bit too long. In case you didn't realise, I'm agreeing with your example. --Scottie theNerd 19:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry sorry, I did go ever so slightly over the top in my comment. But my point remains, that it shouldn't be surprising that CS has no page of it's mods because even though it is an extremely famous game most "mods" of it really would be mods of Half Life. For a person not to see that it amazes me from the point of view of a lack of understanding regarding what a mod is. Mathmo Talk 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete (See below) - Once again we reach this point due to ne'er-do-wells swanning in, saying 'keep and clean' and disappearing with no intention of doing any clean-up work themseleves, and only returning to the article when it's nominated for deletion again to make there cut-and-paste point again. (In fact I see several familiar names who have voted keep and clean on numerous articles and then ****ed off without doing the work, only to appear later and vote to keep an article that has no work done on it.) This article has been in this state for NEARLY A ****ING YEAR! How much time does this article need for all the vast wealth of sources the keep voters claim exists to be included in it? Face it, no-one gives a damn about improving this article because it is what it is: A directory of links designed to advertise, and as such is completely unencyslopedic and uncleanable. In 6 months time, this unedited article will just get nominated yet again, and the whole wretched process begins again. Does this article serve Wikipedias interests? No. Does it serve the interests of the various people who have put links to their project here? Absolutely. Stuff arguing about it's relevance in comparison to other pages or other mods. That's not the point. The point is that THIS article is essentially a steaming shit-heap that no-one is prepared to touch.The Kinslayer 14:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm one of those who did vote keep, and I went through earlier today checking all of the links and removing every single one that gives a 404 error. So in that point you are wrong, people (such as me) have made efforts to improve it (better than your wholescale removing of comment without checking it at all). Mathmo Talk 01:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Seriously dude... chill out. Havok (T/C/e/c) 14:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The article has numerous references and has clearly broken into the mainstream- these mods have appeared appeared on CNN! Not to mention lists are common and appropriete for the wiki.Bfelite 15:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Links aren't sources. What we have in the article are links to homepages and links to lists of mods on other sites, but absolutely nothing establishing the notability of any of the mods. And I see no reference to CNN anywhere in the article. Once again these 'numerous' sources that establish notability appear to be as substantial as the early morning mist, and just as hard to get a hold of. Mod databases and homepages don't count as multiple non-trivial media mentions. I see one PC Gamer article cited and that's it. The Kinslayer 15:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is the link to CNN you asked about [66], though you need to go to the library to look up most of the PC Gamer mod articles as they are not placed online. Bfelite 16:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bfelite is right, magazines such as PC Gamer frequently review mods in their print editions. Mathmo Talk 01:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Be that as it may, WP:V makes it quite clear that no source = No place on Wikipedia. Otherwise whats to stop me listing some mod I just thought of right now and claiming it was mentioned in a PC Gamer article 10 months ago that I can't get my hands on now. (But the CNN articles fine!) The Kinslayer 16:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You can't really claim that since a source is not immediately accessible to you (i.e. online) that it is not a valid source—WP:AGF of the other editors! As repsects verifiability: in addition to the CNN and Washington Times articles, descriptive claims can be sourced to the mod home pages (primary sources) per WP:V. — brighterorange (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm just pointing out the problem with saying 'It was mentioned in this place' when you can't provide a copy of it to back your claim up. AGF fails here because this article was set up to neither help nor hurt wikip[edia specifically, but rather to attract people to a mods individual webpage. This article provides no ionformation on the mods, it hasn't since it's creation. All it say is if the mod is alive or not and a link to the home page, which brings us right back to WP:NOT a directory of links or an advertising facility. The Kinslayer 16:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Consider this. If a user comes to Wikipedia for information, and then finds the article they are looking for in fact contains absolutely no useful information and just provides a link to an off-wiki site, somethings wrong. If users have to leave wikipedia in order to find any useful information about something beyond whether or not work is ongoing on it, then what is the point of wikipedia? The Kinslayer 16:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are behaving as if a link to a website is not information?!?! I've frequently used wikipedia in the past by going to an article and then from there going to main website thanks to the link in the article. Wikipedia would be massively worse if it didn't have the linking to home websites. 01:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
But if you can't give us a link other than the home page, it fails the requirement for multiple, third party sources. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 01:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There ARE, multiple, third party sources in the references- that establish that they exist. That they are notable can be read about in other news articles linked to here, and in the article. Bfelite 01:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I very much doubt that there are multiple, third party references for each and every one of the mods listed- until you can, the list is nothing more than linkspam. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • The point is to record history. While this subject's time in the spotlight may have passed, it was notable in its day. We have a duty to make a record of that. Bfelite 17:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Comment about sources: it's quite OK to reference a print publication with usual details of title, author, date, page number, article title. If someone disputes it, it's up to them to find it and prove the source invalid. Here's a good example. Tyrenius 17:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • WP:V says that Wikipedia is for verifiability, not truth. It may be the truth that these mods are the greatest things to ever grace the Earth, but wihtout an independant source to verify it it won't survive an AFD. If you want to keep the record of it, archive it on a personal site or something. WP:NOR also runs counter to the part about our duty to record things; any thoughts have to have been published before. Hbdragon88 22:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • They DO have verifiability. They HAVE been published and written about by third parties, the wikipedia's job is simply to note that these existed, and people took note (such as CNN). Bfelite 01:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Comment. I'd just like to point out that this AfD is not concerned with whether the mods are notable, merely whether a list of them should be kept. Whether then individual mods are notable or not should be take up on their own article page or their own AfD page. My opinion above is that this list should be taken care of as a category, not as a list, of which we have too many already. eaolson 01:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Comment The individual notablity is exactly what what people were concerned with, because the article is the sum of its parts. The mods were merged here because, together they were deemed notable in previous AFD's. Bfelite 22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not again... //Halibutt 00:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD is based on this revision of the article. Since the AfD went up, the article has been totally changed. Please check the new article and consider changing your vote or not. Thank you. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain - I'm abstaining over the new version of the article, since it does now meet the policies it was so badly failing at the time of the AfD (and the three before for that matter). And to the people who responded to my request for sources by saying they were already in the article, no they weren't. Adding the sources after I've already commented on them is not the same as the sources being there from the start, which they weren't. The Kinslayer 09:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this is apparently directed at me: This is the revision where Dåvid ƒuchs added the AFD tag. It quite plainly includes the PC Gamer, CNN, and Washington Times references. I simply can't understand your claim in light of this. — brighterorange (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Brighterorange, all those references refer to the same mod. As much, two references one, while the other references a second. In other words, those particular mods are notable enough, all others were hanging out in Wikipedia thanks to the notability of those two or three ones. I have cleaned the article to demonstrate this. As you can see, all other mods have zero references from reliable sources. -- ReyBrujo 15:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Battlefield 1942. The two mods listed are notable and verified, but the actual content here could easily be merged into the main article without making it overly long. No prejudice against breaking out again if more notable mods are found. --Pak21 10:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Current State - apparently someone has actually gone through and removed the cruft and sourced the stuff that's left. I'm pretty sure that its fine now, but I suggest either a merge to BF1942 since its much more manageable now, or rename to something different (list doesn't really fit). Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 16:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, sadly I do not expect the article to stay this way for too long. I have already tried to remove the tables from the article two times, and the changes were reverted. Expect the tables to be back either in a couple of hours, or as soon as the AFD is closed. -- ReyBrujo 17:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Battlefield 1942. Certainly when all nonverifiable mods are removed and we are really left with a summarization of a CNN article, this doesn't even deserve to be classified as a stub and is information that people should only be seeking in the article for the game itself. 64.213.64.146 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Far more then nonverifiable mods were removed. For example, PC Gamer mod of year winner Eve of Destruction, given a nationally recognized award- was removed- becase the people seem superbly ignorant about what they are editing. I only wish theirability to do research was as great as their lack of respect for the subject matter. Bfelite 22:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) There was no reference to GameSpy there. Must I remind you again that the burden of evidence lies in the one adding or restoring content and not the one removing it? -- ReyBrujo 22:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, GameSpy or PC Gamer? -- ReyBrujo 22:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PC Gamer Bfelite 22:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is not the improvement drive forum. Yamaguchi先生 00:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Highly relevant. Also I think it's rather offensive that you list an AFD then try to discourage discussion. Keep/Cleanup per is a valid input. Sounds like someone has a little bit of a WP:OWN problem. Plus I am not happy with the assertation "all the others basically just have 'was ranked....'".....basically you've just shown that you don't care what kind of evidence is shown for notability. Yeah, this deletion discussion upsets me. It's survived 3 times already. Maybe that means it deserves to stay, especially when so many people think it's a relevant topic? (full disclosure: I'm a member of a development team for a commercially successful mod) ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 02:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, as thats a slight affront to me, I feel I should respond... I think it's rather offensive that you list an AFD then try to discourage discussion - AfD's are not votes, as Wikipedia clearly states. If you'll look above, you'll find lots of keeps- but no reason for the keep. The point is not to say I want it to be kept per XX, but to contribute to an ongoing discussion. Secondly, to the Maybe that means it deserves to stay, especially when so many people think it's a relevant topic? That's certainly one way of looking at AfDs. But seeing as its been no consensus all of them, that basically means that there's a loud enough kicking and screaming faction that it can't be deleted in full conscience. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but just because it survives doesn't really make its merit. Finally, to the most important part: Plus I am not happy with the assertation "all the others basically just have 'was ranked....'".....basically you've just shown that you don't care what kind of evidence is shown for notability. WP:NOT calls for multiple, independent sources- in other words, ModDB, a massive modding site, is only one. Just because its on one site doesn't make it notable (for a sort of comparison, just because a book's for sale on Amazon and has been rated does not make it notable under wikipedia guidelines). I'm glad you disclosed your vested interest; as I stated above I believe that in its thinner form it could easily be merged into the BF1942 article, but people keep on adding back in the cruft, which suggests that once again, if the AfD is no con, it will just become bloated again. A merge is more effective. Qestions/concerns, PM me. no need to clutter up the AfD unless it is directly related. Dåvid Fuchs [talk • contribs] 03:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Havok, If you just agree with what someone else already said, it is perfectly reasonable and accepted practice to just say you suppor their previously stated positon. There is no need to write out a new pithy comment each time if someone has already captured well your belief on the matter. Please don't dismiss the views of other editors just because they happen to state they agree with a previous contributor. Johntex\talk 06:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I want to shout. "Keep and cleanup" is not a valid opinion if the article stays the way it is. If you check the article history, back in March 4, 2004 (yes, just shy of 3 years ago) the article got a table for the mods. Do you see? The table was first created 3 years ago and since then more fields were added to the table, the table became a little more beautiful, but the article stayed in the same way, without reliable references. "Keep and clean" is not an option because nobody cared about this article. Those who voted "Keep" never cared about checking the previous versions of the article, nor helped with the clean up. They either are gamers who would object deletion of even "List of RGB colors used in Master Chief's helmet", have only edits in articles related to video games, or they were interested in the topic because they play Battlefield and want to have a quick list of mods so that they can download them. Truly speaking, if not for my complete blank of the article and User:Bfelite's effort to find references when adding new mods, the article would have spent 3 more years in the same state. So, next time anyone says "Keep and cleanup", please stop shouting blasphemies to your Halo mates, or congratulating yourself in how many enemies you killed on the night, sit down and edit the dang article to shape. We don't need keep votes, we need people cleaning the article. Thank you.
    PS: Truth can hurt, so if anyone feels hurt, sorry. Yes, this is the "most civil." -- ReyBrujo 04:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep' - article adheres to policy and is verifiable with apporpriate sources as cited in the article. As the nominator states, the article has been nominated 3 times and kept each time. It's verifiability has not decreased, so there is no need to be renewing this discussion. Johntex\talk 06:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It has gotten "No consensus" three times, not "keep". Something very different. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment on comment The user didn't say the consensus was keep three times, rather that it was kept three times. That could have resulted from either three no consensus or three keeps, or even a mixture of both. Mathmo Talk 08:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (I changed my mind again) - The article is rapidly going back to how it was. And Mathmo, the user was trying to assert that the article is worth keeping because it's been kept after 3 afds. But they were no consensus keeps, meaning that we did NOT agree that this article was worth keeping. Instead people with vested interest in keeping the article created such a stink it was impossible for anyone to have a rational discussion. The Kinslayer 09:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see what you mean about "..rapidly going back to how it was.", the article is better now then its ever been. That an article will revert or not is not the subject of this AfD, the subject right now is verifiability, and right now it has sources for its entries. We don't delete articles on the merit that it may or may not be changed in the future, as changes will happen now and in the future regardless of what state it is in now. Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try looking at some of the sources. I did. All they are are links to the mods homepage and a link game magazine websites. Not the article the game was supposedly covered in, just the website. Regardless, my decision is not changing this time, and indeed, I'm not going to follow this AfD anymore. The Kinslayer 11:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete by Bogdangiusca. Tevildo 21:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss-canadian war[edit]

Swiss-canadian war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
  • This is a hoax article about a war that never happened. It talks about hundreds of thousands of troops being moved and nuclear weapons being fired. There needs to be a speedy deletion criteria that covers hoaxes. J Milburn 20:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically a hoax and thus not speediable. In fact however, such total bullshit that it can be counted as total nonsense, so kill it already. Kosebamse 20:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. Cool article, though. shas 20:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, candidate for BJAODN. I believe that a speedy for hoaxes is opposed because with only one or two pairs of eyes there's too much chance of false positives. --Dhartung | Talk 20:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I understand the justification, I just see hoaxes as the worst kind of vandalism. Agree to send it to BJAODN J Milburn 20:34, 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 My article a splode. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starlance[edit]

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

Non-notable MMORPG. There don't seem to be any links to either the game's homepage [67] or the page it redirects to [68]. The article reads like a game manual, which is not what wikipedia is. Contested prod; de-prodded by author without explanation. eaolson 20:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Czj 20:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. J Milburn 21:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agreed with nominator. StarLance doesn't seem to have any reference through independent, reliable sources, and the article is written as a game guide, which is against WP:NOT. --Scottie theNerd 21:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Reads like a game manual, is completely non-encyclopaedic. If proves to be notable, needs a rewrite, from scratch. --Oscarthecat 10:26, 21 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. W.marsh 23:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Seeley[edit]

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

Won a local election with only 144 voters. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability according to WP:Bio Average Earthman 20:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete One of the youngest mayors is not sufficient, especially when you are talking about an incorporated area of 1100 people. --Brianyoumans 21:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I remember him getting a bit of national press coverage when he won. There are a number of legitimate articles that can be found on Google and his youth does, in my opinion, go a long way towards establishing notability. He started running for office when he was 17 and became mayor at 18, that is really quite rare. --The Way 01:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to me that Christopher Seeley meets the notability for local politicians. If he doesn't meet notability than I doubt that any local politician could meet notability and I disagree with that. While an article cannot be created for every local politician it makes sense that those who are notable enough should be included. I also noticed that Michael Sessions and Sam Juhl also have articles and neither have been nominated for deletion. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sessions is the mayor of a town of 8000, and is a high school student. Juhl is a high school student and is claimed to be the youngest mayor on record. Seeley is a college student, the mayor of an even smaller entity, and not claimed to be the youngest ever in any way. --Brianyoumans 06:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He still remains one of the youngest mayors in the US right now. He's young enough that he garnered quite a bit of attention for it. Notability can be established by the multiple, non-trivial sources about him. It's very rare for someone who is 18 to run for and win an actual public office. --The Way 06:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sessions appears to have parlayed his election - as mayor of a larger town - into national and even international media interest [69]. Seeley hasn't, from a google search, which appears to show largely local newspaper articles. Compare google hits for "Christopher Seeley" + mayor to those for "Michael Sessions" + mayor. I make it around 170 for Seeley, around 10,000 for Sessions. Average Earthman 18:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep None of these are precedents if they are wrong, but they are appropriate articles & so is this. The news coverage, and the ghits are enough. Yes, Sessions is even better known. DGG 01:25, 24 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. Nominator withdrew after consensus reached and notability established. --Czj 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Revols[edit]

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

As far as I can tell from the article, all this band ever did was to play at a club in Fayetteville, Arkansas in 1960. No recording or album releases are discussed. ●DanMS 20:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I hereby withdraw my nomination after the extensive improvements and documentation provided by the contributors in building the article. The article looks good now—excellent work by the contributors. We need more editors like this on the Wikipedia. I recommend closing this AFD. ●DanMS 20:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Band itself may have not made it big, but it included many famous musicians who later did larger projects. --Czj 21:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the sort of minor thing that should be mentioned in a footnote to these musicians' articles - "When a teenager, X was once in a short-lived band with Y and Z." Brianyoumans 21:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Short lived, but it now appears it deserves an article. --Brianyoumans 06:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can fix this article...

The Revols, have been noted in "People Magazine", written about in at least 3 internationally published novels, and were considered by some, to be the beginning foundation of Canada's contribution to rock'n'roll, with 3 members playing on world wide acclaimed records.

There is infact recordings, The Revols recorded the "First known recording" of Richard Manuel (Bob Dylan. The Band) in 1958, the first song Richard ever wrote.

The recording has currently been handed over to Peter Moore, a famous Canadian engineer / producer (Bruce Coburn, The Cowboy Junkies) and that song "Eternal Love" recorded in 1958, by the Revols will become part of a box set, for Capitol Records, with a working title "Levon and The Hawks" "The Early Years" chronicling some of the first rockn' roll in Canada, as well all of the original, 1st recordings of Richard Manuel songs.

It'll take me some time to dig some of this stuff up, but The Revols, were a pretty important, quite documented band, for the 50's in Canada.

This article "as is" I completely understand why it'd be marked for deletion.... it's just very vague, and poorly written.

If I can have some time, and am able to edit this article, I can supply some valid content, linking these 3 famous musicians together. thanks Qwepasdl 04:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above. If you can source those statements and gracefully work them into the article then it would almost certainly pass WP:BAND. Flakeloaf 02:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please have a look at the changes i have made, to consider removing it from being "Marked for deletion" thanks Qwepasdl 03:07, 21 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: self-closing as nom withdrawn and unambiguous keep. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Russell[edit]

One line stub about a second tier youth soccer team, who has managed the first team on a few occasions. As far as I can tell, fails WP:BIO. No independant sources found beyond management stats. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he played over 450 league games for a number of clubs. This wasn't mentioned, but I've remedied that. ArtVandelay13 21:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per ArtVandelay13 Daemonic Kangaroo 21:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can you source his appearances, please? I can't find him in Soccerbase as a player. BlueValour 03:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • He predates Soccerbase, but he's in the Football League Players' Records, 1946-2005, by Barry Hugman. ArtVandelay13 04:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've created an infobox, using data extracted from www.allfootballers.com, which only covers the English leagues, so the Celtic data is missing. Daemonic Kangaroo 06:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nom and speedy keep much improved! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 10:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Played hundreds of league games, thats notable. -- Mattythewhite 11:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep given the details of his professional career. Robotforaday 13:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - WP:SNOW. BlueValour 15:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 450+ league appearances easily meets WP:BIO. I believe he was also a Scottish junior international. - fchd 17:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep as clearly meets WP:BIO now that full info on his career has been added ChrisTheDude 08:12, 22 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. W.marsh 23:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bubblicious INK'D[edit]

Bubblicious INK'D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No asscertion of notability, and no references makes it a WP:V failure. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 21:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom ::mikmt 22:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bubblicious. Part of a notable brand, but doesn't need its own article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to get consensus. Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Agent 86 01:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Phu District[edit]

Tan Phu District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Article has very little context with no clear understanding of what area the article is talking about. In my opinion it is unsalvigable and comes awfully close to beening suitable for speedy for having no context RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they were created by the same author in the same style, all with very little context:

Hoc Mon District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Go Vap District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Binh Thanh District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thu Duc District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Binh Chanh District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment. These all appear to be districts of Ho Chi Minh City, formerly known as Saigon. I could tell that the names appeared to be Vietnamese, and they all have links from Ho Chi Minh City. I do not know if these districts should be considered as separate municipalities or not. --Eastmain 22:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; verifiable, salvageable. Sure, they're in bad condition, but they can be fixed. I'll add them to my imaginary to-do list and try to fix them up and source them eventually - if no one beats me. (Be warned, however, that my imaginary to-do list also involves fixing up not one but two portals in bad condition, so it could take me a while to get to these.) Picaroon 23:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep A valid encyclopedia topic, though it needs to be substantially expanded and sourced. Being a stub is not a reason for deletion. --The Way 01:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are articles that can be improved and are an encylopedic topic. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep suburbs are inherently notable, we have arts. for a lot in western cities. ask nominator to put a bit more effort into working out what stubs are about, before bringing to afd.  ⇒ bsnowball  10:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - they weren't stubs when I brought them to Afd, as I've previously stated in this Afd, User:Eastmain sorted them out and turned them into stubs whilst the Afd was running, the nominated state of the articles was very very poor, and it is only down to Easmain's efforts that the articles now mean something RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just as much as neighbourhoods/suburbs in other cities articles. I see no reason for these ones. If there's a problem fix it don't delete it. Nlsanand 04:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in their current state. Argyriou (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These are real districts of a major metropolitan city. --Oakshade 22:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Those are needing updates from the Vietnamese wikipedia though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.19.60 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 23 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. Cbrown1023 14:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnadas Babaji[edit]

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

non notable monk, material unverifiable; I can't find any references to this person outside of the work of Richard Shaw Brown, who also seems to be the main author of this article. Could be notable, but who knows? Brianyoumans 21:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep---Dear Editors, I am surprised there is no other reference to Krishnadas Babaji. Among the 1000 disciples of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Takura he was the favorite, maybe because he never took disciples, even though he was highly realized. He was an "avadhuta" sadhu, or one who posseses nothing. In Vaishnava philosophy such humility its treated with the highest respect known to man, in most all religions. The irony is that he is the MOST qualified to be included among notable persons, yet is desires it the least, He couldn't speak English so I was the rare Westerner who got to know him and see his life. But if he doesn't fit then please delete him as your policy. OTHERWISE: May I reduce his page to a short blurb? Thanks, Richard Shaw Brown
  • Keep This person is notable enough to receive an biographical article. Would recommend that sources be included in article to make it conform with Verifiability and Reliable Sources. I do not believe this article should be deleted. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 23:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though the article itself states several times "He is notable because...," none of the reasons given actually establish notability. Furthermore, there are no sources so verifiability has not been met either. He may be notable, some of the text hints at this... but without sources we can't keep it. --The Way 01:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now The article was tagged for notability less than two weeks ago, which may not have been enough time for its author to come up with reliable sources. The author seems to be confusing notability with notoriety; I've added a clarification on that article's talk page in the hopes of steering further edits in the right direction. Flakeloaf 02:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per Flakeloaf. Addhoc 13:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically, the author of an article is supposed to include all citations when the article is created. We are not required in any way to keep unsourced information and it's perfectly legitimate to delete information that isn't sourced without warning. An AfD lasts five days; there is still time left to add sources before the AfD is closed, sources that should have been included when the original information is added. --The Way 06:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have simplified the article. He was a recluse. I hope it is OK now--Rsbj66 19:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless notability is established in the usual way by WP:BIO. Coming into this AFD and saying "oh but he is notable" doesn't do much good unless solid references are given. If the article is improved to pass WP:BIO please notify me on my talk page so that I can consider changing my vote. — coelacan talk — 19:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the only source cited is original research, therefore, failes WP:V. Also as it was stated, the subject was a recluse and probably known by only the people within the Vaishnavism group that the user joined in India. As he is the author of the only source and a member of the religious party, inclusion of this article on Wikipedia may be considerd WP:ADVERT. BTW, the user Rsbj66 has been warned before about WP:N regarding his autobiographical article, Richard Shaw Brown, and was guided to read up on Wikipedia policeis before. -- Emana 19:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets notability guidelineBakaman 04:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What part meets WP:N, please explain -- Emana 16:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)?[reply]
      • The fact that he was noted in VNN a prominent vaisnava newspaper.Bakaman 20:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is great! I don't know about laws in other countries, but If the VNN is a serialized newspaper that is printed at least four times a year, it qualifies as a bonafied periodical under US law and will definitely satisfy WP:N for being non-trivial. Can you get us more information on VNN? Because expanding a well cited article beats deleting one any day. -- Emana 21:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article in VNN appears to be about a different person with a similar name. The Krishnadas Babaji of the Wikipedia article died in 1980; the obit in VNN is about someone who died in 2003. I can't read the material in the pdf, so I have no idea whether it relates to the person that Richard S. Brown is writing about. Is "Krishnadas Babaji" even a "real" name? Or is it more of a name that someone might take on becoming a monk, like a Christian monk named "Brother Bartholomew"? There may be many monks with this name. --Brianyoumans 23:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarification: the article listed as "VNN World" does not seem to be about 'our' Babaji. Of the three links added by RSB, 2 don't presently work, and the third actually does seem to be about 'our' Babaji, although the names don't match completely. I think we are making a little progress. I am still a little concerned about how notable this person is, but at least we have some independent evidence that he existed. --Brianyoumans 00:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further comment: It is unclear how much value to put on articles on VNN; articles are not written by reporters but instead solicited from viewers, although they are supposed to meet certain standards. --Brianyoumans 01:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The free participation model of VNN does raise questions of reliability as a source, but it does not discredit it totally. Yet, as Wikipedia itself suggests that we should not cite other articles on Wikipedia, any source shadier than Wikipedia itself should be considered not up to the standards of verifiability. Also, User:Rsbj66 has added his own website as an external link further diluting his own credibility against his claims of not promoting himself or his organizations. -- Emana 03:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, this is the other guy that died in 1982. Also heavily edited by User:Rsbj66 with no other sources listed but his own site. -- Emana 03:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh. So, we are presently left with afaik no functional outside references to the subject of this afd. I am also coming to believe, having looked at these various articles and some of the VNN site, that the identifying names and titles in the article are so common that it is very easy to get confused between different Babajis, Krishnadases, Maharajes, and Srilas. --Brianyoumans 06:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please also see the discussions going on at Rsbj66's other articles. Jump to see also section.
  • No opinion about the person's actual notability, but the contents of the article are unsalvageable - unverifiable religious claims stated as fact. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to Closing Admin If you don't want to delete based on this discussion, please relist for more discussion. I feel that over the course of this discussion it has become evident that the author is unable to come up with any independent verification of the subject's notabiility or even existence, but this was not evident to the early "keep" votes. --Brianyoumans 19:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough in Vaishnava and Ikcson. See this long biography (in Italian) [70] He is one of the few saints listed in this page: [71] --Mallarme 21:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article in Italian seems very clearly to be about a different person - compare the photos, and also look at the fact that that person seems to have been still alive in the 1990s, while "our" Babaji died around 1980. And the list of "saints" is just a list, and I can't tell which name you believe matches - there are many similar names. As I have said above, that is one of the major problems here - it seems there are many monks with very similar names. --Brianyoumans 02:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above discussion. utcursch | talk 10:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Also

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 23:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diluted (song)[edit]

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

No ascertainment of notability. If Wikipedia had an article for every song on every notable album, the result would be a deludge of useless song-stubs. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 21:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related articles nominated for the same reason:
Disasterpiece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
515 (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eyeless (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prosthetics (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 21:31, 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 per consensus and per author request. --Coredesat 05:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umbridge's Clipboard[edit]

Umbridge's Clipboard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Page about a website, article only contains information on what's on the website, with no indication of notability in the article or the 26 total google hits. The reason it's here is because the page was recreated after an expired prod, ie. the deletion is contested. - Bobet 21:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section in the article listing some other information such as Google hits and where it's linked. As for the comment Danlina made, I understand that not every HP website needs an article. I never said they did. Yes, I admit I put my article on here to increase my traffic, but if I want to promote my website, and if I do it in a neutral, non-commercial way, I don't see why I can't. Also I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and haven't achieved top article-writing skills. --Austinsimcox 19:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Austin, we were all new once, don't worry! We know you didn't say every fan site needs an article; however, 26 Google hits is very few, and your web site fails WP:WEB notability policies. Wikipedia is not meant to advertise your site, even if it is done neutrally -- the site, or whatever the subject of the article, should already be notable enough that it's not seeking visitors. Don't be disheartened -- it's difficult to maintain a fan site, so keep it up. But we can't accept an entry on your site until it is acknowledged greatly by the press, or by J. K. Rowling, or for something else notable. Hope you understand, and that you'll still decide to stick around at Wikipedia. If you want, you can have a user WP:ADOPT you to get slightly more acquainted with policies and article writing. Best, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand now. Thanks for your support. I now understand what "notable" means and I'll allow the article to be taken down. I'll check out WP:ADOPT too. I thought I could use Wikipedia as advertising space but I see now how that would be unfair. Thank you all. :)--Austinsimcox 21:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Nugent[edit]

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

Here we have a politician who not only lost the election he stood for, he lost his deposit. No independent sources, and no sign of meeting WP:BIO. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete He was 8th of 8 candidates with 178 votes, being beaten even by the 'Legalise Cannabis Alliance'. The only media coverage was a 'looser' story from the Shetland News. I'm going to nominate his Free Scotland Party as well (separate AfD).--Docg 22:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable. A Google News search doesn't give any articles for him. For those of us not up on Scottish election procedure, I assume "lost his deposit" means he had a spectacularly bad showing? --Carnildo 22:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In the UK, one needs to pay a deposit of 500 pounds to be a candidate in a general election. However, if the candidate receives at least 5% of the vote in the consituency, the deposit is refunded. So "losing your deposit" means that you got less than 5% of the vote and you didn't get your 500 pounds back. --Metropolitan90 23:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is not notable enough to receive an article. Should be part of the article about the Free Scotland Party and possibly be dealt with in a section on Party candidates. Also, would recommend re-directing the article to the Free Scotland Party. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 23:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ample precedent for losing candidates failing notability. No reason not to be listed in the results, but not sufficient for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 00:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assertion that losing candidates do fail notability requirements as there are literally millions of candidates who have lost elections and it just doesn't make any sense to have article about all of them. I am a former candidate who has lost elections and I don't think an article about me would be notable. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite as simple as that. Up the page there is a discussion going on to delete a candidate who WON an election (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Seeley). Surely what needs to influence the discussion is whether the person himself is notable; there are countless examples of notable people losing elections (Paul Foot for example) but their other achievements qualify them. That may be the case with Brian Nugent, and it could be that having been a candidate for the SNP (no further details given in the article), left them and set up a rival party is itself sufficient to confer notability. I don't know enough about Scottish politics to come to a decision so I abstain at this point. (Edwardlalone - you are too modest I'm sure!) Emeraude 12:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Mais oui! 13:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only did he lose, and lose his deposit, he managed to do so without making the news. Since WP:N rests on being the centre of meejah attention, for 15 minutes anyway, the subject is very much not notable and the contents of the article not verifiable. Given that Brian Nugent falls under WP:BLP, it would be extremely unsound to have an article on him absent reliable sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:43, 23 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. Cbrown1023 14:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sullo (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

Bio related to Open Security Foundation, which was recently merged and deleted. The prior no consensus closure was overturned at deletion review, but consensus for outright deletion was not established, so it is back here for further consideration. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 22:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Being a corporate officer does not satisfy WP:BIO. There are only 118 unique google hits for "Chris Sullo". His involvement in the Nikto software would make him notable, if it were notable itself. --Wildnox(talk) 00:07, 21 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. In addition, one of the keep arguments provides a stronger argument for deletion than for keeping. --Coredesat 05:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ill Mitch (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted and recreated. The speedily deletion of the recreation was overturned at deletion review due to a mention in Stuff magazine. So the article is now restored and back here to discuss if notability is sufficiently established. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 22:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Fails WP:MUSIC. The subject has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." The mention in Stuff magazine is only a couple of dozen words, buried in the middle pages.
    Subject cannot be found on Amazon.com, which is a pretty good indication that he fails criteria about sales. All of the many Ghits are trivial sites: social networking (mySpace, and similar) and directories (including user-posted sites like lyric sites and Last FM).
    There are no reviews by non-trivial independent publications.
    Have you noticed the 'update' posted to the blog entry, the URL of which was proved by the editor: [72] Specifically: "should be obvious that this is a hoax. But if it's not, well, now it is." The mention in Stuff also hints at this.
    The creator of this version of the article seems to have a WP:COI, indicated by 1) desperation to keep this on Wikipedia, 2) this article is the full concern of his contributions here since 15 November 2006 (after a 10 month absence), and 3) communication with the subject is proven through his very abrupt assertions that he has permission to post the images.
    All of the concerns expressed in the first AFD are still very valid. At the end of the day, this is about a non-notable rapper (per WP:MUSIC) using Wikipedia for self promotion. There is very little on even his own website to indicate notability. All we have to go on is an incredibly brief mention in a lads mag. According to the cited blog entry, provided by Jellonuts, it is also a hoax. The JPStalk to me 22:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is a re-write of on the subject of the article that was deleted 6 months ago. The authors are different and the articles are not similar. I was not the original author, but I did most of the updating. I saw the block was lifted in review, so I went ahead and uploaded the latest version in case someone else wants to work with it and for review. I'll repost the notability sources here on the AfD and then I am done with it because I am sick of arguing over this silly article. As for COI issues, I worked hard and "wasted" a lot of time updating this page, so yes I was fightig to keep it and maybe I have been a little obsessive. This was indeed my first major contribution, though I have made some other minor edits to other articles under my ip address because I forget to sign in sometimes. I do make small edits when I see mistakes on other articles, and after this contribution I did plan to continue to contribute to other articles. Like I said, I am discouraged and done because I am sick of my integrity being questioned. Yes, I am an Ill Mitch fan, no I am not Ill Mitch. Do what you will, here is the info I had:

Notability as an independent artist and an internet phenomenon:

Notable mentions:

  • Stuff Magazine article, April 2003 Page 38. Stuff magazine is a mainstream entertainment magazine. There is a scan of the article avaliable since Stuff Magazine does not have free archives of old editions avaliable on their web site.
  • Bacon Magazine article accessed at http://www.frymybacon.com/articles/articles.php?articleID=422
  • Colorado Daily newspaper article from Thursday, June 12, 2003 edition.
  • The artist's web site's high traffic http://www.illmitch.com/ that has 1978615 hits as of today and, also high Google hits and My Space hits.
  • The artist is mentioned by name in a song by independant artist U-Kru which was linked to on the original article.

No, you won't find his CD's on Amazon etc. How many independent artists music are avaliable there though?

That's what I have, and I believe that the newspaper and two magazine articles are enough to warrant having an article. It would detract from wikipedia as an information source to delete it because this silly rapper really is an internet phenomenon to a lot of people. I first started editing the page because I did a wiki search for Ill Mitch and saw it was a recreated page that needed updating. I made mistakes because I had not done much of this before, and I think it is now up to wiki standards. It's not reliable to mention this, but I do want to say anecdotally that several people at my college have purchased his CD's and know about him. He is silly and weird, maybe even fake, but nevertheless he is notable. Jellonuts 23:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and SALT per my comments on deletion review, which are in accordance with the statements made above by The JPS. MSJapan 00:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but don't salt, as the band could conceivably become notable enough in the future. The sources provided don't seem good enough. Also, if a band has nothing on Amazon.com that is a pretty good sign of non-notability. Jellonuts asked "how many independent artists music are available there (Amazon.com)?" Actually, a lot. Indeed, many indie bands that are not notable enough for Wikipedia have cds for sale on Amazon.com and Amazon is widely utilized by people who are really into indie music for this reason. --The Way 01:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. EliasAlucard|Talk 02:37, 21 Jan, 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, there have been no proofs of notability despite multiple requests. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When the argument for keep is based on the premise that we should ignore WP:RS for this article, there's a problem. GassyGuy 04:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is obviously a hoax; he isn't an actual, serious artist, but is rather a "character" fabricated for laughs. Being Russian myself, I was able to easily discern that he isn't actually Russian; on the cover of one of his albums, "ILL Mitch" was not transliterated properly into Russian Cyrillic, but was "transliterated" by using the phonetic Cyrillic keyboard layout. Also, in his songs, he states some ridiculous aspects of and facts about life in Russia that are blatantly untrue. I believe that this article ought to not be deleted because if other articles that cover various "internet phenomena" are seldom prone to deletion due to what they are about, then there is no reason to just delete this article due to ILL Mitch's authenticity as an actual independent artist being questionable. The article needs to be simply straightened out so that it would truthfully reflect the internet phenomenon that is ILL Mitch; it shouldn't be in such a format that depicts him as an actual artist.

Xolman 22:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Xolman[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Scotland Party[edit]

  • Delete Seems to be a one-man creation of Brian Nugent who's bio is also up for deletion. I can find no media interest, not independent comment. They contested two seats in the 2005 UK elections and came last with under 200 votes in each. They are planing to contest 3 seats in the forthcoming Scottish elections. Utterly no evidence of notability. Docg 22:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Political Parties are notable and article can be improved by future editors and de-stubbed. Would suggest that it be included as part of a Wikiproject as a De-Stub Task. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 23:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Political parties are notable (and they actually contested 3 seats in 2005, coming 2nd last in one of them). And for media interest, what about this? --Vclaw 23:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Oh come on. Political parties are not inherently notable - they are only notable for what they do. I can start a political party tomorrow in my living room, with all the ease of starting a stamp-collector's club. In the UK you don't have to register. Me and my friend can start one - and not even tell anyone! To contest a seat in a UK election, you only have to pay a £500 deposit to get your name on the ballot paper and you are not obliged campaign, in fact you don't even need to turn up. So, some evidence of notability beyond that is needed. The 'Shetland News' story that you cite, is just a local rag laughing at the person who came last in the local election poll. And read it! It admits that they can't even raise £5,000 to contest the EU elections!!!!! Let's face it - no national newspaper even mentions these people - there is no independent commentary on them. They employ no-one and have no office. They don't even appear to have registered as a charity. They put out a launch release (see their website), and evidently, the media ignored it. So should we. Absolutely no evidence of notability whatsoever.--Docg 23:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you have taken note of the Free Scotland Party. How did you come across this article if it is not notable? It seems to me that if it is notable enough to receive attention from you and to be nominated for deletion that it should be given the benefit of doubt, and also its not Wikipedia's editors responsibility to determine what is and isn't notable enough based on our subjective judgments. Wikipedia policy states, "Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy." It is clear that most people in the world find political parties to be notable enough and some actually vote based on the political party. Inherently, we do not decide which political party is notable and which is not because that is a subjective opinion and judgment while deciding that political parties warrant attention is not subjective. To give attention to one political party in Scotland because we subjectively believe it is notable while ignoring another because we subjectively believe it isn't is a violation of Neutrality. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 01:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, how I came across it is hardly relevant. Maybe I hit special:random. Your arguement is 'if it is notable enough for me to nominate it, then we should keep it???' My point is not that I find it unremarkable (or else I'd be nominating pokemon articles!) my point is that journalists and third party sources find THIS political party not worthy of mention. Objectively, we can say that this party is not being noted. For goodness sake, your arguments are ridiculous.--Docg 02:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your choice to misinterpret my argument is laughable. I did not make the argument that if its notable enough for you to nominate it than we should keep it. My point what that if you took the time to nominate it as well as to take a position on the deletion of an article about a Free Scotland Party candidate that it should be given the benefit of the doubt. Which is not to say that we should keep it. Also, let's look at your claim that it needs to be newsworthy to be notable. This isn't consistent with Wikipedia policy that a topic does not have to be newsworthy to be considered notable. Also, I consider your arguments to be just as ridiculous consider your arguments to be subjective and based on whether the topic is newsworthy when newsworthiness has no bearing on whether a topic is notable. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "If that article's notable surely this one is" isn't a consideration in an AfD nomination. Wikipedia is just too large to tackle all non-notable articles at once. Notability is an objective criterion based on the amount (both quantity and duration) of attention a subject has received in independent, reliable sources. Flakeloaf 01:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is the opinion of editors such as yourself but I do not recognize it as a valid premise to determine what is clearly a subjective decision based on whether an article should or shouldn't be included. It gives people with a POV the opportunity to prevent the inclusion of articles they disagree with on topics they do not want to be focused on because they can always say (subjectively) that an article has not receive enough third party attention. This is why Wikipedia has taken the position that an article doesn't have to be newsworthy to be notable. I concur with your assessment about notability having to be based on objectivity but its clear here that objectivity isn't the standard being used to determine the notability of a political party (i.e., it's not as major of a party as mine and people who write for news agencies that are members of my party have not condescended to write about this minor party that I want to make sure doesn't receive notice). The fact is that 99% of people consider political parties in countries dominated by them to be notable. It is shameful when non-members of those parties refuse to write articles about them or to give them attention and we shouldn't feed their insanity. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because the concept of political parties is notable does not mean every party in the world is notable. For example, I'm the leader of the Bean-with-Bacon Party, but I'd hardly call it a notable group. Our best showing was when a candidate we fielded came in sixth out of a field of eight in the elections for high school class president, gaining twelve votes. --Carnildo 01:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Political parties are by no means inherently notable. The fact that this party couldn't even raise £5,000 to compete in European elections demonstrates their lack of notability. Also, the above arguement by Edward is rather circular. If finding an article and nominating it proves notability then nothing could ever get deleted because it would become notable when it was nominated. That is absolutely ridiculous. Edward is right in claiming that notability isn't subjective here, but he is incorrect in his further argument that this indicates that "most people in the world find political parties to be notable." Where is your statistical data that the majority of the world's population considers parties to be inherently notable? We regularly delete articles on political parties here because they don't meet Wikipedia's standards. If the party gets a significant amount of attention from the press and if it gets multiple seats in the legislature then its notable. This party doesn't hold multiple seats in the legislature and doesn't seem to have significant and substantial press coverage. --The Way 01:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do what? That is shameful and all editors involved in such deletion should be ashamed of themselves and they are wrong for deleting political parties that the government recognizes and its sad that their POV on how political parties are to be deleted have prevailed and I personally take issue with that POV and object to it and to the deletion of political parties because some editors do not consider them notable. Deleting this article would be inappropriate and if editors such as yourself have behaved like this in the past you should be ashamed of yourself, and if editors such as yourself have used Wikipedia policy in this manner than you should be just as ashamed of yourself. Also, my argument is not circular but yours is ridiculous but I am sure that other arguments made by other editors who agree with your POV are just as ridiculous. To have a requirement about how many seats a political party gets in the legislature as determining whether they are notable is wrong. It has no bearing on whether a political party is notable. What number do you affix. 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, etc? Also, how do you subjectively determine what is a significant amount of attention from the press when Wikipedia has made it clear that newsworthiness is not a criteria in determining whether an article is notable. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll ignore your personal attacks at myself and at other editors who don't hold your position, though perhaps the closing admin should look into it. Otherwise, Wikipedia has very clear policies on how to establish notability, namely the need for multiple, legitimate third party sources which discuss the article's topic more than just in passing. This article has no third party sources whatsoever. Thus this should be deleted unless such sources are provided. If you don't agree with this policy, that's fine, but this policy is one that determines the outcomes of AfD discussions. If you want to discuss problems with this policy (which will, I might add, get you pretty much nowhere) then feel free to open up a discussion topic on it at the Village Pump related to policy. --The Way 05:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are wrong. You are referring to WP:N which is a guideline not a policy. Guidelines are their to indicate what we tend agree in debates, and to inform those participating in this debate. Guidelines do NOT "determine the outcome of AfD discussion" - consensus does that. Since the existence of this party is verifiable (and WP:V IS policy), then consensus is what counts. The guideline may help us to form a consensus, but if the was a consensus to keep this, then it would get kept.--Docg 09:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there showing was not noted by independent sources - most of the sources were just recording the numbers in the election. I can find none that have passed comment on the party, other than the Shetland Times's shaggy dog story on 'guess who came last in the local poll'.--Docg 02:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of articles about minor political parties on Wikipedia and none of them should be deleted because of some erroneous belief that a Party needs to be newsworthy to be included when Wikipedia policy makes it clear that this is not a standard to determine whether an article on a topic is to be included here. It's completely inappropriate to delete such articles simply because editors subjectively believe that they aren't notable. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Flakeloaf that the article could possibly be merged into the 2007 Scottish Parliamentary elections but I am concerned with that approach too. There are numerous articles about American Political Parties that have received little or no news attention that would have to be merged and this would create unnecessary merged articles. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref Doc Glasgow's comment at 23.54: is is necessary to register a political party with the UK Electoral Commission in order for the party's name and insignia to appear on the ballot paper. (See Registration of Political Parties Act 1998.) This party appears to have done so. In the spirit of WP:C&E, if the party were to field candidates (plural) at the Holyrood election, I think that would pass muster as a notable party. For now, merge and redirect to 2007 Scottish Parliament elections. Eludium-q36 11:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional to the above, candidates need to be nominated, seconded and supported, the total number depending on the type of election (for Parliament and local council, 10), so you can't just declare yourself a party and stand. I'm in two minds about this one: I don't know enough about Scottish politics, so will abstain. Emeraude 13:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From their party accounts it appears that they have single figure membership. There are scores of political parties in the UK. Most of them are not listed on Wikipedia. Finally, the only referenced bit of material (the child assault) keeps being removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.108.244 (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and others. --Mais oui! 13:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. --Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what with there are no non-trivial reports on the party in the national press. Indeed, I can't find a single mention in the Herald or the Scotsman (but that might be incompetence on my part). Mere existence might qualify for inclusion in a directory, but Wikipedia is an enyclopedia. There's a certain amount of WP:NFT-ness here, and the faintest hint of WP:COI and the like into the bargain. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What a surprise, the Glasgow Herald and the Scotsman failing to acknowledge anything outside the Central Belt (or just taking the piss) - BTW you missed this mention. And yes, there is a definite conflict of interest here, with the SNP fans trying to destroy anything that opposes their viewpoint. -- Charlie 01:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The column you refer to states At the last count, the Scottish Party had one member - Brian - raising the interesting possibility that he has had a schism with himself. Q.E.D. (And btw, please assume good faith and don't impute motives to people. I nominated this for deletion and I'm a raging unionist ;) )--Docg 01:26, 24 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, should have been speedied sooner as copyvio. --Coredesat 05:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hansen Lyrics[edit]

Andrew Hansen Lyrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Not encyclopediac - just a list of (probably copyright-violating) lyrics of Andrew Hansen's parody songs. One of the songs' lyrics aren't even his. -- Chuq 22:23, 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 Keep. --Yannismarou 20:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Mormonism[edit]

Criticism of Mormonism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
  • Delete I am a home-grown Mormon and I just think that this article downright stirrs up trouble. If you want to know about a cow, do you ask a cow, or do you ask a duck? If you want to know about Mormons, are you going to ask a Mormon, or are you going to ask a scientist who doesn't believe in any religion at all? Look, if people want to know about Mormons, they should ask Mormons. Please delete this article, as I and many others believe that this just causes unnecessary trouble.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.225.56.155 (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC).— 69.225.56.155 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete I believe that this article violates several Wikipedia policies and should be deleted. This article violates POV forking, NPOV, Reliable Sources, and Neutrality. I do not believe that this article can be consistent with Wikipedia's policy that that articles that cannot conform to Verifiability, No Original Research and Neutral Point of View as the article was created as a criticism of Mormonism. The issues addressed here would best be discussed in other articles where editor consensus can be reached and POV be limited or otherwise eliminated. I also believe that Administrators should delete articles that cannot (and definately will not) conform to all three of these policies which this article does not.Edward Lalone | (Talk) 22:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of precedent. (See Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Islam, etc.). If you do not believe it meets WP:NPOV work to clean it up and make the article NPOV; it should not simply be deleted. Soltak | Talk 23:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My assertion isn't that it does not meet WP:NPOV but that it cannot meet that standard. It would be like me creating an article Criticism of George W. Bush as a POV fork on George W. Bush where I can control the content of the article and make it conform to a POV about him. Also the articles on Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Judaism and Criticism of Islam are best dealt with in other articles as well and these articles are also POV forking. They have as much place on Wikipedia as an article titled Praises of Mormonism, Praises of Christianity and Praises of Judaism created in place of the articles about these religions in an effort to avoid having to build consensus on an article about these religions and that is exactly what these articles seek to do. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 23:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These criticism of X articles have survived AFD, so there is no class precedent. They are not forks, they are subarticles. Of course it's possible for it to meet NPOV, and it should. To the extent it does not, it needs to be tagged or worked out in Talk. Keep. And to be clear, keep all. --Dhartung | Talk 00:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep because AfD is not the forum to discuss merging topics. See similarly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of George W. Bush. This page is especially needed, as are the criticisms pages that represent more than one religious group (like Christianity). Basically, there is no single article for this to be merged into. Criticisms span the whole Latter Day Saint movement. It's moreover not a fork. The page does not purport to tell the history of Mormonism from an anti-Mormon perspective. It discusses some history in relation to criticisms because that's the topic of this article. Cool Hand Luke 00:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not discussing merging the articles. I am nominating the article for deletion and suggesting that all such articles that are created by editors who advocate keeping these articles be deleted as well. Nor is the talk page of the article the appropriate place for this discussion as it's not a discussion of whether the article is NPOV but whether such POV articles should exist in the first place. Nor has community consensus ever been reached on this topic but those of us who disagree with those who have responded so far in favor of keeping the articles are driven to leave Wikipedia. Everytime we try to challenge those who advance POV and POV forks we tend to be left with two choices. Be civil and leave or be civil and let these POV advocates prevail and move on to other articles but that is also inappropriate. It's time that Wikipedia drew the line and made it clear the POV will not be tolerated. I also see that from the other articles that have been nominated of this kind that this point has been made by other editors but those who disagree with this point tend to prevail because those of us who disagree with them tend to be civil (even pass to the point of saying, "please don't jump all over me." Edward Lalone | (Talk) 00:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus has indeed be reached on the issue. You only argue that it has not because you disagree with the result. The numerous Criticism of X articles would not exist if such a consensus had not be reached. Your proposal to delete all of these articles is unreasonable. Nonetheless, the result of this afd should determine consensus on the issue. In addition, disagreeing with someone and pointing out the absurdity of their arguments does not constitute a violation of WP:CIVIL. Soltak | Talk 00:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further note that precedent does not exist only in the form of other Criticism of X articles but also due to the following: Sections of articles are permitted to be spun off into their own articles if they grow too long. Many articles have "Criticisms" sections. Do you propose eliminating all of those as well? Soltak | Talk 00:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is absurd is your argument Soltak and not only will I not back down from you and the other editors here who agree with your POV but I don't recognize that a consensus has been reached by anyone but those who agree with you. Those of us who don't are left standing waving our fists in the air as you decree that a consensus has been reached by you and other editors who agree with you but those of us who do not have not reached a consensus with those of you who accept your POV Nor will I leave Wikipedia as others have done in the past because of this kind of conduct on the part of editors. What is also unreasonable is that these articles are permitted and aren't deleted and your suggestion that this is unreasonable to delete them is itself unreasonable. What this afd will determine is that you and those who agree with you will prevail and those who don't can find that consensus is nothing more than editors such as Soltak and Cool Hand agreeing to ignore any real consensus with those of us who would like to see a more moderate Wikipedia policy on this issue. I also don't propose eliminating Criticism sections as those are part of the main article on a subject and are not POV forking. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 00:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, then how about folding Criticism of Mormonism back into the main article? Soltak | Talk 00:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no reason to discuss whether there should be sections on the Criticisms of Mormonism in individual articles about Mormonism. That is outside of the scope of this discussion and would require far to much discussion to reach any conclusion that is agreeable to everyone. This is why we need to focus on whether such articles should exist. We aren't really discussing whether there should be criticism sections in individual articles or criticisms included in the text of articles because that can be dealt with on a NPOV basis as opposed to entire articles existing of a POV nature. So, putting aside whether this information should be included in other articles it comes down to whether this article and others like it should be deleted. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 00:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think your instincts are good, however, we're far from consensus on this issue. See Wikipedia:Criticism. And again, I think criticisms of broad movements have even stronger justification for their own article than say, Criticism of George W. Bush. With a broad category like Mormonism, or especially Christianity, there's no way to merge relevent NPOV content into a single article. All of the articles would have criticism sections passages, and they would be massively redundant. As I see it, criticism articles are the only way to prevent forking for broad topics. Until we do reach consensus on this issue, take comfort that Mormonism is not alone. Cool Hand Luke
I believe that my position is correct and that such articles are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Criticism of a topic should not be permissible (i.e., "Separate articles consisting entirely of criticism of a topic are not allowed"). It is further stated by others that "creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic would usually be considered a POV fork, per POV forking." I believe that this position is correct and that there is no reason that consensus on the length and content of a criticism section of an article cannot be reached by the editors of that topic and that attempts to create articles dedicated specifically to criticism of a topic are inappropriate and are best addressed in that article. We need to draw the line somewhere and I believe it is at POV forking. Also, some redundancy in articles is not a negative but a positive as people may not be able to read multiple articles on the same topic. If there is redundancy in articles than it is up to editors to reach a consensus on what is included and what is excluded from a specific article and to work within a Wikipedia Project to eliminate redundancy where bad while promoting redundancy that is positive and assists people in research. I believe that consensus on what constitutes a POV fork has been reached and that at some point it need to be adhered to when it comes to Neutrality. It brings me no comfort that Criticism of Mormonism is not alone but instead brings me even less comfort as my issue isn't specifically with the Criticism of Mormonism article as it is with these articles not being deleted when they are a violation of Wikipedia policy. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 01:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you have a lot of good points. AfD is of two minds about this. Consider some debates over the last six months: CAIR critique needs to be broken off, but the patroleum industries criticisms were poorly written and need to be put back in. It's ok to criticize Hinduism, but forget unsourced Ghandhi. Criticism of The Subways is a fork, but Wikipedia is too damn long to squeeze in criticisms. World of Warcraft has referenced criticisms, while Marketing was an original research fork. Even poorly cited, we apparently need criticism of Judaism, but criticism on math education in the US is nonsense. We like criticizing corporations. The general trend seem to favor keeping this articles if (1) the subject article is already very long, and (2) the criticisms article is well-referenced. Cool Hand Luke 02:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. As long as the criticism can be verified and is itself notable, then a criticism section is warranted. If the article becomes too long, a subarticle about the criticism is warranted. In this case, the criticism article is well-written and contains enough references to be valid. -- Kesh 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The exact opposite is warranted. If the article becomes to long than there are two options 1) create an article for another section (i.e., history) of the topic, or 2) edit the content of the section and arrive at a consensus of what should and should not be included in the criticism section. Creating another article through POV forking is not acceptable and should not occur. Also, simply because a criticism can be verified does not mean that it deserves an article of its own. Wikipedia has sought to maintain a neutrality policy and these articles violate that neutrality and only brings ridicule of and criticism of Wikipedia. No professional encylopedia would have articles dealing specifically with the criticisms of a topic and for good reasons. These are best addressed as part of the article and if they are notable enough than they should be included in the text of the topic's article. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the premise that an article on a topic is long that articles should be created dealing specifically with criticisms of the topic. It makes just as much sense to create articles dealing with other areas of the topic as it does to create a article about the criticisms of the topic. If a new article needs to be created for length reasons than it should be from another section of the article with a Main Article reference and not with the criticisms of the topic as this only promote POV forking. I also do not agree that if the criticism article is well-written and contains references that the article becomes valid. POV articles do not become valid simply because someone is a good writer or is able to find sources that concur with their POV. It simply does not make sense to do so. POV forking is in my min inappropriate and is done to avoid consensus building. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cool Hand Luke above. Well-written article with enough verifiable information to back it up. -- Kesh 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not a good enough reasons to allow for the creation of POV articles through POV forking. It makes little to no sense to allow for the creation of such articles or to promote them. I can create a well-written article on just about any topic and include verifiable information to back up that POV but that does not warrant the creation of a new article dealing specifically with criticisms of a topic. Traditional encyclopdias do not have articles on criticisms and we should attempt to keep to that tradition of not creating articles dealing just with the criticisms of a topic. There are certain sections which can be expanded through the creation of sub-articles and it is urged that we do so but on the contrary it is against Wikipedia policy to be involved in POV forking. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you have it backwards. Wikipedia strives to maintian a neutral point of view. If there is significant, notable criticism of a topic, it deserves mention in a neutral manner here. If that criticism becomes too large to keep in the main article, creating a seperate article with it is valid. Claiming that criticism itself is POV is counter-intuitive. A POV-fork is when you create a seperate article specifically to promote a single view of the subject; these are not POV-forks, they are neutral sub-articles that happen to be focused on the criticism of their subjects.
Also, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There's going to be differences in how things work. You're free to disagree, but you're on the wrong side of this one per WP policies. -- Kesh 03:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to disagree and so are other editors but you and them are on the wrong side of Wikipedia policy on this issue and your interpretations of those policies are wrong. These sort of articles are POV forking and they have been rejected and should be rejected. In fact, this issue comes down to what is acceptable and what is not on Wikipedia. If editors are allowed to control Wikipedia policies and to interpret them so that articles can violate NPOV it will self-destruct. The proliferation of these kinds of articles will ultimately lead to people not trusting Wikipedia as a reliable source. There are differences between how Wikipedia works and how paper encylopedia's work but it shouldn't be a difference between professionalism and POV amatuerism which these articles are. Any respected encylopedia would not include such articles in their editions because they would lose customers, and people would begin to see them as nothing but the proliferation of viewpoints. Wikipedia is not a blog, it is not a forum, it is not a newspaper, it is not an all-inclusive source of information available online or offline but it is an encylopedia and while it is not a paper encyclopedia similar standards do apply here. It is always best for Wikipedia to err on the side of caution when it comes to POV. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you've misunderstood Wikipedia's policies entirely. However, I've explained my position per policies already and will not be sidetracked at this point. I admire your zeal, but feel it is misplaced, and will no longer participate in your need to expound on your POV about how Wikipedia should operate. -- Kesh 03:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have misunderstood Wikipedia's policy. But apparently the discussion is finished on your part as you will not be sidetracked by my desire to discuss what I believe is your inaccurate interpretation of Wikipedia policy and you won't participate anymore as you don't want to be sidetracked by my need to expound my POV. I also don't need to be told that you are right and that consensus is essentially: "I am right and you are wrong and that's that." According to Wikipedia: "In disputes, the term consensus is often used as if it means anything from genuine consensus to majority rule to my position." Your POV may not be correct at all and that is what we are here to discuss.
I also don't appreciate your tone, or your attitude. That I have a sincere difference of opinion and am seeking to reach a consensus on this issue while you think that you are right and therefore can dismiss everyone elses viewpoint based on your POV about how Wikipedia policy should be interpreted only goes to show why this kind of article remains on Wikipedia. The currnet consensus on Wikipedia about POV forks isn't fixed and can be changed. So, I say: Your POV about my understanding of Wikipedia is irrelevent to this discussion as I feel the same way about your understanding of Wikipedia policy. Yet, if you have something to add to this discussion in an effort to reach a consensus feel free to do so but don't think that I am going to accept your opinions as consensus when I disagree with them and with your interpretation. If you are rude enough to dismiss me that is your choice but I don't have to deal with your attitude nor I will not be sidetracked by your rudeness. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 04:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to what I have read the creation of an article on the criticism of a topic is considered a POV fork. There will always be disagreement about what constitutes a POV fork but its quite obvious that something is a POV fork when it seeks to avoid having to build a consensus in an article on a topic by creating a sub-article dealing specifically with criticisms. I don't know what your interpretation of a POV fork is but its obvious that you and those who agree with you have prevailed in the past and this must not be allowed to stand and that NPOV should be promoted even if you do not agree. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I respect wanting to avoid POV forks, that concern doesn't appear to apply to this article. Avoiding reference to criticisms of a world religion or political entity would be passive partisanship of that group (inherently NPOV), just as only a cursory reference to such criticisms. As the main article on Mormonism is extremely large, I would say it made sense to make this sub-article. Reading this article it is obviously intended as an overview of the various forms of criticism that have been proposed (as opposed to, say, an article making a direct attack on the subject), with sub-links to those specific critiques.
Overviews of notable subjects are encyclopaedic, giving attention to detractors of major organizations is needed to avoid partisanship, and wikipedia uses sub-articles regularly for organization and readability. I see no argument for deletion -Markeer 13:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No one is saying that we should avoid criticism of world religions or a political entity. The issue is how it is done and that creating an article specifically for the purpose of crititizing a topic is inappropriate and unprofessional and creates a source that is POV and not reliable. Wikipedia should be striving to create articles that maintain neutrality and these articles can no more maintain neutrality than can articles created for the sole purpose of advertising or promoting a specific topic, company or individual. You argue that a cursory reference to such criticisms is inherently POV and while its interesting to know that you consider all the encyclopedias that exist to be inherently POV except for Wikipedia. It is this kind of attitude that has caused the encylopedic community to criticize Wikipedia and it's becoming apparent to me that their assessment of Wikipedia's reliability is not far off. Anyone can create and edit an article on Wikipedia and there doesn't have to be any scholarly review and therefore there is a natural tendency here to create articles specifically for the purpose of criticizing a topic. Every topic that exists has its opponents and normally encyclopedias seek to balance those in articles on that topic but here we advocate the creation of articles based solely on a criticism of a topic and that is inherently POV. For some reason we feel that the unlimited scope of Wikipedia allows for this but it doesn't and it creates a perception of Wikipedia not being reliable. When I first started using Wikipedia I considered it to be highly reliable but over time I have changed to consider it at best only a starting point for further research and to be generally unreliable. Where do you draw the line? Can someone create an article titled "Criticism of the Criticisms of Mormonism?" It seems to me that there are editors here who are given undue consideration and that this causes a lack of balance in Wikipedia that should not be tolerated as it creates POV articles. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yes, POV forking concerns DO apply to this article. Criticism of Mormonism is apparent in just about ever article regarding mormonism... if you look at Wikipedia's proposed Criticism guidlines, it's fairly obvious that this article is inappropriate. "Separate articles consisting entirely of criticism of a topic are not allowed." That's pretty clear to me. gdavies 20:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect those editors who feel differently will prevail as they have in the past because those who felt the same way that you and I do on this have been driven to leave Wikipedia because of the attitude by other editors that such articles are appropriate and therefore cannot comment. This in my mind means that the only editors who will comment here on this issue are those who advocate POV forks such as this one. The next time this issue is brought up I doubt very much that either you or I will comment because of the result of the bias that is promoted. I have seriously considered leaving Wikipedia on several occasions because of this but I have chosen to remain and to edit articles I feel need to exist here. I had to give serious consideration to whether I would nominate this article for deletion and was somewhat concerned about doing so. I normally wouldn't take the time to challenge an unfair, and clear lack of neutrality as presented by these articles because those who advocate POV tend to be more outspoken than those who oppose it. Yet, maybe if more editors will nominate articles of this kind than over time someone may take notice of the bias of the overall community and maybe even the Media may become involved and ultimately force the hand of those who promote bias on Wikipedia. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only reliable way to handle these articles is to delete them. Far to many editors have left Wikipedia because of the conflict and lack of consensus of these articles. I based this on the fact that there tends to be high activity in these articles and then suddenly that activity essentially disappears and then the same conflicts are renewed by different editors. In watching the discussions of these kind of articles I have wanted to make comments but I have learned my lesson and tend not to become involved in them anymore as they have no merit and those editors such as yourself who believe these articles are appropriate can do whatever you want with them but I do feel that someone needs to draw attention to this problem. Your POV that these articles are legitimate is wrong and a violation of neutrality. Also, where editors are from who are questioning the appropriateness of these articles has no bearing at all on the issue. I could just as easily say that "A bunch of 'keeps' from outside of Utah aren't going to force us to keep an entire "Criticism of..." article style." It's clear based on your comments here that you are biased on this issue and are promoting POV forks. I will continue to challenge editors such as yourself and if necessary force you to show your true colors as tyrants who advocate POV on Wikipedia and who won't even compromise on an issue such as this one which would still allow for criticism to be expressed on Wikipedia about an article's topic without creating entire articles based on a POV. I doubt that anyone would agree that if George W. Bush or one of his supporters logged on and created an article titled "Praises of George W. Bush." Who here would think that this wasn't a POV article? What if they also argued that they were simply expanding on a section in the article about George W. Bush? At some point we need to draw the line and its clear that this line should be at POV articles because there is no way to form consensus in these articles as opposed to consensus being almost guaranteed in a topics article. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You and Cool Hand Luke are right that my geography lesson was bad faith and uncalled for. I apologize for that, and I've removed it. I'll respond to the rest of your reply in a bit, after I mull it all over. — coelacan talk — 08:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm going to be referring to WP:POVFORK here. This article is not a POV-fork because it is "summary style". The difference would be if this article was created for the purpose of inserting content into Mormonism that was rejected from that article for being uncited. But you've shown no evidence that this is the case. Moreover, even if it were the case, and if this article were suffering from profound POV issues, there is an alternative route besides deletion. You could balance the article. For every criticism in the article, you could potentially provide reliably-sourced Mormon responses. This would make the article meet WP:NPOV. As for your claim that I am a "tyrant", well, I'm flattered, but even if I were "biased on this issue and are promoting POV forks" that would mean little. You are biased toward removing criticism; we all have our biases. What's your point? The idea behind WP:NPOV is not that we each try to be perfectly flat (impossible for most people), but that "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. ... As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints." Your POV and my POV add up to NPOV. The problem with your whole argument here, and why you are wasting a great deal of your own time (and a fair share of others' time), is that you are trying to argue for policy change by using an AFD. This is often seen as WP:POINT, or "hostage-taking" of an article, and you'll pretty much never get your demands this way. I suggest you try making your complaints at the Wikipedia:Village Pump instead. — coelacan talk — 09:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: although I obviously agree with your vote, I do find your comment about a "a couple of 'keeps' from Utah" to be a bit unfriendly. One might imagine that you're marginalizing these editors' contributions—perhaps discounting the contributions of all Utah/LDS editors. I just don't think the comment was necessary. It's true that precedent speaks strongly against deletion, but it has nothing to do with the geography or religion of those who suggest the precedent should change. Cool Hand Luke 07:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I respect your viewpoint but I did not consider AFD to be about voting and did not consider Wikipedia to be a democracy. If Wikipedia is going to be about precedents and about voting than there is very little real neutrality. I would even assert that this is an American POV about how things should operate (i.e., democracy and the Supreme Court) and it fails to recognize that democracy and precedent should not govern neutrality. We shouldn't be voting on whether an article contains POV and deleting them because they contain POV's but we should delete articles as per Wikipedia policy that violate neutrality. To continue adhering to a precedent based on the opinions of editors who promote a lack of neutrality concerns me as precedent tends to become even more fixed over time. I also think that precedent speaks for deletion and that the repeated nomination of these articles suggest that they are in fact POV forking and that many editors consider them to be POV forking. To think that one interpretation has prevailed in totality on this issue to date would indicate a conflict of interest and I assert that an environment exists where editors perceive tyranny in the process. At some point we have to say that while we seek to promote neutrality that real neutrality can only exist if articles that deal with a topic include a balance of POV's and that no article should exist either as an advertisement or criticism of a topic which these articles do. They are the counterpart of advertisements. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 20:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless you propose to delete Mormonism as well. AFD is not the place to discuss mergers. Ben Standeven 20:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not discussing a merger and I am not suggesting that we merge the articles. There is another discussion going on about whether we should merge the articles but this isn't it. This is a discussion of whether we should delete these kind of articles as they violate neutrality. Edward Lalone | (Talk)
  • Merge to Mormonism. All Criticism of ... articles should be merged into their parent article. Wikipedia is not paper, and people whose browsers can't edit more than 32k should edit sections or not edit. Argyriou (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Yes, encylcopedias do include information that is critical of the subject at hand. Indeed, it is the height of academic irresponsibility to ignore criticism of any topic when it is under consideration. To put it in terms I know well, I would not talk about Martin Luther withot also talking about his anti-semitic remarks (in both a section and an article). To not cover that material would be POV. Pastordavid 00:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided - One thing that bothers me about the arguments is the examples of articles such as Criticism of Christianity, Islam, etc. I did find one article on Criticism of the Catholic Church; however, I was not successful in finding similar articles for Southern Baptists, Quakers, Episcopalians, or even Calvinists? Even more surprising is no critique of the Jehovah Witness group. To criticize a religion as a whole is one thing, but when there are so few comprable articles to the one in question, it sure raises a red flag for me. In addition, I would repeat a comment from above; every single article regarding Mormonism is replete with criticisms. If Wikipedia is going to keep this example of criticizing a single church, then I assume it would be appropriate to remove the vast majority of the criticism and place it in this single article, which is what the Roman Catholic Church has achieved; it is virtually devoid of criticism. I prefer the example of the Roman Catholic Church article, but I think it would be almost impossible to achieve for Mormonism. Given its small size relative to other groups, it would be virtually impossible to overcome the nature of friendly Christians who insist on ensuring that criticism falls on every article. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- StormRider, if you check out the links in my post above, there is an example of criticism of a mainline denomination as both a section in the main article, and as an independent article. The same phenomena can be seen in the articles on Christianity, which include criticism as a section and as a "Criticism of..." article (not to mention the many other articles which could be considered direct criticism of Christianity]]). That said, I would certainly be in favor of minimizing criticism of Mormonism in other articles, and linking to this one main "Criticism of..." article. Pastordavid 16:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As some readers may know, I am strongly supportive of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Please bear this in mind when I say this: I firmly believe that religions and creeds can show themselves best when they are tested. We are taught ( by Brigham Young ) that people should "seek to know the object of their present existence, and how to apply, in the most profitable manner for their mutual good and salvation, the intelligence they possess. Let them seek to know and thoroughly understand things within their reach, and to make themselves well acquainted with the object of their being here, by diligently seeking unto a superior Power for information, and by the careful study of the best books." I believe that if Brigham Young were alive today he would seek to include Wikipedia in "the best books", and would feel, as I do, that understanding comes not just from a one-sided view of things, but from diligent study of all sides of a case. This is a teaching of many scriptures, and we all do ourselves a dis-service if we ignore it. By all means, let us ensure that we do not become biased to support ( or oppose ) criticisms of this or any other creed, and let us not be mean-spirited or petty, but in the spirit of clear understanding that is handed down to us from our predecessors, I say Keep this article, and similar articles on other creeds. WMMartin 16:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An article that references valid sources in this particular subject matter, given that the LDS Church's founding and history, versus other much-older Christian church histories, lends a valid, NPOV comparison and, as such, debate of its differences in practice over the largest of the faiths, Catholicism, and the many Protestant faiths. This article does require cleanup per WP policies. Many comments in this discussion are "playing the system", which itself is against WP policy; the existence of the supporting criticism articles on other faiths keeps NPOV by their presence, provided they, too, adhere to current policy. Personally speaking, as I practice another faith other than Mormonism, I may personally take an LDS bible found in public and throw it in the trash as a personal objection of heresy. However, to keep the purposes of WP as neutral source of information, no contributor should be able to lock out criticism of any faith, including your own, for the sake of personal objection to it. --Spencerian 17:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have worked on both the Criticism of the Catholic Church and the Criticism of Judaism articles. I don't believe much of the content of either article but there are people who do and the criticisms are notable and thus the articles are encyclopedic. I will grant that these articles often start out as poor quality articles but I earnestly believe that the topics are encyclopedic and the articles can be improved.
BTW, there are plenty of people who would agree with Edward Lalone. There was a heated debate about the Criticism of the Catholic Church article and it was agreed to create subsidiary articles on specific subtopics and include criticism in each subsidiary article. I'm not against this approach. In fact, I agreed to it. However, as far as I know, the subsidiary articles were never created (I haven't been active over there for a while) and so the Criticism of the Catholic Church article was kept.
It's my opinion that the two approaches are not incompatible. You could have detailed criticisms in each subsidiary article and an overview article like this one summarizing all the criticisms.
IMO, the nub of the question is: If a "Criticism of..." article is written in a way so as to assert that the criticisms detailed therein are unquestionably true, then you have a POV fork. If, on the other hand, the criticisms are described in a way that suggests "According to reliable source X, there are people who believe criticisms A,B and C." then the "Criticism of..." article is not a POV fork because it is not pushing a POV but describing it. Describing a notable POV is not in itself POV else the Nazism and Marxism articles would be considered to be POV. So too, would be articles describing the criticisms of those ideologies. Detailing criticism in a separate article should not be considered inherently POV. Done correctly, it is just an organizational device which allows the main article to focus on the topic while pushing the details of the criticism to a subsidiary article.
I will also comment that WP:Criticism is not a policy nor is it even a guideline. It is a proposed guideline that was demoted to an essay and only recently repromoted to a proposed guideline.
--Richard 09:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per multiple well-reasoned arguments. The subject is certainly touchy and apt to slip into POV-hell without firm and consistent guidance but to declare it inherently unencyclopedic is unwise. --ElKevbo 23:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per above--Sefringle 06:23, 27 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 - closing this early as it has been considerably improved since the AFD notice was placed, the consensus is to keep and to let it have its chance at DYK (eligibility would run out at the same time as the AFD closure becomes due). My talk page is always open for anybody who disagrees. Yomanganitalk 02:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J-ska[edit]

Low number of relevant Google results for J-ska suggests lack of notability. The fact that the only current reference is to some non-notable webpage further suggests that it is not a widely-accepted/used genre of music ::mikmt 22:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • When the article is ready for review I will note as such here. I should have completed it in my sandbox prior to publication. House of Scandal 23:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 00:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now that the article is more-or-less complete, I think there's little doubt the AfD tag should be removed. House of Scandal 08:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and recheck that all sources pass WP:RS. Dekimasu 14:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Doesn't seem to be that well-known, but the article does now have enough references to pass WP:N. I'm less sure about WP:MUSIC, but it seems to pass that too, provided the sources are reliable. -- Kesh 16:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per house of scandal. It will make a good DYK.Bakaman 00:06, 22 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 22:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Scholars Society[edit]

Presidential Scholars Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable local honor society. "Presidental Scholars Society" gets 64 Google hits, almost all of them are Wikipedia mirrors or from the university's website. Nothing that I can see that is an outside source to confer notability or verifiability. Metros232 15:02, 13 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, Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete everything but the general overview (and possibly the history of the program) and merge it with Saint Louis University. The rest of the article is trivial and useless to anybody not in the program. ::mikmt 22:53, 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 speedy deletion - G7. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacks Kelly[edit]

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

Clear failure to meet any provision of WP:N I placed a "speedy delete" tag, but another editor removed it. janejellyroll 22:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Jacks is very notable. -Jaxsy 22:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under A7. No assertion of notability. Sam Blacketer 22:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD A7 ::mikmt 22:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Jacks took me off the streets and accepted me for who I am. He is my hero. Midboss 23:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A7 per nom. No assertion of notability. Need I comment on the above "Keep" opinions? I hope not. :) Tevildo 23:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per the jokers who said keep (bad reason I know). obviously a page about a friend.--Tainter 23:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7. So tagged. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete obviously. VegaDark 23:52, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 03:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain Literature[edit]

Public Domain Literature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

too large to have any meaning; notable is open to pov Tfine80 22:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Far to many possible entries. J Milburn 23:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Incorrectly named as List of Public Domain Literature is the appropriate title. As mentioned above, there are far too many possible entries to create such a list. If absolutely necessary to have something like this, make it a category. Soltak | Talk 23:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of notable literary works in the public domain (or notable public domain literature, for a shorter title) and limit to notable 19th century and 20th century works. "Beowulf" and "The Odyssey" are just silly. Tagging as unreferenced. --Dhartung | Talk 23:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmaintainable list that, at present, could include every work written before 1923, which runs into the thousands of titles. I believe there is already a category regarding this, anyway. 23skidoo 03:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Entirely overbroad. Project Gutenberg has over 20,000 works from public domain sources, and they've barely scratched the surface. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Interesting and informative list. Could be broken up eventually into several lists but this not happening does not effect my "keep" vote. Dwain 00:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'delete not a bad idea, but a poor implementation. First of all, the creators obviously intended "literature" in the sense of imaginative literature, not books in general. Second, most of this is 19th c. novels, and of course all 19th c novels are PD. So it then becomes a list of 19th c. notable novels, and I suppose one could be constructed, though it would have to rely on some sort of criterion than would have to be spelled out. There is no point in a list of all 19th c. novels, that's appropriate for a category. I suggest it would be easier starting over than having this one hang around. DGG 04:30, 25 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 spedily deleted, WP:CSD#A7. Sandstein 08:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe de Kelaita[edit]

Gabe de Kelaita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

The author of the article has removed speedy deletion tags placed by two different editors. The subject is basically a set production assistant. Sources included imbd and his myspace page. Half the article isn't even about him, just about Lucasfilm, where he has worked. Fails WP:N janejellyroll 23:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete under A7. Soltak | Talk 23:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedly Delete The authors themselves aren't here contesting it, so go for it. KP Botany 01:41, 21 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 revert to redirect. W.marsh 23:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ergophobia[edit]

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

Non-notable sporting event (even according to it's own talk page) Random Passer-by 23:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Edited to add: I should probably have pointed out that it's a hijacked redirect page for a rare phobia which was previously nominated as a redirect for deletion. Random Passer-by 00:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Revert to redirect. The event isn't notable. Hemmingsen 09:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Revert to re-direct. A few minutes searching on google failed to bring up any sources, plus the article fails to mention any suitable sources (other than event's own website). Also the first event was in 2004, very recent which makes it even more suspect for deletion. Sorry, but got to go until it can be shown otherwise. Mathmo Talk 11:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I admit I was tempted to summarily revert it to a redirect when I first saw it but I didn't want to be high-handed without canvassing opinions from other editors. Thanks for the input. Random Passer-by 17:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable event competed for anually by many nationalities. The fact that it is not on google means nothing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greatestrowerever 14:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This editor is a significant contributor to the article. Random Passer-by 17:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to redirect - Non-notable. Google searching Ergophobia and decathlon fails to yield any sources to confirm its notability, at least there are none that I can find. It at least fails WP:N on the multiple non-trivial sources part. Kyra~(talk) 23:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - If the article is indeed correct about more and more interest being attracted each year, that would confirm it's notability; perhaps there are sources off-line (news papers, etc.) that I am not able to locate that would provide the independent sources necessary. Kyra~(talk) 02:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to wikipedia guidelines somthing is notable if it is Notable here means WP:N "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Therfore it is immaterial if it is on google or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.81.80.52 (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment It is certainly true that a topic doesn't need to return a long list of results on google to be notable, but do we have any sources other than the official website? Maybe some newspaper articles or something like that? Hemmingsen 16:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable event. There is clearly enough infomation on the page to show it is a real and notable event and so the page should remain PeterDavids 11.55, 22 January 2007
Comment This is the first and only contribution to Wikipedia by this editor. Random Passer-by 17:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this page is complete and reasearched enough to warrent it being kept. I think the event is worthy of note and although the page might need a bit of updating, the page should remain. Froggy33 16:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the first and only contribution to Wikipedia by this editor. Random Passer-by 17:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This user, Random Passer-by seems to have a vested interest in getting this page deleted. I am calling his neutrallity into question and i think that anything he has said on the subject should be disredarded and ignored. Froggy33 17:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random passer by is a loser— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjamison84 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 23 January 2007

  • Keep This is a notable event, the page should stay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.163.84.17 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 24 January 2007
  • delete This could become a notable event, but is not yet one. the article is honest enough to mention that the 1st year there were only 6 entries, and avoid saying how many in the latest. I suspect very few, as some of the article is devoted to trivialities about an individual contestant who fell out of a boat,

and the photo is not reassuring about N. If they can get a reasonable number of contestants year after year, ... But i notice there is no independent RS at all: the two sources are the web site for the event, and the web site for the university rowing club where it is held. I suggest that those who voted keep on the apparent principle that it seemed like a cool idea, look again and reconsider. DGG 04:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This event is indeed notable, I suggest that we make it more notable by all competing in Ergophobia '07!— Preceding unsigned comment added by erafferty02 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 25 January 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.117.45.82 (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment The above comment is the only contribution to Wikipedia from IP 143.117.45.82 and was signed with an incorrect time and non-existent account name using the unsigned tag. Random Passer-by 15:47, 26 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. W.marsh 01:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyder Bilgrami[edit]

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

non-notable filmmaker and his films. Google pulls up very few unique hits for "Hyder Bilgrami". IMDB mentions only one of his films, Bandhak, and it had no votes even though it is from 2004 which makes it appear that none of these films have had any real level of distribution. All of these articles are created by one user, Arvindpal within one day so there may be a conflict of interest here. IrishGuy talk 23:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are his films and also appear non-notable:

Chath A Roof Without Walls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bandhak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Hint: You can't nominate the movies this way. They and the man all need their own separate AFD's because any one of them might be notable without the others. You need to withdraw this nomination and try again. — coelacan talk — 19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, Bandhak clearly meets WP:NOTE: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself; the article has two citations from Indian newspapers which I added when de-prodding it. cab 23:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bandhak was a non commercial Bollywood film. It was a different film than usual Bollywood film that are usually dance drama. Bandhak was selected in different film festivals like IAAC, SAAFA and one in Rutger's University. It was released for DVD market. I had seen the site of Chath A Roof Without Walls again a different film on homeless in America. Arvind Pal
  • Keep The article says "A press release from the distributor Digimax Studio describes it as the first Hindi film in the United States" which if true and verified certainly makes it notable. --Richhoncho 00:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Convention-defying artistic merit plus adequate distribution definitely sounds not irrelevant to me. -- Strangelv 16:11, 27 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 22:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Designer[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a source for obscure internet communities unless we choose to have every person who runs one to create a page. Other pages such as Live Journal's Top Model have been delete and so I fail to see how this one should have a page. Wikipedia shouldn't act as an ad for this group. Page doesn't even have a single other page linking to it. Change1211 02:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_20&oldid=1081099619"