Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 21

< January 20	January 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete (Blatant advertising). —Mets501 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allsup's[edit]

Blatant advertising David Traver 23:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Ekjon Lok 00:29, 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 speedily deleted as G11. --ais523 14:15, 29 January 2007 (U T C)

Allsup[edit]

Advertisement masquerading as article David Traver 02:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by Mark Sutherland, who is as of January 20, 2006, was listed on the Allsup web page as a contact person. See [1] The Allsup article is nothing more than advertising for the firm.David Traver 02:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - apparently closed as Speedy - admin, please close this AfD. SkierRMH 05:15, 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, fails WP:BIO. Dakota 00:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tornambe[edit]

Non-notable horse jockey with no sources. Google shows up no hits. May even be a copy-vio. Speedy tag was removed with out the {{hangon}} tag. American Patriot 1776 00:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom - jockey appears non-notable, with only, according to the article, a minimal connection to possible notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of a pass of WP:BIO is given.--Dacium 05:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN individual. Doesn't pass WP:BIO. --Czj 06:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability per WP:BIO. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete. Evidence of jockey's history noted in June 25th, 1962 edition of "Times Herald", Norristown, PA, written by sports writer, Chuck Di Rocco.Carmenj 04:26, 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. Dakota 03:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Captain Rabbit King Nuggets[edit]

Delete - non-notable fictional food item with no apparent importance beyond a single episode. Otto4711 00:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn fancruft. Soltak | Talk 00:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable product with zero sources to indicate notability. Barest minimum this can enjoy is a brief mention under trivia on an article or two only once a source can be found. --wtfunkymonkey 00:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every fictional item mentioned in passing by a fictional character in a fictional series can enjoy notability.--Anthony.bradbury 01:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not notable. Eeblefish 01:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous, Lucky Captain Rabbit King! Lucky Captain Rabbit King Nuggets should be Deleted on Wikipedia! JuJube 01:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attempt to assert notability or otherwise comply with our polices on acceptable content. No sources. --Shirahadasha 01:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and all above. Gan fon 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly a nn fictional item. Lankiveil 04:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nomination. Shirahadasha said it best...Commodorepants 04:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per comments above--SUIT⁴² 05:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nareklm 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bring it back when I can find it across the supermarket aisle from Super Marmite Sauerkraut Haggis Science Diet. Tubezone 05:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ""Ridiculous Lucky Captain Rabbit King! Lucky Captain Rabbit King Nuggets are for the youth!" did make me laugh, though. Herostratus 08:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 10:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- if it was featured in more than one episode it would maybe have a better shot. Only one episode, then not notable in this case. Rfwoolf 11:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Tellyaddict 12:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this actually made any difference in the world, then maybe it could be considered. But as stands, as a fictional food item, what's the point of it having an entry? --tennis man ^{sign here!} 16:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a fictional food item on a single television show does not merit its own article, see WP:FICT.-- danntm ^T _C 16:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. S .D. ¿п? § 16:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite funny bit of trivia, but certainly doesn't need its own page.zadignose 17:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Bucketsofg 19:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Powerpuff Girls episode if there is an article on it. FrozenPurpleCube 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article on the episode. But do you honestly think someone is going to type in Lucky Captain Rabbit King Nuggets as a search term? Otto4711 20:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine that I might, so yes it could happen. FrozenPurpleCube 06:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. —dima/s-ko/ 20:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as fictional food - not notable. Big top 20:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I like fancruft as much as the next geek girl, but no references or assertion of notability to indicate why this needs a page article separate from The Powerpuff Girls. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was so hoping this would be about a band. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Jerry lavoie 01:30, 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 deleted. 〈RED VEЯS〉 12:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greelmanoscha[edit]

Pretty close to patent nonsense. If the word is legitimate, which I highly doubt, it is a bad case of WP:NEO. Of course, Greelmanoscha gets 0 ghits. Pascal.Tesson 00:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. Flakeloaf 01:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense, otherwise delete per WP:NEO. Otto4711 01:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my darling Deleted JuJube 01:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT, neologism etc. aside. --Shirahadasha 01:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I would label this patent nonsense.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete appears to be nothing more than vandalism. Gan fon 03:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm going to have to agree with "patent nonsense" here. Lankiveil 04:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I originally proded the article which was removed by the creator (no explanation naturally) and it was my understanding that you can't speedy after a prod has been contested. Bah... it will be zapped in any case. Pascal.Tesson 04:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and above. Pure nonsense. --Commodorepants 04:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Even in a parallel dimension where we could take this article seriously, it has no sources. Rfwoolf 11:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as db-nonsense. --Sigma 7 12:11, 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. Bucketsofg 19:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nozz-A-La[edit]

Delete - fictional beverage, not notable on its own. If it's more important to the plot of one or the other of the things where it's mentioned then it can be described in those articles as appropriate. Otto4711 00:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt to assert or source notability independent of the book it appears in. --Shirahadasha 01:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable outside of Stephen King's works. Not even really that notable inside of them, either. Lankiveil 04:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Lankiveil. Pomte 04:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nomination is dead on. --Dennisthe2 05:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not eve very notable in its own series DurinsBane87 05:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nareklm 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's hard to put into words my opinion but I agree with the nomination. Tellyaddict 12:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia -- Whpq 15:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as A) trivial and B)fictional. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 16:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite trivial.zadignose 17:19, 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 hoax, vanity perhaps, fails WP:BIO certainly. Dakota 03:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David H. Sherwood[edit]

There is something fishy about this article. It begins with the first claim to notability, the quarterfinals of the 2001 Toyota Tennis Challenge in Athens, Georgia. The only reference that comes close to this is the website of the 2004 event. This event is a small amateur charity event and doesn't even come remotely close to meeting the notability criteria. The article also claims that Sherwood "entered 2002 ranked in the top 100 internationally." I've searched through the ATP rankings for that year, but he doesn't feature in the world's top 1,500 for the entire year. The final event mentioned is the Montana Open. This is a minor college sport event, not a tournament where you'd expect an accomplished professional tennis player. This all reeks of a hoax, of vanity or of non-notability. Either way, delete. A ecis^Bravado 00:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Flakeloaf 01:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. No sources supporting notability. Principle assertion of notability (ranking in top 100 internationally) does not appear supported by sources and there are sources contradicting the claim. --Shirahadasha 02:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems a bit hoaxy to me, even if not, he's hardly notable enough. Sorry. Lankiveil 04:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - even if it's not hoaxaliscoius, still wouldn't pass WP:BIO SkierRMH 05:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons previously stated. House of Scandal 08:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent quotes or verifiable sources Alf photoman 15:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article fails WP:BIO. I would suggest it's a puff piece. --Fredrick day 16:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is it not time that someone proposed the adoption of WP:UNTRUE?--Anthony.bradbury 17:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems the nominator did more thorough research than the editor who posted the article. Even if entirely factual, the article fails to sufficiently assert the person's notability.zadignose 17:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Zadignose-if the nominator does more work than the writer, doesn't this seem like either an obvious case of WP:BIO and WP:N or a hoax? --tennis man ^{sign here!} 17:30, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sani-Cola[edit]

Delete - non-notable fictional beverage that made one appearance in a long-running series. Otto4711 00:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable cruft. Flakeloaf 01:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attempt to comply with our WP:N or WP:V policies. No assertion of notability. No sources. --Shirahadasha 02:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no notability established outside comic book, so fails WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 04:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn fictional beverage. Lankiveil 04:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - non notable, and purely fictional beverage. --Commodorepants 04:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A subject of one episode of Tintin. Merge into an episode guide if anything. --Dennisthe2 05:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons previously stated. House of Scandal 08:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete This should be merged in to the tintin article and then the article just on the drink its self deleted. Tellyaddict 12:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as tricia -- Whpq 15:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete as non-notable in its own right but still somewhat relevant in context of the series. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 16:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's all been said. If this is notable enough within the context of Tintin, then merge it, but definitely don't maintain a separate article.zadignose 17:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN . —dima/s-ko/ 20:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable fictional beverage. Big top 20:24, 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. Dakota 03:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snoozy Choc[edit]

Delete - non-notable fictional beverage whose appearances are limited to a cartoon billboard and a deleted scene. Otto4711 01:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable cruft. Flakeloaf 01:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attempt to comply with our WP:N or WP:V policies. No assertion of notability. No sources. --Shirahadasha 02:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real-world notability established, fails WP:FICT. Shirahadasha, note that WP:N is a guideline, not policy.--Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I love Aardman, but this is Wallace-and-Gromit-cruft at its finest. Sorry. Lankiveil 04:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for all the reasons previously stated. House of Scandal 08:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the relevance in this article. Tellyaddict 12:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia -- Whpq 15:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't even warrant mention within a Wallace and Gromit article.zadignose 17:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN and per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 20:07, 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. Nishkid 64 15:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pendragon[edit]

An IP editor, who is also removing valid "article for deletion" templates, restoring copyvio material to articles, and leaving unsigned criticism on my talk page, has removed the "notability" template from this article several times without adding any information about notability to the article. This subject is an "internet novel." A stab at notability is made by asserting that the novel was recently reviewed, but I don't see that even that helps this come close to WP:N janejellyroll 23:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IP editor (who has apparently been blocked) aside, don't see any reason why this is notable-even one review being the case, notability requires multiple non-trivial source mentions, enough to write a comprehensive article on the subject. Seraphimblade 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - 71.232.29.141 02:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete easily. Block the IP as a sock of that one guy who inserts copyvios and removes AFD debates.. forgot his name. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 05:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Wikipedia is not a directory of every novel ever written. Goochelaar 09:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, specifically per Goochelaar's comment. WMMartin 14:22, 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 17:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudmir[edit]

Delete - seems non-notable, mostly a repeated sight gag. Has been tagged as unsourced since July 2006. Otto4711 01:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Most likely it's an attempt by producers to avoid plugging a specific brand name during their television series. Perhaps worthy of a passing mention on Arrested Development, but not of its own article. Flakeloaf 01:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attempt to comply with our WP:N or WP:V policies. No assertion of notability independent of the television show in which this item appears. No sources. --Shirahadasha 02:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable outside the TV series. Sorry. Lankiveil 04:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for all the reasons previously stated. House of Scandal 08:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia -- Whpq 15:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So many fictional beverages lately. As trivial as they are, they may at least have some kind of home at List_of_Fictional_Beverages. Having a separate article for each is clearly unjustified. Does some of this tread into "original research" territory?zadignose 17:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —dima/s-ko/ 20:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to delete. The show has created its own culture and Cloudmir is a notable part of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.100.16.194 (talk) 21:55, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IQ by race[edit]

I don't think that this page belongs in Wikipedia for several reasons. First of all, on its own it lacks the context and additional information necessary to be useful. Here it's just a list from which the reader is left to just draw whatever conclusions they want without regard for what it actually means. Such a list would be far more useful if integrated into an existing article, such as Race and intelligence. However, this list has one other major problem. It draws the IQ's from a number of different sources. Each source almost certainly varies widely with regards to what the sampling methods and IQ tests it uses were, which means that the results of each source can not be compared in this manner without inherent inaccuracy. A list like this does nothing but result in completely erroneous and misleading conclusions and is in fact utterly useless. Comparing the IQ's from different studies in this manner comes very close to original research. A new list could be created in the context of the above mentioned article if all the IQs were drawn from one source, but this list as it stands is not at all independently notable, accurate, or verifiable. Dycedarg ж 01:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE An alternative format of this list/chart is presented at Talk:IQ by ancestry (~~this is an unsourced example of an alternate format~~) Sourced as of --Kevin Murray 10:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)). Among the options discussed below are: (1) keep the exisiting article, (2) merge the existing article to Race and intelligence, (3) develop a format that is more objective and does not border on primary research and then merge that into Race and intelligence, and (4) delete the whole concept. --Kevin Murray 07:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- External links do not meet WP:EL. Unverifiable. - Longhair\^talk 01:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Plust most of the references are to WP articles. This is not an acceptable reference. A list like this being contentious requires superior referencing and excellent methodology. This does not come close. Maustrauser 01:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ill-conceived article and weak, unreliable sources SubSeven 01:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reliable sources are absolutely positively needed for something like this. Individually, some of the sources given are reliable or are based on reliable studies, but when put together like this, the data as a whole is entirely unreliable and unscientific. However, such an article could potentially be sourced well if constructed in a different manner (not a list). So, remove the list and leave the external links. Create a stub with something along the lines of "Numerous studies have been performed examining the correlation between race and IQ. Here are those studies:" Such an article needs to be extremely well-referenced before writing a drop of prose. Also, if stubbed, a better name will be needed. --- RockMFR 01:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. & Longhair Cornell Rockey 01:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we already have an article titled Race and intelligence which covers this issue.--Jersey Devil 02:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is redundant to Race and intelligence. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list which makes comparisons not made in any source appears to be WP:OR. suggest merging any surviving content into Race and Intelligence. --Shirahadasha 02:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gan fon 03:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is an interesting subject, but this article does not give any context or explanations for the sources, many of which do not appear to be genuine scientific studies. Danski14 03:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete this is racist, poorly/selectively referenced, and very randomly put together. Doesn't belong on Wikipedia --TommyOliver 03:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The intelligence quotient is not correlated strongly with race but with education and cultural milieu. Race is a poorly-defined categorization scheme not based in biology. Together they make a Reese's peanut butter cup of crunchy pseudoscience. --Dhartung | Talk 04:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if necessary - the lack of content means this isn't as overtly racist as most lists of this type tend to be, but it's still an unfocused and ill-conceived list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs) 04:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Could be considered attack page, even. Picking sources (as in this article) can result in any bias and is an example of NPOV. Note also that the article does not even compare races, but locations. --N Shar 07:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons previously stated. House of Scandal 08:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unscientific and potentially racist rubbish. Can we ban the person who created it as well? --Nick Dowling 09:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with most of the above reasoning. BTfromLA 12:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant content to Race and intelligence series. Just because this article may be poorly sourced doesn't mean this topic should be deleted out of hand. Joshdboz 13:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Joshdboz arguments, but Keep it, if not Wikipedia will only merge the title of the article and not what the table shows. The content are relevant to all the Race and intelligence series at Wikipedia. Buj and Zeidner is for example new information. It seems that Wikipedia do not like Buj. They have deleted things about him earlier. It seems like "IQ and the wealth of nation" and "Race and intelligence" shall be the only truth inside here. Seems like some like what these articles tells, but there can be other truths???? If "Race by ancestry" should be deleted; Also the other articles about race and intelligence should be deleted. Further...: The "IQ by ancestry" article tells that there is not only one indian race. It is true. In other articles indians seems to be one race. Why shall Indo-Aryans represent Indians in generally and Dravidian people? Many says that the article "IQ by ancestry" is racism. It is not more rasistic than other articles about the subject inside here.SuganthinifromJaffna
Redirect to Race and intelligence. This article is nothing like as worthy. Hut 8.5 16:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Race and intelligence, it's a likely search term. (Note the actual article for deletion was recently moved to IQ by ancestry by Helenparis444.) Contents should be deleted or merged. Lyrl ^Talk _C 16:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly racist. futurebird 17:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete- per Oliver. 72.130.133.8 17:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect the title to Race and intelligence. I was tempted to say the data should be merged in some way, but as observed above, this is Original Research in that it draws from varying sources with the suggestion of a meaningful relationship between the data. There's nothing here that can reasonably be merged. Only if there was an external source in the form of an article that attempted to meaningfully sythesize this data, could the information be presented fairly. If such a published article or report existed, then it would be possible to take a Neutral-Point-Of-View while presenting reactions to and interpretations of the report. But such a report does not exist outside this Originally Researched list, and it does not allow NPOV evaluations.zadignose 17:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the study you describe is Race Differences in Intelligence --W. D. Hamilton 00:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exactly per zadignose, who covered every important point so concisely. — coelacan talk — 18:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - as said by Futurebird, it's clearly racist. Big top 20:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page has been page-moved by its OA to a different name (see its history) -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 20:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personal feeling? Delete as it can be called on racism. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 20:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is not accurate since it gets numerical values from different sources not following the same metodology. John C PI 22:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As with the article on wide nostrils, this article is clearly racist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.80 (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Just because something discusses race in statistical terms does not make it inherently racist. That does not mean that these numbers may be used or compared unfairly and inaccurately, but crying "racism" is false and counterproductive. Joshdboz 22:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is based on pseudo-science and cannot be considered verifiable by any stretch. IQ tests are inherently Eurocentric and this page reeks of racism. PaddyM 00:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -White jews have an average IQ of 115 and most Africans are Mentally retarded?I don't think so. Maniac 00:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Race and intelligence --W. D. Hamilton 00:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Race and intelligence --Kevin Murray 01:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE The information has been added to Race and intelligence and the continued inclusion at that article is being discussed there --Kevin Murray 01:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE And I removed it pending the outcome of this debate. It shouldn't be merged into that article unless consensus here dictates that it should, and right now that doesn't look like it's going to happen.--Dycedarg ж 02:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SOLUTION Dycedarg and I have had participated with some other editors in a rigorous debate at Race and intelligence. The outcome is that the list as written is not appropriate for inclusion there for several reasons, and has been removed. However, I will try to salvage the better material and try to develop a more balanced and well resourced chart. The value I see of inclusion at Race and intelligence is to disagregate some of the overly condensed categories presented there, such as lumping all whites, blacks and hispanics into three overly narrow categories (are hispanics a race or speakers of a common language?). Also a chart (modified) allows multiple studies to to be evaluated side by side. Variances in IQ are not simply a result of genetics, but also include environmental factors such as nutrition and education (hard to distiniguish from inherent intellegence) among many others. Like it or not the Race and intelligence article has been through rigorous review including two recent AfD processes, and is not likely to go away. If you oppose the validity of the information, it is better to work with the process to improve the presentation of the article toward a NPOV. If you have some ideas on how the chart can be improved please contact me -- some suggestions have been discussed at Race and intelligence. --Kevin Murray 04:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This article is definitely assuming a POV straight off the bat (that race and intelligence comeasurement are reportable correlations). Since race is mostly sociological while intelligence is entirely psychometric, such an article is either entirely original research or it is POV-pushing a conservative racial agenda ala The Bell Curve. --ScienceApologist 19:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be a reason to delete Race and intelligence, which has passed AFD twice. Joshdboz 19:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Racist. IQ measuring is depending on the subjects knowledge and education, therefore this is not a like-for-like comparision and biased. HagenUK 19:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Totally POV, OR and racist, as HagenUK said above. Causesobad --> Talk) 13:46, 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 02:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Stirling[edit]

Non-notable. [2] [3] The subject does appear to have published a number of papers,[4] (assuming there is only one D. A. Stirling) but only 11 in the area of life sciences.[5], [~~and those papers are not heavily cited~~ -- statement retracted by Chovain^(t|c) 23:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)]. I don't believe this person passes Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Chovain^(t|c) 01:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~Delete~~ Keep at least this article, as it's pure crap not worth keeping, however, no determinant of his notability. Number of articles is not a determinant of the importance of the author, and 11 in the life sciences (what other area should he be publishing in? Einstein published almost exclusively in theoretical physics) could be astounding if they were all major articles, or if he were a young scientist, or if only 2 of them were among the top 10 cited articles in his field. It's not the number, but how well cited the articles are that matters. Even just one, if it's well-cited in the scientist's field, could lead to notability. And, you searched for his wrong in the google, it's not his Dundee Dental Hospital work that is being asserted as notable anyhow. If you search for Einstein's angiosperm research you're not going to find anything. And scientific articles about organisms are keyworded by the scientific name of the organism, not the common name, even though in the case of yeasts, the common name may be used. So, only 11 of his articles are in his area is no reason to say he's not notable, scientific articles are keyworded by their organisms, and he's not noted for his recent move to Dendee Dental Hospital, but for the organism he researched and the discoveries he made about it. His article "Mutations which block the binding of calmodulin to Spc110p cause multiple mitotic defects" alone is cited by 20 others, plus, I didn't even look, these are articles on the mitotic spindle, an extraordinarily complex organelle, and one of the last great discoveries, how it works, in the life sciences. KP Botany 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added reference to Science Fair Encyclopedia article Article seems to be virtually a direct copy from this source, so in its current state there may be copyright issues. --Shirahadasha 02:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah - that's a wikipedia feed. It says "The contents of this article is licensed from www.wikipedia.org under the GNU Free Documentation License". I'm removing the circular ref. :) Chovain^(t|c) 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Appears to meet basic WP:V standards in the sense of adequate independent sources. Although notability appears relatively minor, after wading through articles on characters in video games, minor bands, etc., it has started seeming odd that Wikipedia appears to have stricter standards for scientists than it does for these aspects of popular culture etc. --Shirahadasha 02:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the guidelines are particularly strict for any aspect, so much as the pop culture crap garners more "But I like it!" supporters. GassyGuy 02:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point. But this is basically a POV delete, "I don't believe this person passes," "not heavily cited" but cited just fine in its complex area, limited publications outside of his area (huh?), and failure to search properly for the organism he studied (called by scientists by its scientific name, for gosh sake), rather than his current recent job placement (scientists known by what they study AND by their institutes, but only by the former is fine, too). It's basically a small piece of an incredibly important and complex major puzzle in the life sciences--remove his piece, maybe the puzzle falls apart, which makes his research, even if only for the one article, important enough to qualify him. Nice to know, though, its a copyright infringement since it is so crappy. KP Botany 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh - POV? What happened to WP:AGF? You've misunderstood what I mean by "not well cited", too. I mean that only 8 papers cite his work, not that he doesn't cite his sources. Chovain^(t|c) 03:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I used the word "believe" because I realise others may have a different opinion, not because I am basing my nomination on faith. If I were POV-pushing, wouldn't I have pushed my POV down your throat rather than leave it open to debate? Chovain^(t|c) 03:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh -- didn't you see the one paper that was cited by 20 others? So one major paper is cited in 20 other papers, and somehow his papers total all cited only by 8?[6] How do you figure? I haven't precisely assumed bad faith, but I do question your methods for deciding this needs deleted when you've used the words, "appears" and "don't believe," searched for the common name of the organism, rather than its scientific name (for a scientist), and searched for the scientist attached to a newly acquired institutional appointment, rather than for his research on the organism or the important area of his research Mitotic spindle and you got the number of works citing his work as wrong, in particular for the one major paper in a major peer-reviewed scientific journal in which he is the lead author.[7]
Questions Okay, assuming good faith on my part, please just explain your reasoning to me so I understand why this article should be deleted? I would really like to understand what is going on with AfD, and I do think that the criteria for notability for scientists are much higher than for video game minor characters. How did you come up with only 8 citations by others, when Journal of Cell Science links to 20 for a major article? Did you decide his research area was not important, if so how? Why search for the organism by common name for a scientific subject? However, one my bad for me--you at least DID look for this stuff. I'm not wholey sold on the article because it's so crummy and it would be so damn much research for me to get up to speed to rewrite it myself, so that's my POV. But, help me to understand yours. KP Botany 03:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the article should be deleted. I'm asking the community if it should, and providing a start to the discussion. The criteria for video game characters is irrelevant. Especially when dealing with the sciences, let's not stoop to lowest common denominator. ~~The "8" figure came from the search at [4], which is the search "not heavily cited" referred to~~. Chovain^(t|c) 18:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 8 figure came from me misreading the results of the search at [4]. Chovain^(t|c) 19:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems reasonably cited for his rather specialised field of work. Notable enough, in my opinion. Lankiveil 04:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
keep and source properly. I couldn't agree with you more, KP, about the possible merit of the article and the proper way of looking for it, but the information as originally presented here didn't justify N and didn't necessarily look as if it would. The only thing that caught my eye was the "senior scientist", which usually implies faculty-equivalent.

Unfortunately, many articles about scientists and other academics are poorly written, and do not clearly present the necessary information for N, so we have to get it together here at AfD and add it. Worse, some people Speedy such articles when they are, as now, clearly worth at least a debate so sources can be found. The arguments presented here are all too common. I have been collecting examples from Speedy and Prod, and putting some of them in the talk page at Notability(academics) and at CSD. For the current collection, see User:DGG:sandbox4speedy1. Some of it is much worse than this.

When the proposer gives the search used and the results found, we have a basis for discussion. I congratulate Chovain on doing so. Let's encourage people to do so, and then explain how to do it better. In this case, for example, it might have been clearer to start with PubMed, which is free from many of the ambiguous GScholar counts. DGG 06:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Chovain actually did a search, which is an improvement on most. It's discouraging to hear there are articles worse than this one. KP Botany 20:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (academics) - House of Scandal 09:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite strong delete This appears to be a bio and has no wiki relevance. Tellyaddict 12:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That it "appears to be a bio" is not a reason for deletion. Wikipedia has biographies. See, for example, Albert Einstein, Paul Kane, Robert Lawson (architect), Charles Darwin, Michael Woodruff, and Douglas Adams. KP Botany 20:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be notable. Would be improved by references. | Noticket 15:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete no independent quotes, no verifiable sources Alf photoman 15:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KP Botany. Edison 05:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the main claim to notability, significant contribution to the field per WP:PROF, can be sourced. I'm hard-pressed to find anything relevant. He doesn't seem to have tenure or be a prinicpal investigator. He is a co-author of a very notable paper: A PHYSIOLOGICAL-ROLE FOR DNA SUPERCOILING IN THE OSMOTIC REGULATION OF GENE-EXPRESSION IN S-TYPHIMURIUM AND ESCHERICHIA-COLI : HIGGINS CF, DORMAN CJ, STIRLING DA, WADDELL L, BOOTH IR, MAY G, BREMER E : CELL 52 (4): 569-584 FEB 26 1988, with about 500 cites, but looking over the record the main claim to fame seems to go to CF Higgins, and cites for first-authored papers look much more modest. So unless better evidence is unearthed this falls under the "bishops, lieutenants and notaries" category of professionals with a sound service record but no distinguishing characteristic. ~ trialsanderrors 05:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I must admit an interest here, since I knew him when I worked in Dundee University. However, he has not written any review articles or textbooks, nor made a outstanding contribution to his field. He is a very nice guy, but he's not an internationally-renowned scientist. TimVickers 17:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I requested more input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. ~ trialsanderrors 20:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:PROF. With all due respect, I'm afraid people who say that a 20-year old paper cited 50 times is indicative of notability in the field don't really know what they're talking about. I've already argued this many times before on similar AfDs but this is simply due to misunderstanding of how citation works in academic fields. For one thing, you will cite yourself throughout your career. It is likely that any co-author of the paper has continued to work in related areas and has often cited that paper in introducing his own new discoveries. Unless someone can find a credible reference identifying Mr. Stirling as an authority and as someone who has had a considerable impact in his field, we could reconsider. However, Google searches strongly indicate that no such references exist. Pascal.Tesson 21:45, 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 a7 (no assertion of notability), g11 (spam). NawlinWiki 14:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Papers For You[edit]

Advertisement for an Internet paper mill. I don't know how this stuck around for nearly 2 years. Falls far short of WP:WEB, but not quite a speedy delete candidate. Rhobite 01:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I think this is a speedy candidate per CSD-A7 - no assertion of notability. Remember, "speedy" refers to the length of the deletion process, not the time the article stays up. Chovain^(t|c) 01:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not quite speedy material as the nature of their business and the numbers provided assert some level of notability. However, it seems to fail WP:WEB, etc. --- RockMFR 01:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. No sources. No attempt to meet WP:CORP. --Shirahadasha 02:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not appear to meet WP:CORP or WP:WEB. Hello32020 02:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically a nn website. Lankiveil 04:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 05:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' for reasons stated above. House of Scandal 09:01, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The James Young High School[edit]

Possibly not notable enough for an article adavidw 01:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Livingston, West Lothian. No claim of notability. --- RockMFR 01:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - a bit of interesting stuff can be found in a GSearch, such as this. It may well meet the proposed notability guideline for schools, WP:SCHOOLS3. Certainly, there are plenty of weaker school articles around. I think deletion on this one should wait until consensus is acheived on the proposal. The article also needs improvement, but that's a separate issue to the deletion debate. Chovain^(t|c) 01:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've made a start on improving the article by incorporating some of the key findings by the HMIE inspection Chovain^(t|c) 02:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks to be a nn high school. A good school by all indications, but still not notable. Lankiveil 04:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure if that's in reference to my recent edits, but keep in mind notability for schools can be acheived with multiple, independent, non-trivial coverage. The reference I put in there extremely non-trivial and independent (it doesn't get much better than that one). This article has a half decent chance of meeting notability requirements. Chovain^(t|c) 02:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Non notable--SUIT⁴² 05:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- No valid reason given for deletion. Nomination states possibly not notable. Killroy4 07:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - uhh, I think the nominator is just being polite. The nominator is clearly suggesting the article is not-notable, and leaving the debate as to whether or not that's the case to us. Chovain^(t|c) 02:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than just being polite. I really think it might qualify as notable, but didn't want to make that decision myself. The reason it's even nominated here is because I saw someone else trying to get it speedy deleted, and I thought it would be better to send it here to get a consensus first. --adavidw 07:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely not notable. Basically, the article only says "I exist". Resolute 08:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Citation is the problem here. Any high school around for any amount of time has had innumerable significant newspaper mentions that could be cited if someone cared to do so. House of Scandal 09:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say any school above primary is pretty much notable. Also, it will have been published in newspapers for league tables etc. Computerjoe 's talk 18:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Computerjoe. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Lookign at the edit history, the school is at least trying to establish notability, and of course it gets pounced on immediately because it's a school. That and Chovain's explanation pushed me over to keep, though it looks borderline on WP:N right now.--Wizardman 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Resolute - even with the most recent contrib, it doesn't gain any notability. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 23:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Google Toolbar has it as a suggested search. —siro χ o 10:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ah, the good old Schools issue -137.222.10.67 20:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this school is notable to the community and has verifiable sources too yuckfoo 20:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my personal belief that all schools from the secondary level and above are notable. Reliable sources have been added which meet our verifiability requirements. Yamaguchi先生 00:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personal beliefs are not what matter here. What matters is clear evidence of notability. This is not presented. Delete. WMMartin 13:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit. Schools may be regionally prominent, who are we to judge? Give someone a chance to improve. Caliwiki123 20:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep There is a strong precedent of having high school articles. Why pick on this one? Jerry lavoie 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons described at User:Silensor/Schools. See also this email for further consideration. Silensor 02:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and urge disregard of WP:ILIKEIT and notability-by-category. The article cites no reliable secondary sources, so the subject is not notable. Seraphimblade 11:06, 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 day after... (band)[edit]

The result was speedy deleted already. SYSS Mouse 15:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable band. The Music Monitor Network plug isn't as impressive as it seems. They are a marketing company that only deal with small music chains of 2-30 stores. So the claim that this band premiered ahead of established stars isn't quite as impressive as the article makes it out to be. The press page of the official website only lists article from local media publications and a reference to a E! television show called "Nearly Famous". As far as I can tell, while they may be on the cusp of notability, none of this meets WP:BAND. IrishGuy ^talk 01:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the individuals you have written articles about are completely unknown to me. This certainly doesn't mean that I assume the articles are worth deleting. Moreover, I just assume that I could learn from your articles, which I originally assumed was the point of wikipedia...to inform people of new things. Am I mistaken? TedKendall 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)TedKendall[reply]

You are not mistaken that encyclopedias are for learning. But the subject included must be notable. There are specific criteria for inclusion for different categories. WP:MUSIC covers this category and, as the article is currently written, it doesn't meet that criteria. IrishGuy ^talk 01:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the WP:MUSIC that you cited. Many thanks! I still believe that The day after... has reached a certain level as to where they deserve a page. I do believe they meet most of the criteria on those guidelines, although I would need to do some research before editing. Please advise how long I have before the article will be deleted? Many thanks. User:TedKendall 01:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)TedKendall[reply]

An AfD generally lasts five days. It gives the author(s) time to provide whatever is necessary to bring the article up to code, as it were. As I said, I think this band might be on the cusp of notability, but I don't believe they meet WP:MUSIC right now. It doesn't help that all the media links on their official site are for years ago. With nothing recent it makes it seem that their day in the sun has passed. That might not be the case, but I couldn't find any recent notices about them. IrishGuy ^talk 02:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their name makes it difficult to dig up information on the net. I will try to find something more recent, if it's out there! TedKendall 02:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)TedKendall[reply]

Was it silly of me to assume that you would actually provide some helpful information? TedKendall 02:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)TedKendall][reply]

Please read WP:CIV. There is no need to be rude. If you want a reply, it would probably behoove you to wait more than five minutes before getting impatient. IrishGuy ^talk

Fair enough. I apologize, I am just feeling a bit overwhelmed here on Wiki. I think I will have to kick back and learn the ropes a bit before submitting more articles. But next time, I do promise to wait more than six minutes! TedKendall 02:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)TedKendall[reply]

No need to feel overwhelmed. Most editors are pretty helpful if you ask. You can even throw a helpme tag on your page to bring forth an admin when needed. I just put a welcome template on your talk page which might help you look around and find more information. IrishGuy ^talk 02:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or find references suggesting they meet WP:MUSIC - they don't currently appear to. If the user needs more than 5 days, perhaps we can Userfy Chovain^(t|c) 02:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is "userfy"? TedKendallTedKendall

To userfy this page would be to move it to your user space, for instance moving it to User:TedKendall/The day after... (band) and then deleting the resulting redirect. --Dycedarg ж 04:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Who? Notability is notability. --I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 04:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources proving notability are provided. No current indication that it meets WP:BAND. --Dycedarg ж 04:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC (although I'm open of course to evidence showing that it does). Lankiveil 05:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - If properly constructed with references, it could be a definate keep. But the onus is on the creator(s), not other editors. House of Scandal 09:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. NN Band. Rockstar915 00:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the Rolling Stone article turns up and is actually about this band, then I'd have more comfort in suggesting a keep, but for now, Delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm going to go ahead and Userfy the page, and work with the page creator to get it up to scratch. Chovain^(t|c) 05:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admins: This page has now been userfied (as per discussion with creator), and I've placed a speedy tag on the redirect. This AfD can now be closed. Chovain^(t|c) 05:05, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Schaap[edit]

Yesterday, David.Monniaux (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deleted this article (all 167 revisions and all) because the "biography does not point out notability of the subject". This page came to my attention as I saw it was wrongly tagged for speedy deletion CSD G4. I thought it would be best to send this to AfD, where the community can decide. Nishkid 64 01:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless article can assert notability. Navou ^banter 03:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article Jack Schaap is a leader in the Independant Baptist movement, and although a small movement, it is vocal nonetheless. This article comes up as #2 on google. That is notable NovumTestamentum 03:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is a marginal call. The major claim to notability seems to be as chancellor of Hyles-Anderson College. We use campus papers of major universities to establish notability. Hyles-Anderson College cannot exactly be said to be major. But nonetheless, if it's conceded that it's notable enough to warrant an article (which isn't being contested), then it seems perhaps the campus newspaper could be used to establish notability of the chancellor. A bit of a stretch, but within notability. There doesn't seem to be evidence of notability other than Hyles-Anderson related media, however. --Shirahadasha 04:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he appears to be the pastor of an extremely large congregation. Also, there's quite a bit of controversy. Gsearch for 'independent.baptist schaap' returns some interesting if not entirely reliable links. -- Bpmullins | Talk 05:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing I can see in the article to make him stand out beyond any other pastor/vicar/priest/whatever. User:NovumTestamentum says that Schaap "is a leader in the Independant Baptist movement"; now if that was leader of rather in we might have something more important. User:Shirahadasha's comment that he is chancellor of a college needs to be balanced against the statement in the article that this is "an unaccredited bible college". User:Bpmullins says he "appears to be the pastor of an extremely large congregation" but there is no evidence for this. Emeraude 15:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've included several new links that lend notability to the Jack Schaap article, including his and his churches inclusion in a couple of Christian magazines. Last year Schaap and his church enjoyed public visibility in a national church magazine as being among the top 50 churches in the nation. If Wikipedia is going to include film and television *characters* whose sole existence is based on a tv show or movie, then why not a Pastor who is becoming nationally known in mainstream Christian magazines? He's also fairly well-known among certain segments of Baptists, and is a source of controversy among Independent Baptists, and former Independent Baptists who now occupy pulpits in other denominations. Jack Schaap, like it or not, is poised to be a big player nationally speaking. He's already made it into at least two(2) nationally read Christian magazines. As to the comment of "User:Bpmullins says he "appears to be the pastor of an extremely large congregation" but there is no evidence for this. User:Emeraude|Emeraude 15:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)": They must not have read the two links that I've provided stating that he is the pastor of a very large congregation at the end of the article. I will supply them into the top section as well if this needs to be there also. But Jack Schaap and First Baptist Church of Hammond average well over 20,000 persons in services at their church campus every Sunday. Their auditorium seats at last 7,500; they have around 10,000+ members if memory serves me correctly. As stated before, Schaap is the pastor of one of, if not THE, largest Independent Baptist church in America. As well as a large Independent Baptist Bible College. His church also has two high schools, two elementary schools, etc. Exactly how much "notability" must an individual like this have in order to be considered notable enough for Wikipedia? Most of the characters from Buffy the Vampire Slayer are included in Wikipedia, and their only claim to fame is that of a television show that is no longer making episodes. If television characters can be included, I see no reason to trash this article. I've asserted at least three separate articles from separate magazines and newspapers outside of the college and church which assert some notability to Jack Schaap.IFBScholar 20:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing particularly notable except that he is the pastor of a large congregation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PaddyM (talk • contribs) 00:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I don't see the references to mainstream Christian magazines that are mentioned by IFBScholar above; all of the links are to the college or to mentions of the subject's books and sermons. As it is, the entire section quoting his books, etc., looks promotional to me, and I don't see anything establishing notability in the article. As always, if it's sourced well by the end of the AfD period, I'd be happy to reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- it seems an annon vandal is deleting information on Schaap's noteriety, it has been restored. NovumTestamentum 06:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Links to outside sources contained here: 14. ^ http://www.thechurchreport.com/mag_article.php?mid=36&type=year

 15. ^ http://churchrelevance.com/2006/07/11/the-church-reports-50-most-influential-churches-for-2006/
 16. ^ http://www.nwitimes.com/articles/2005/07/04/news/top_news/1b92154eac92f04a86257034000f438a.txt
 17. ^ http://www.nwitimes.com/articles/2005/07/03/opinion/forum/387012d42683d90d8625703000796476.txt
 I've provided these in the article, evidently they had to be restored by NovumTestamentum.IFBScholar 15:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has some notoriety as an author; some dubious statements in one of his books led to a controversy considered one of the top 2006 news stories for Fundamentalism. See this blog, #7, which while a blog is by a columnist in their field of expertise, so does meet our reliable source standards. (On the other hand, #8 on his list of top evangelism stories was a Barna report that nobody knows who the top Christian leaders are, see [8].) GRBerry 05:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete using only the information provided or referenced in the article, the subject is non-notable. Again, I stress that WP:BIO states the subject of multiple sources... this pastor is not the subject of the articles referenced, his church, the movement, and a specific event were the subject of the articles. He is mentioned in, or is the source of the information in these articles, but NOT the subject of them. He is probably a very nice man, revered in his community and church, but we can't have everyone in wiki. Jerry lavoie 01:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the man is a published author, perhaps we should list his books and treat this by the criteria of any other writer. User:Dimadick

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shocklog[edit]

seemingly a violation of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms Cornell Rockey 02:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Blog, as a "Shocklog" is a type of blog. Flakeloaf 04:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sources demonstration sufficient use to satisfy WP:NEO. Sources consist of a couple of foreign-language blogs and an on-line Master's thesis. Need published sources complying with WP:RS --Shirahadasha 04:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically a neologism, and an imprecise one at that. Is Stile Project a "shocklog"? Lankiveil 05:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Very Strong Delete One of the "sources" cited puts the nail in the coffin on this one!

From "Masters of Media:"[9] "To our surprise the term shocklog, a wellknown term in the Netherlands, was nowhere to be found on the rest of the World Wide Web. We wanted that to change, so we -The Masters of Media- coined the term on a new English Wikipedia entry."

So, they invented it and posted it on Wikipedia in order to coin a new term.zadignose 18:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be speedied? If not, DELETE per Zadignose. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 20:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO--Dacium 05:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete The entry is based on two published sources; two MA thesis' which were published by the University of Amsterdam. Just to clear up the confusion with regards to the Masters of Media blog post, they -MofM- did NOT make up this term, they only created an entry in Wikipedia about it! "With 'coining a term to the world" they mean introducing published material via wikipedia to a larger public. The MA thesis' and the videofiles date earlier than the MofM post (and wiki-entry) does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.160.180.211 (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Then it's a WP:COI issue. Note that OA of article only contributed to 2 articles (the other being Roy Ascott), and Annemamedia (talk · contribs) has no other edits apart from this article. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nothing on the link you cited to indicate it is a conflict of interest. Please recheck your link and see WP:No_original_research#Citing_oneself. How many articles the OA has edited seem irrelevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.182.148.34 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: still a neologism in English, and acknowledged by the authors to be "nowhere to be found on the rest of the World Wide Web". -- The Anome 11:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and do not merge anywhere. Blatantly invented word. Flyingtoaster1337 13:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete This article is well resourced and only being targeted because of US-centric editing. As a regular reader of Wikipedia (yes, I know, our opinions are not as important as those of OCD-disorder-driven editors) I am interested in terms which may not be used in the US but are used elsewhere. In this case, it only takes a bit of Google research (search "shocklog blog") to see this term has a meaning and is in use. Is Wikipedia an American or global project? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.182.149.137 (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Not Delete Wholehearted agreement. I, too, am a regular reader and believe that neologisms such as these are essential parts of the Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LordFoom (talk • contribs) 07:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete — the Anome (talk · contribs) put it well: a term "nowhere to be found on the rest of the World Wide Web" is not a fit subject for a Wikipedia article ➥the Epopt 17:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From en wikipedia until notable in en WP:RS sources, regardless of where en is spoken. Ronabop 18:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge to Shock site. A blog is by definition a website, it is intended to shock, and so it is a shock site. That it takes the form of a blog is of no real concern - it differs in no material way besides small changes in format. --Gwern (contribs) 19:23 24 January 2007 (GMT)
keep this is a good objective article meeting WP:WEB. But these are a special type of blog, and they are special enough, albeit in a negative way, to be appropriate for an article. The analogy is Shock site, which goes into considerably more detail than is thought appropriate on this article. The article served its purpose--I never knew about them until I read the WP article--and I would say the same here.

The statement that "shocklog, a wellknown term in the Netherlands, was nowhere to be found on the rest of the World Wide Web. We wanted that to change, so we -The Masters of Media- coined the term on a new English Wikipedia entry." says the exact opposite of their having invented it. They took a term used in one country and began using it in another. They did not coin the word. If it were in wide use in the Netherlands but not here, it would still deserve an entry in the en WP.DGG 23:11, 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 17:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Maggs[edit]

Sociologist of questionable notability. Article apparently started as a joke ("Jennifer plays the clarinet") and was later changed and expanded by another user... a bit confused as to how legit this really could be. My theory is that the original user could've been writing an article about themselves, someone else Googled the name and found another person by the very same name, and decided to change the article to fit the bill. Throwing this to the community for a wider assessment. --Czj 02:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:N. janejellyroll 02:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no context, no notability. Gan fon 03:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless additional sources supplied. Can be kept or reinstated if evidence of notability is provided. She's a real person and the article is legit for the little it says, see [10], so anything that happened in the past shouldn't affect our discussion. For all I know she may be notable, but there isn't currently any evidence she is. --Shirahadasha 04:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here's some additional information: a bibliography [11]. 483 ghits for "jennifer maggs", 279 for "jennifer l maggs". --Shirahadasha 05:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, looks nn to me. Sorry. Lankiveil 05:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or properly source and cite Alf photoman 15:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps her bibliography should be listed first, having a chance to turn this to a half-decent stub. As it is the article has no seeming merits. User:Dimadick

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6th hour heroes[edit]

Completely NN band. Fails WP:BAND janejellyroll 02:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources asserting notability. Principle claim appears to be based on future plans, see WP:CRYSTAL. --Shirahadasha 02:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't see how this passes WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil 05:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Maxamegalon2000 06:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable Diagear 16:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. —dima/s-ko/ 20:11, 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 17:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Moore (footballer)[edit]

Fails WP:BIO as never having played in a fully professional league. Delete. BlueValour 02:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. BlueValour 02:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Gan fon 03:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Daemonic Kangaroo 06:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom, fails WP:BIO by a long way. Qwghlm 11:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a professional, and taking other factors into consideration, fails WP:BIO Asics^Talk 14:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Robotforaday 18:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —dima/s-ko/ 20:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YOU KNOW WHAT, FUCKING DELETE IT OFF, DELETE THE FUCKING LOT OFF, WHY DON'T YOU FUCKING JUST DELETE THE WHOLE WIKIPEDIA.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonesy702 (talk • contribs) 12:36, January 22, 2007.

I have refactored the above comment. Navou ^banter 14:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reccomend that you stop cursing, Jonesy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EditingManiac (talk • contribs) 21:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I RECOMMEND BOLLOCKS. MANY THANKS THE UNSIGNED, MR. X — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesy702 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. Seraphimblade 11:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cruising (driving)[edit]

Hardly more than a really long dictionary definition. ⁪froth^T 02:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: OK people my point was that the most substatial content of the article is the little blurb at the top giving the definition. Most articles have that, but they have additional valuable content. Unlike this article. --⁪froth^T 05:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmmm, that sounds like the dictionary definition of an encyclopedia article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't, however. "short" is not synonymous with "dictionary" and the antonym of "short" is not "encyclopaedia". Dictionary articles can often be long. Indeed, a Wiktionary article that has grown from a stub into a full article, containing everything that it should, will usually be long. Uncle G 14:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well known term and is also very common in the places described in the article. In addition it's well written and sourced. I personally don't see any real call for deletion. Gan fon 03:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Well known term for a common activity, article needs work though. Russeasby 03:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a well known activity in popular culture. -- Candy-Panda 04:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no news references to assert notability. - SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 04:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: News references aren't the only forms of verifiable references. -Branddobbe 03:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hardly consider a couple of fansites reliable. - SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 14:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. The article as is has no sourcing above the level of blogs/fansites. Cruising certainly is a cultural phenomenon and an article could certainly be written on the topic, but this article ain't it. Otto4711 04:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If the topic is notable but the writing is bad, isn't that grounds for a rewrite rather than a deletion? -Branddobbe 03:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. However, in this case the issue is that the information in the article is not verified through reliable sources and that is grounds for deletion. Otto4711 16:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few BBC and BBC News article links on UK car cruises. --J2thawiki 18:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Otto4711, it is not grounds for deletion, in fact, it is explicitly suggested as an article where "deletion may not be needed" as per WP:DELETE —siro χ o 09:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well known activity/slang. Some improved references could possibly found, but the article isn't so beyond help that it should be deleted. Lankiveil 05:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Per Lankiveil. Killroy4 07:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite per Lankiveil. Cream147 12:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest that those calling "keep but rewrite" actually rewrite the article including finding sources. Otto4711 16:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic is clearly notable as a matter of common knowledge, writing and sourcing issues can be improved. --Shirahadasha 17:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Common activity and quite good article that just needs some more references. --J2thawiki 21:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this is just "a really long dictionary definition", then so is everything else on Wikipedia. -Branddobbe 03:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dicdef, and unsourced dicdef at that. Original research too. And arbitrarily discusses "cruising" in three, apparently randomly chosen countries. --The Way 05:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand how focusing on cruising "in three, apparently randomly chosen countries" is a reason to delete. Sometimes issues only are relevant in certain countries and that's where the sources come from, hardly an "arbitrary" reason to focus on those countries. If articles need to be deleted because they don't apply the subject to most countries on earth, we'd hardly have any articles. --Oakshade 22:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Common term, common act, common knowledge. The problem is not in the subject, but in sourcing information, and therefore should be kept. —siroχo 10:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that the article should be kept because it is impossible to verify it? That is entirely the opposite of our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Uncle G 14:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not at all, I'm saying its very possible to verify it as it is common knowledge, and therefore should not be deleted. Fixing the sourcing information will fix the problem, deleting it also fixes the problem, but leads to a loss of information. This is a case of not cutting the whole arm off due to a paper cut. —siroχo 08:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unverifiability inflicts paralysis on the entire arm. - SpLoT _(*C*+u+g) 08:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Unverifiablility is a misdiagnosis of this... er... arm. (: This arm is simply unverified, but it is verifiable. —siro χ o 09:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        ~~So do it. - SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 10:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
        Already did, if you'd like to check it out (: —siro χ o 11:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Citations have been provided for crusing in Detroit (Detroit News), the UK (BBC news), Milwaukee (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, TheNewspaper.com_, and California (American Graffiti. Before anyone objects, yes, a work of fiction can be cited if its basis in fact is known and explained, which it is here). There are many more out there, but this is certainly proof of concept for verifiability. The related cultural and legal aspects prove its existence beyond a dicdef. —siro χ o 09:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to weak keep. Article is now verified with reliable sources, proving more depth than a dicdef. However, references are still somewhat weak, only for the U.S. and none for other countries. Forgive my ignorance, Siroxo, didn't notice your note. - SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 12:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very encyclopedic topic. Cruising is a well established activity that many localities have deemed a nusance and frequently illegal. Here are some articles about the topic found after 5 seconds of googling - [12][13][14] I wish the nom did the slightest amount of reserch before sending to AfD. --Oakshade 07:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I know what crusing is and I know that a lot of people do it, but I don't think it belongs in the encyclopedia. Don't insult me because we disagree --⁪froth^T 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not an insult. It only took a few seconds of a g-search to see it's a very encyclopedic topic. The topic includes a history, many studies and even government ordinances regulating or restricting it. These aspects are far beyond the scope of a dictionary. --Oakshade 22:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this is really a encyclopedic topic no reason for erasing it yuckfoo 20:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well reported on cultural pasttime of several countries. Not a WP:NEO, uncyclopedic??? dont make me laugh... There are several magazines that make a living targeting this segment of the global population. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep topic is notable and encyclopedic; article needs rewrite and better sources —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 08:21, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Rose[edit]

I originally tagged this as speedy, but an assertion of notability has been added. It is, however, thoroughly unverified, and a Google search for his name and hometown yield nothing promising, while a search for his supposed claim to fame, the book "Nathan the Casanova", yields nothing whatsoever. Heimstern Läufer 03:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as non-notable nonsense bio. Subject is a high school student whom the article claims is a "local legend" and gets into "interesting situations" without reliable sources or further explanation. Flakeloaf 04:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article appears to base its claim to notabilty on "interesting" stories that are hinted at but never actually get told, except for one at the end: "Currently he also refuses to seek medical assistance for his Bubonic Plague that is eating away his skull." One suspects the other stories that make this character a "local" legend are similar. One human mind occupies a few cubic centimeters; perhaps this is the locality of the legend involved. Delete. --Shirahadasha 05:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Just take a look at the articles history. The facts seem to change -- first Josh Rose is 'Mr Badass' (a character) and later he's the author of the book -- this and many other inconsistancies. Almost an obvious hoax. Rfwoolf 11:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced and cited by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? Delete as nonsense. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a hoax biography. User:Dimadick

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

INS Nishank[edit]

Non-notable ship in the Indian military. While it is apparent that it does, in fact, exist, it appears to be just on of a dozen identical ships. I would say "merge" into Ships of the Indian Navy, but there is nothing to merge; almost the entire article already exists there. Haemo 03:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. --Core desat 03:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is probably best, allowing for a full article if information becomes available. As a missile corvette it seems potentially notable, no matter how many ships a given navy has of that class. Certainly there are plenty of historical ships no larger that all have articles. Avoid systematic bias. --Dhartung | Talk 04:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the size of the ship that's the issue; rather, it's just a given, arbitrary ship in Indian Navy. There's nothing special, unique, or notable about it. Has the ship done anything notable? Apparently not. Has the ship been in any notable engagements? Apparently not. Has the ship been party to any notable dealings, or sale? Apparently not. Is there anything interesting about the ship, beyond its class, which already has an article? Apparently not. It's not systematically biased to exclude content from Wikipedia which does not meet WP:NOTE. --Haemo 04:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 04:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's amazing how many times I click on "Random article" and up comes an article on a navy ship, existing or scrapped. (As it happens, most often US Navy.) Almost all of them have nothing to say that makes the ship stand out from others in the ways that User:Haemo suggests, but if they are here I presume that other users find them valid. On that basis, this article should stay (or thousands of others need to be added to this nomination!!!!) Emeraude 15:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply untrue. Look at the articles about other ships - say, the US Navy. I spent quite a while perusing what makes a "good" ship article, and even the most elementary have details about the class, deployments, information, and history. All of these are encyclopedic content. Furthermore, per WP:INN and WP:POKEMON your argument doesn't hold water - if there are thousands of other articles as totally bereft of content as this one is, I suggest they be deleted too. The fact that there are poor articles out there does not mean we should tolerate more. --Haemo 20:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect — all warships are notable, but this is an empty article ➥the Epopt 15:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No matter if it is traceable ship or not, it is so well known or not, it still forms the part of Indian navy with pride. therefore I think there should not be any problem with any one to give a little space here to a big ship. After all you never know when a ship is in light for some reason or other. Babarab 17:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless sourced and expanded, Keep if this is done by this AfD. Virtually every ship in the United States Navy has its own article. Is there a valid reason to treat the Indian Navy differently? If people think the current approach to articles on navy ships is wrong, a wholesale policy review involving deletion of a large number of articles might rectify the issue, but individual inconsistent AfDs don't appear to be the right approach. That said, article supplies no sources and says nothing of substance about this ship, WP:V and some basis for an article needs to be complied with at a minimum. --Shirahadasha 18:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this this simply not true. Look at List of United States Navy ships, A. By no means does every single ship have a page. Not even all ships current commissioned have pages, despite the US Navy being one of the most active and important Navies in the world. Furthermore, the ones that do have pages are not one-line stubs with no content - some of them are a little terse, but they include content. This article does not. --Haemo 20:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article as it currently stands is effectively 1 line in table of ships, giving a name of a ship and its commissioning date. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy we should not delete it if it is a stub that can possibly be expanded into a full article. I've looked, and cannot find any sources from which to expand this stub into a full article — no books, no news or magazine features, not even any web sites run by enthusiasts. This ship simply isn't documented in depth anywhere. It should not, therefore, have an entire article by itself. A single-fact article is the wrong way to include this single fact in Wikipedia. The right way is to include it in a list or a table, along with other such facts, and we find that it has already been included in this way in Ships of the Indian Navy. Uncle G 14:59, 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 no consensus to delete, merging can be done without an AfD. W.marsh 18:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decora[edit]

Article on a fashion style, but it is unsourced, and searching doesn't give turn up any reliable sources, making it unverifiable. The article also fails to assert notability, but as a subculture and not a group of people, it is not a candidate for A7. Also including Ero kawaii, another article with similar issues. --Core desat 03:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, fails WP:V and WP:N per nom. - SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 03:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both These are interesting fashion styles, these articles should be cleaned up and sourced rather than deleted. - Candy-Panda 03:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - not verifiable, interesting or worthwhile--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 04:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Decora to FRUiTS Magazine, since the only reliable sources I've been able to find mention it in that context. Presumably the two books based on the magazine are sources. Redirect ero kawaii to Kumi Koda, where it is already mentioned. (I'm happy to change either of these opinions if more sources turn up.)
As an aside, personal opinions about whether something is interesting are not good reasons to keep or delete. For every article you like, someone out there thinks it's boring. —Cel ithemis 05:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they are good reasons. And so is a lack of notability and verifibility.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 06:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, they are not. As Celithemis points out, such criteria lead to chaos. We do not employ either "I think that it is interesting." or "I think that it is not interesting." as criteria. Notability is not subjective. Uncle G 15:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both, somewhere, or delete. They might be better redirected to the (pretty horrible) Japanese fashion article, based on that article's contents rather than its name. They have yet to merit a mention there, so I doubt that they require their own articles. There are several articles related to Japanese fashion that lack context or believable assertions of notability. Hopefully they won't stay around because of WP:ILIKEIT. Dekimasu 11:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on Decora, Keep Ero kawaii: Japanese TV channel NTV has a contest based on ero kawaii here, so I cannot justify deleting the second page. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 21:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It directly references "Koda Kumi-san" rather than treating "erokawa" as a separate entity. That would seem to lend credence to Celithemis's redirect suggestion. Dekimasu 05:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - I don't see how Ero Kawaii is that much different than Kinderwhore. The information could be merged there. MightyAtom 04:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - could be merged later if a consensus develops. Disagree with nom; Google searches don't establish unverifiability... Addhoc 15:17, 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 keep — cleanup tags will be added as requested. Please take this as a wakeup call to rewrite this article and add sources. — Deckill er 05:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serenity (manga)[edit]

This article resembles an advertisement, most of the information is copied straight from the official website. -- Candy-Panda 03:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, interesting or otherwise worthwhile for an encyclopedia.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 03:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You are free to re-write article content if you feel it sounds like advertising. Killroy4 07:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Awful series, but doesn't need to be deleted. It needs to be moved again though because it's not a manga (it's manga influenced). I've moved it once in the past, but it looks like it was redone.--SeizureDog 08:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep. Comic series are notable (as long as they aren't webcomics or vanity press). Needs work to address the "reads like an ad" concerns, but that's not a criteria for deletion. 23skidoo 15:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — style of writing is not a criterion for deletion ➥the Epopt 15:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with every other article, need independent sources complying with WP:V and establishing notability to get to square 1, and the article creator is obligated to do this. We need to enforce these requirements fairly but firmly. Deletion can be reconsidered if sources are supplied. --Shirahadasha 18:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easy clean-up if you want it, sources can easily be made. If you really find it objectionable, tag it with rewrite. FrozenPurpleCube 20:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clean it up. dposse
Delete unless reliable secondary sources can be shown which assert notability. Seraphimblade 03:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of people seem to be voting 'keep' on articles with no sources today. As it stands now, this article has done nothing to establish notability. If some valid third party sources are found I'd be happy to support a keep. --The Way 05:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There really isn't any notability guidelines for comics though... In any case, I think the first Christian "manga" (though it's not a manga) makes it noteable enough.[15] Plus, I think that any comic series sold on Amazon is important enough to include.--SeizureDog 08:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requirements are the same for comics as for most things: we need multiple, non-trivial sources that make more than a passing mention to the topic in question. The source you cited (publishersweekly.com) may be a good one but it's a long standing precedent in AfD's that being on Amazon.com does not establish notability (since you can find virtually anything on Amazon.com). If you could find one or two more third party sources I'd change my 'vote' to keep. --The Way 08:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Even if Serenity was a manga (which it isn't), it wouldn't be the first Christian manga. Saint Tail has a religious theme, and it definitely predates Serenity.

"The story follows students in a private religious school, and while Saint Tail's stealing is sinful to her religion, she always asks for God's forgiveness before a caper." Sounds pretty Christian to me. Serenity is definitely not the first Christian comic either. --Candy-Panda 09:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I would suggest Sales figures as a useful benchmark for Notablity, but other than marketing fluff describing it as America's premier Christian Manga, I haven't found anything. However, they are distributed by Diamond, so there may be some hard figures out there, and this source indicates [16] some other notability as they are sold in a lot of retailers. So I don't see notability as a serious problems. FrozenPurpleCube 06:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Farix (Talk) 03:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but re-title, removed all that is unsourced, and tag with whatever is needed to be cleaned up. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentAs AfD is not a vote, you may wish to state what you believe justifies this position. Seraphimblade 07:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Erm, ok, because as painfully retarded as this "manga" looks, people have found sources that would validate an article for this comic just within this AfD alone. Add those sources to the article, remove anything that doesn't have sources, and move on. -- Ned Scott 08:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm still failing to see these sources? There are primary ones, granted, but those don't show notability. Seraphimblade 08:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can copy the 50 anime articles send 'em to a vanity book publisher and get it on amazon.com as an anime guide book. Being listed on Amazon is not an indication of notability. One of my pet-peeves with anime and manga articles on Wikipedia is that there is virtually no enforcement of notability guideline for titles. As long as it's not published by a doujin group, it seems, a minor one volume manga can make it as an article. It's certainly not the first time manga has been used to present a religious belief. The Aum Cult, famous for the Sarin gas attack in Tokyo used manga to further their views. And it's certainly not the first christian manga (per this source.) We need some critical commentary on this series from multiple independent non-trivial sources. --Kunzite 05:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions? This is not manga, people! I repeat, this is NOT MANGA! --Candy-Panda 06:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? People can add stuff to a delsort page if the legitimately think it is of relevance to that area or "group" of editors, etc. -- Ned Scott 08:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation related deletions. --Candy-Panda 06:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care where this page ends up, the point is "Serenity" is not manga, and therefore shouldn't be called manga. Manga, in the western slang sense, means comics from Japan. To call "Serenity" a manga is misleading. Just as comics from Japan are called manga, comics from China are called manhua, comics from Korea are called manhwa, comics from America (or Canada, or the UK, or Australia etc...) are called comics, no matter what style they are in. "Serenity" is American-made, therefore it should be labelled a "comic" not a "manga". --Candy-Panda 10:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whaps Candy-Panda over the head with a copy of Dramacon Vol 2. As if we really need one of the punch lines revisited in real life. --Farix (Talk) 21:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Been there, said that, got out voted. --Kunzite 03:30, 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 no consensus to delete. Uncited claims, especially about real people, can be removed. W.marsh 17:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal crack[edit]

Note: Adding a nom for speedy delete as a violation of WP:BLP without prejudice to constructing a properly sourced article on this subject later. See comments below. Original AfD nom follows: --Shirahadasha 18:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In all my time as a wikipedia editor I've never been as shocked as I was by this largely ignored article. Things that shocked me:

"While accessing the whistle register, Chanté Moore's voice cracked on the phrase "Here We Go", when she covered the Minnie Riperton classic." - this smacks of 2 things, libelous slander about one singer, and obsessive fandom of another. It's also original research.

The article's subject is just the passaggio. Puberty already has its in depth info on voice changes in boys and girls.

Nothing links here.

"vocal cords catch up to their developing larynges, as the vocal adductor muscles struggle to regain their strength at this new speaking voice pitch" is complete hogwash & original research you won't find anywhere else.

"For example, a singer may sing a particular note in the head register softly, but upon trying to increase the volume and pull the note into the chest register" 'pulling' a note into chest from head is actually technically impossible in 99% of the vocal range.

The article has no sources. The article will never have any sources - nobody edits it. It is largely abandoned. It also duplicates another article - passaggio which effort should be focused on. I'd nom it for speedy but i've never done that before. It's all original research. --I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 03:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for nowI can't speak to the veracity of the article, but then again neither can the article. I've tagged it as needing sources in the hopes of getting its author's attention (assuming the AfD hasn't already done that). If, after a reasonable length of time, nobody knowledgeable in voice finds a reason to annotate this article properly I will support its deletion. Flakeloaf 04:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links to the article, and one person edits it every 6 months, and it's just full of gushing fan-cruft, but sure, why not give it the 5 days it takes to go through AfD? If it's ever going to be fixed up, it'll be during these 5 days. Certainly some possible time in 4 years isn't worth waiting for though.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 05:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep unlesss there's a more technical term for this, in which case redirect. Notable term. Just because the article sucks is no reason to delete it. Clean-up instead.--SeizureDog 07:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now, else Redirect Two different issues: 1) the legitimacy of the term 'Vocal crack' and 2) the nonsense that's written about. It's obvious to me that the article needs work for a) references and sources, and b) may contain an unconventional school of thought on singing, so on that grounds it needs a rewrite. But the bone of contention is (1) : the legitimacy of the term 'Vocal crack'. Consider leaving the article for a while or consider Redirecting. Rfwoolf 11:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a violation of WP:BLP. This article has no sources at all, including no sources for the featured claims that various singers' voices have cracked in various situations. Agree that these sorts of claims are potentially libelous and making them unsourced is a potentially serious violation of WP:BLP. --Shirahadasha 18:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to passagio which could use some work to be accessible to none experts. Do not merge unsourced material. Eluchil404 10:58, 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 no consensus to delete. I suggest people who want this to be transwiki'd go ahead and transwiki it, and make sure WikiSource/WikiNews wants this content, then bring it back to AfD once it's been accepted somewhere else and see if there's a consensus to delete this from Wikipedia. W.marsh 18:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006[edit]

Wikipedia is not a memorial. This article lists every Coalition casualty of the Iraq War in 2006. Unfortunately, listing every foreign casualty of the Iraq War is not of encyclopedic value. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli fatalities of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. – Zntrip 04:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, article is maintained and up-to-date, providing readers with frequently-sought information that is of the calibre commonly found in history books. Wikipedia is about NPOV knowledge, and this article/list is in no way trying to give any POV slant or paint rosy pictures of the soldiers - but doesn't belong to be merged with Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003. Compare it with List of Coalition aircraft crashes in Iraq, List of Coalition aircraft crashes in Afghanistan, British Forces casualties in Afghanistan since 2001, Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan, and the earlier-history List of Soviet aircraft crashes in Afghanistan. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment British Forces casualties in Afghanistan since 2001 was proposed for deletion, but was kept after a substantial rewrite. Articles of this type need a lot of work in order to be acceptable. Hut 8.5 16:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a nice set of info and very well maintained, but this kind of stuff is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. The list is far too long to be useful and there's not even links from the page to anywhere else. It's essentially a memorial without being too overt about it.--Velvet elvis81 05:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs work to make it more navigable, yes - but it is every bit as valid as the others. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 10:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This is an inappropriate list. Killroy4 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LIST badly. It has no navigational or developmental value, and is not remarkably useful. It is a list of non-notable people who were only named in the media because they died. Wikipedia is not a memorial. ~~I also qustion whether this list is properly maintained, unless the United States is a coalition of one.~~ Resolute 08:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely see the non-US deaths listed. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 10:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you are right. I scanned the list quickly, and missed the four British casualties. The remainder of my argument stands, however. Resolute 16:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dying does not confer notability, and we would never have a list of non-notable people in an article of their own. If we allow articles listing deaths, what is to stop us listing deaths for every huge battle? The Somme? What about older battles? The Battle of Hastings? What about obscure battles with many deaths? What about the predicted 5.8 million people killed in Operation Barbarossa? Wikipedia is not the place for this. J Milburn 10:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Comment I would venture to say that if the article is deleted, someone out there may appreciate a copy being available somewhere. If that's not actually feasible/possible then it's not actually feasible/possible Rfwoolf 11:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it is incomplete and fails WP:LIST. It appears to be taken from here (see the large table part way down 'military casualties by month'), so (more complete) info is available elsewhere on the web. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userify Agree content is not encyclopedic for reasons listed above. An encyclopedia summarizes rather than simply listing every detail. Suggest moving content to a user page rather than deleting outright. --Shirahadasha 18:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Would this go to somewhere like Wikisource? Probably not. Just a thought Computerjoe 's talk 18:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed; this kind information is useful. It may not belong in wikipedia, but it would be a shame to see it simply deleted. Joshdboz 00:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews perhaps? Resolute 02:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hate to say delete as it's clear a lot of work went into this and I understand the desire for this sort of thing, unfortunately it is too long of a list and really is a thinly veiled memorial. More importantly, keeping this would set a precedent for similar lists for every conflict/war ever. --The Way 05:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and transwiki. Wikinews perhaps, but Wikibooks as the start of a text on the Iraq War is a viable option too. —siro χ o 10:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikisource Not a good encyclopedia article, since most of these unfortunate people are not individually notable other than being on this list. However, it might be worth considering transporting it to Wikisource as it could be a good piece of historical material there. Dugwiki 22:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource. This information could be useful, but it doesn't make a good encyclopedia article. Hut 8.5 17:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. This information would be useful if it was complete. An incomplete list of this sort is misleading, which I think is worse than useless. The information looks as if it has come from here, but there are large omissions in the version we have here. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is the kind of thing that Wikipedia is best at, and most used for. I have seen this articles like this frequently used in numerous arguments. ;;;Rewrite;;; if necessary, but don't delete. In my opinion, given the unique nature of the list, and the frequent use of similar articles (such as other casualty lists), this is a strong candidate for Wiki:IAR, if nothing else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.44.220 (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Transwiki to Wikinews or Wikisource, I don't think this information is so bad that it should be deleted, but it's also not worth keeping here on Wikipedia. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 01:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - probably wikisource would be the best place for this, although its an excellent resource and needs to be kept, its not really suitable for wikipedia.Ms medusa 23:12, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli Military Police casualties[edit]

Wikipedia is not a memorial. This article lists all Israeli Military Police casualties of war. Listing every casualty is of no encyclopedic value. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli fatalities of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. – Zntrip 04:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic. Does not meet the guidelines per WP:LIST. Not to mention that it is a list of non-notable people. It is extremely likely that it is unmaintainable, as I doubt that those are the only MP casualties during Israel's "many wars". Resolute 08:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006. J Milburn 10:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If at all possible, if the article is deleted, can someone think of a place to put the article in case anyone wants to refer to it (possibly on a different wiki or elsewhere on the web) Rfwoolf 11:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator of the article wrote on the talk page: 'I think someone may try to AfD this article for notability (don't know), but in such a case, I think it's notable because it's not a memorial for a single non-notable person but rather lists all the people who died for a specific organization, which is notable.' I'm not convinced, I don't think it usefully fulfills any of the functions of lists listed at WP:LIST. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userify per the AfD above. --Shirahadasha 18:23, 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 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kavorka[edit]

Non notable phrase used in one episode of Seinfeld Daniel J. Leivick. 04:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move to BJAODN. --Candy-Panda 08:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as a legitimate legend/concept. Most google results point to the Seinfeld episode. Even if it was a latvian term, it would have to be a little bit more notable or the legend would have to have more sources. Delete for now. The article's not so great anyways. Don't necessarily WP:SALT Rfwoolf 12:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Claims of originating in Latvia, having a cure, etc. completely unsourced and unverified, and for all we know could be a WP:HOAX. No evidence of notability independent of the Seinfeld episode in which it appears. --Shirahadasha 18:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quote from the episode's page, as well as that of the Latvian Orthodox Church: "The writer of the episode, Bruce Kirschbaum, revealed later that he was unaware that the Latvian Orthodox church actually existed while writing the episode. His original intention was to have a fictitious religion." So, obviously false information, and probably not worthy of a separate page as a joke. --80.235.61.246 02:11, 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 17:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trip kings[edit]

A non-notable band not under a record label. None of the members have articles linking to them, rather to other notable people such as a mayor and the founder of Burton snowboards who just happen to have the same names. Just because a band has a Myspace account does not make them worthy of a Wikipedia article. Darth griz⁹⁸ 04:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as completely non notable. I reckon they could be speedied under {{db-band}}. J Milburn 12:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. The only album listed has no lable, and the "2007??" suggest that they're only hoping to release an album someday. I removed the inappropriate link that pointed to a Nine Inch Nails album of the same title.zadignose 18:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With less than two years active there are no accomplishments to point here. User:Dimadick

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaa[edit]

Non-notable phrase Nv8200p talk 04:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Unsourced, no notably stressed in the article Computerjoe 's talk 18:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as above. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 03:36, 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. Michael 04:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fraggle (Shane Fenton)[edit]

This is a made-up person not to be confused with Shane Fenton. Pomte 04:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Obvious joke. - rynne 18:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and I tagged it - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 03:38, 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 Keep. ST47Talk 17:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kids in Glass Houses[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 04:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep They certainly seem notable- they have performed with a number of undeniably notable bands. The BBC has a page on them here, and there is a page on them here. The BBC having a page suggests notability to me. Also, their lyrics are posted all over the nasty lyrics websites that populate the malware side of the web. They have released an EP, as shown here. Oh, they performed to over 15000 people according to this source. I think that if this band is not notable, they will be in a couple of months, certainly. However, I suspect that they are covered as notable now. Just. J Milburn 12:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per J Milburn. BBC usually doesn't report on non-notable things. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:08, 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 No consensus. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy (King Kong)[edit]

I think it should be deleted or merged into one article, since the Jack Dawson and Rose Dewitt Bukater articles got merged into a list. Superior1 05:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere unless there is evidence of Jimmy being notable outside of King Kong. GassyGuy 05:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's a difference. Jack and Rose only appeared in one movie, this guy, according to the article, appeared in the original and the remake and various merchandise. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Uh yeah in the 33 one he had a non speaking role. Not notable. Also, he isn't a main character like Jack and Rose, and doesn't even appear in the last 40 minutes of the movie. Superior1 05:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works...." King Kong obviously meets that guideline, but would Jimmy? I highly doubt you'll find him discussed as the subject rather than King Kong being the subject. GassyGuy 04:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That rule is too oppressive if enforced to the absolute. It's a subarticle of the King Kong movies, and appearing in both, the character bio doesn't really belong in either. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even if he isn't in the end, that does not mean he is not important. Rhino131 23:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) which says "Major characters 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." First this is not a major character and second this article does not provide encyclopedic treatment that would merit a separate article. --maclean 05:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to King Kong (2005 film). Normally I'd say merge into an article like List of King Kong characters but there doesn't appear to be one. Eluchil404 09:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had made one called List of characters in King Kong (2005), but it got merged into the main article. Superior1 20:49, 23 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, Avi 05:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable in and of itself, unimportant to parent movie article Avi 05:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was a list of characters in King Kong (2005) here: [17] but it was (hastily) merged to the main article after a single comment on the discussion page. And the main article on the film simply lists the cast--no list was merged. I would suggest bringing back the characters list, but since there are two versions of the film--and since most of the characters appear in both versions--I don't know...maybe a (non-specific) "list of King Kong characters"? Wavy G 05:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not an important and notable character in both films. Terence Ong 15:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect. He was a somewhat notable character in the movie, but at least redirect. 11kowrom 00:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, non-notable. /Blaxthos 08:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boar (Thomas Harris)[edit]

The article concerns boars as they were presented in the novel Hannibal and its film adaptation. I don't believe they are that important or needed for Wikipedia. CyberGhostface 18:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Hannibal (novel) per WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that we should give the novel a section on the boars?--CyberGhostface 22:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As they are part of the novel, what is the objection? --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its part of the novel, but its not big enough to have its own section.--CyberGhostface 13:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone complaining about articles on the species featured in Star Trek and Star Wars, nor do I see objections to an article on Belvedere Ohio, which is quite small and features only in SOTL.--Dark Hyena 16:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't Star Wars, is it? And as far as I know, the Star Wars creatures has one big article for all the minor creatures. A six movie fantasy series with literally thousands of tie-in novels, comics and etceteras is going to be chronicled different from a four novel series. As for Belvedere Ohio, if you want to put it up for AFD, by all means, go ahead.--CyberGhostface 20:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The species has a bit of importance in the novel, but there are important people in the novel series who may be much more deserving of their own article such as Barney Matthews and Ardelia Mapp, as discussed by CyberGhostface and me. 71.243.181.204 19:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because people can't be bothered to do a Barney or Ardelia article doesnt mean the boar article should go. User:Dark Hyena 11:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the Boar article should go. I still think that we should keep it now that we have it, but there are obvious characters in the books who are more deserving of an article. 71.243.181.204 03:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:NOT. It's just random. It's not a "major character"... it's a friggen plot element. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:30, 21 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, Avi 05:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable WP:WING, WP:VSCA Avi 05:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content isn't even notable enough to add to the article for the novels, let alone have a stand-alone article. janejellyroll 05:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. No sources. No attempt to comply with WP:N and WP:V. --Shirahadasha 05:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the novel or the movie. Its a plot device. They are like the plot summaries for every movie or book, there are never references, the movie is itself the reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, what is everyone waiting for? Delete it then!.|Dark Hyena
Delete per WP:Notability. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nejee16 23:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above... Addhoc 14:52, 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 Withdrawn by nominator with no objections. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 08:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Graham[edit]

Subject is not notable per WP:BIO Jerry lavoie 05:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Former leader of a recognized political party with legislative representation. Clearly notable. CJCurrie 05:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable by virtue of political positions held. --Slp1 05:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article says he is a football player, but doesn't say what team or league. It says he was a politician, but it does not say any office he held. (unless the riding of Halifax Citadel is an office... forgive me I am American, and not familiar with that wording). It talks about his wife, kids, and brother as much as it talks about him, but none of them are asserted as notable in the article. It talks about his law practice, business, activism, etc, as uncited and without any assertion of notability for any of these things, and without any context for the reader... just a quick factiod on each. we know from this article much more about his wife than we do of him. I do not think that the average person armed only with the information provided by this article would conclude he is notable. Perhaps he is notable, and this article just doesn't mention that. If not delete, major rework recommended. Jerry lavoie 05:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any politician elected to a federal, provincial or state legislature is notable. Any politician who was the leader of his political party in the federal, provincial or state legislature is even less remotely open to debate. Speedy keep. Bearcat 05:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP He is a notable person being a former MLA. As for the person above, he was a member of the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia for the riding of Halifax Citadel. A riding is the equivalent of an American legislative district, a UK Parliamentary constituency or an Australian legislative Division. David McNamara 06:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep • A former MLA is among the more notable people we could have documented, in the politics category. Also, very weak reason given for the deletion. Jerry, I'm unsure if you're a new user, but I would suggest retratcting this AFD per WP:SNOW. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Positions and leadership definitely notable. --Gwern (contribs) 06:48 21 January 2007 (GMT) 06:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I don't exactly enjoy saying this, but I can see I was wrong on this one. I was unfamiliar with the local terminology, so I did not recognize the notable posts that the rest of the editors above are pointing out. I appreciate you all taking the time to weigh-in on this debate. I request this nomination be closed with result of keep - withdrawn by nominator. Thanks everybody. Jerry lavoie 07:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to worry, it was an honest mistake. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:19, 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. W.marsh 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Montalvo[edit]

fails WP:BIO, nomatined for deletion due to that reason Bigdaddydriver 05:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability test. No citations given either. Tomstdenis 14:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Delete non notable athleteDogJesterExtra 16:21, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Kennedy[edit]

Self-purported television series that has yet to air and does not seem as if it will air on any notable network. The "official webpage" is a MySpace page. JuJube 05:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick look at the "official webpage" shows that this isn't going to be an actual TV series, let alone notable. Maxamegalon2000 06:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 12:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable and non-notable. J Milburn 12:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:Notability. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:10, 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 17:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bakit Labis Kitang Minahal[edit]

OK, I'm not pinoy, nor can I read Tagalog, but I can tell when an article miserably fails WP:V and WP:RS. Much pleading to the author(s) to provide something, anything, to source this, to no avail. Apparently "Bakit Labis Kitang Minahal" is a Filipino song, and someone thinks it should be a TV show, too. Prod pulled by anon. Tubezone 05:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete unless this article can have sources. After many days trying, I cannot verify this from search engine searches, and even on ABS-CBN's own website. The author was already warned more than once to provide sources, but still nothing came up; instead, the AfD/Prod templates were deleted without adding the needed references. --- Tito Pao 12:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments. It appears that the most likely source for this would be the ABS-CBN forums; however, per WP:V, this is not an acceptable source of information. So while no official announcement has been made, I'll keep my vote as it is. It is also interesting that the current discussion on the ABSCBN forums cite this WP article instead of providing other, more reliable sources (meaning, even the forum members don't have a clue about this unverifiable future soap opera). And then again, one of the posters mentioned that this was just a rumored soap opera. Since when did rumors become the main source of information for WP articles? I would still vote for delete unless strong references can be provided. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Titopao (talk • contribs) 12:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete no refs whatsoever, If the soap really exists, WP:CRYSTAL might be a better argument for deletion.Lenticel 13:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and lock unless refs are found. Can be unlocked once teasers start appearring on TV. --Howard the Duck 14:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found another article about an upcoming TV show: L.U.V. Pow. Can this be appended in the nomination too? --Howard the Duck 02:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to say cojones in Tagalog, but sure, as far as I care, add any pinoy TV BS you like to this. Tubezone 10:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The entire article is on future tense for a planned program. I seem to recall Wikipedia is not a crystall ball. User:Dimadick

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria lynn Weston[edit]

WP:AUTO (created by Vweston3554), fails WP:BIO, WP:V A Ramachandran 05:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JuJube 06:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article represents many of the pitfalls someone can fall into when they ignore the good advice not to write their own autobiography on Wikipedia. janejellyroll 08:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I think it may well represent all of the pitfalls thereof...Robertissimo 15:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, non-notable spam advertisement. — coelacan talk — 19:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Wtshymanski 23:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete This article is presently being revised per Wikipedia guidelines. Jujube, you are acting quite unprofessional and your comment is not a valid reason to have this article deleted, hmmm.. "in vain" perhaps? Also, if an article is being considered for deletion, it would be appropriate to include "specific reasons" why it should be deleted and not merely "per nom". As for being labeled "spam and advertising", I can find dozens of other pages written by the author with dozens of self promotion external links. --VWeston 23:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The author of the article is also repeatedly reinserting info about her biography into the Victoria Woodhull article. JuJube 23:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Hey JuJube! Yes, as a producer and director of a historical documentary with esteemed reviews from American Journal of History, which also includes indepth interviews from feminist icon Gloria Steinem. You are failing to see that the documentary is about VICTORIA WOODHULL not me. Victoria Woodhull And as other authors have posted their books, it's equally important to include the only documentary which has been broadcast in the US and Canada and currently distributed to universities should be included. This is a significant and well respected documentary about the first female presidential candidate. Vweston 26:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment All that "true spirit" nonsense is closer to a personal attack than my joke. In any case, you are obviously offended, so I'm removing it. JuJube 00:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you JuJube! Vweston3554 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Broadcast on television and distributed to universities? The article as it stands does not point this out. Do we have any reference for it that might establish notability? User:Dimadick
Delete (for now). If information can be included where the documentary was shown on a notable network (and links to notable reviews of it), I wouldn't mind seeing a version of this article (which would be rewritten per wiki-style, perferably not by the subject herself). IronDuke 02:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: IronDuke, that might make the documentary itself notable enough for an article, but that notability would not automatically carry over to the director. — coelacan talk — 03:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Coelacan, point well-taken. There would probably have to be more to it than that, but it would be a good start, Ithink. IronDuke 15:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Broadcast on television and distributed to universities?" It seems when links and external links have been applied, they have been disputed as self promotion. All postings have been posted within the guidelines of Wikipedia, although VLW page is still under edit phase. Under Victoria Woodhull, required valid reference is clearly posted.User:Vweston3554

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goin' Nuts[edit]

A minor radio show which aired for barely three months on a radio station that itself is only just above the notabity waterline; I've flagged this for {{importance}} several times now, but anon IPs have repeatedly removed the tag without adding anything to the article to clarify why it should be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. Accordingly, it's now coming to AFD. No vote from me; I leave it to AFD consensus to decide, and would recommend that people keep it watchlisted in case our anon friend starts removing the AFD tag too. Bearcat 05:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's nowhere near the waterline; it's deep, deep down because it airs on an Internet radio station (see the CHEV (AM) article). Immediately this puts it on par with the many non-notable Shoutcast and Live365 shows that have few listeners. The show is also cancelled, so the chance of any more changes or article improvement is virtually non-existent. Nate 06:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant the station was only just above the waterline, not the show. Although only on Internet radio now, CHEV was at one time a licensed broadcast operation, and in fact it technically still is if it ever gets around to picking a new AM frequency. Bearcat 06:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Understandable, but since the show didn't air within CHEV's AM era and for only two months on their Internet station, I feel the same standards that apply to personal internet radio shows apply to this, no matter how well known the station might be. Nate 07:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Hard to get more non-notable than to have your cancellation announced on Facebook. Resolute 07:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Killroy4 07:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 19:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. ShadowHalo 05:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Community access radio show cancelled after three months without having been noticed does not merit inclusion. Sixth Estate 19:41, 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 Keep per consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Active Kidz[edit]

Non-notable Australian children's TV program. Has few links to it. Orderinchaos78 05:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it wasn't a very popular children's program, all it's DVDs are in the $2 bargain bins at video stores. --Candy-Panda 08:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't the fact that the dvd made it into bargain bins in the first place prove notability for keeping? —siro χ o 10:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. J Milburn 12:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like a dumb-but-notable TV show, airing nationally in a major country. Official site shows loads of press coverage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Starblind, the link he found shows a big and phat list of sources, loads of articles in the printed press - link would be good posted in the talk page, give any contributor something to go on. The subject of kiddy fitness in the western world is becoming increasingly important and discussed - I've seen similar articles for the series Lazy Town in national papers here in the UK. QuagmireDog 18:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Broadcast nationally in Australia on the ABC [18] and Google News Archive comes up with 50 hits for it so plenty of sources. [19].
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Its notable.DXRAW 07:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my above comment —siro χ o 10:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Program shown on a national television network, subsequent DVD release. It's notable. --Tntnnbltn 10:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- verifiable, and worthy of expansion. - Longhair\^talk 02:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Remember guys, Wikipedia is not US centric. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's notable in Australia. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should note as the nominator that I'm Australian myself - and am yet to be swayed that it is notable, although I can see consensus will result in keep. Orderinchaos78 06:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nationally broadcast programme makes it inherently notable (if not quality). Lankiveil 09:36, 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. Agent 86 00:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KansasCali[edit]

Not notable, made by a member, against WP:AUTO WP:COI#Self-promotion, along with possible WP:NOT#WEBSPACE -- feb^talk 06:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more than meet WP:MUSIC with the number of soundtracks they have appeared on. Nuttah68 15:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nuttah68 but obviously it could use some work. Static Universe ^talk|edits 18:54, 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 no consensus to delete. Merge is still possible. W.marsh 18:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iPhony[edit]

An application that copies the user interface of iPhone. It is unreleased, and the maker has recieved cease-and-desist orders from Apple Inc., casting the future of the product in doubt. Scepia 06:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Strong Delete Yeah, but how often do big companies drop stuff like this, usually due to bad publicity? not to mention, would the maker even care? Though I think it should be removed simply because it doesn't seem notable at all. Changing from Weak to Strong after review, see comment below-- feb^talk 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Updated: 23:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This program received major news attention (including television coverage). Here is a Google News search with at least 25 different news stories about the software. This rattled a major corporation's cage and resulted in the creation of multiple non-trivial published works from news organizations. Per WP:CORP (and WP:SOFTWARE (proposed guideline)), this software is notable. By the way, the software is released (I have it on my phone right now), but was smothered within 12 hours of its release by Apple lawyers making it more difficult but not impossible to find the distribution sources still hosting it. There are announced plans for a larger resolution version from the creator as well. Besides which, "future of product" is hardly a criteria within WP:CORP. Finally, for those that like GHits, here are 788,000 of them. ju66l3r 18:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Notable litigation of Apple Computer. The product itself is not notable, but the legal action might be notable. -- Ned Scott 18:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Notable litigation of Apple Computer. I agree with Ned Scott. The software itself is not notable, except for the attention it is drawing from Apple's legal team. And even then it is only slightly notable, depending on the future of the software/legal action. BJ Nemeth 19:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain what "slightly notable" means? Or how it's not notable per the criteria? ju66l3r 20:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me put it this way, so far it's only notable because Apple is taking legal action. If Apple wasn't taking legal action and the article was just about the software itself then ... and that's hardly a major achievement or .. well.. notable. Wikipedia:Notability might help to explain the general view on notability. It is a bit of a grey area for some topics, but I think it's rather clear for this piece of software. -- Ned Scott 20:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is not subjective. It meets the criteria. Apple is taking legal action and multiple, independent sources have decided to make note of the software because of its garnering the attention of Apple. Notability. ju66l3r 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that is what we are saying, that the legal action is notable. We should cover the topic of the legal action, with some note on the software itself for context, but not a whole article. -- Ned Scott 20:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Considering it was 12 hours between announcement/release and Apple legal action, it's pretty much impossible to know if the software would have been notable solely in its own right or would have been ignored until Apple tagged it (and no respectable source is going to mention one without the other at this point obviously). That still does not remove the fact that the software is the focus of a number of the articles (titles similar to How to have an iPhone early, etc). I don't want to fill the AfD with back-n-forth, but I just want to make sure it's clear that the criteria are met for the software per WP:CORP. I agree the legal action is notable and should be introduced to the appropriate article(s)...which would also help de-orphan the article under discussion, too. ju66l3r 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        When I said "slightly notable," I should have used better language. I should have said that it's notability is tenuous. It barely reaches the level of notability in my opinion, and *only* because of the cease-and-desist from Apple. I also suspect that it's notability will quickly fade in the next few months. That's what I meant (in my mind, at least) when I described it as "slightly notable." I'll make an effort to be more clear in the future. BJ Nemeth 15:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Controversial but notable. | Noticket 20:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep | Agentbla 23:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I took another look at the software itself, is it actually ANYTHING more than a simple Palm OS launcher screen skin? It doesn't even look like it does anything special as a program, just modifies the way your launcher menu works. In which case, shouldn't we be listing the various make-Windows-XP-look-like-Vista mods? -- feb^talk 23:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As described it's a "very basic" launcher application" [20]. Scepia 04:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, it would be odd if Apple had not taken action in something like this, given the name. I can't even see how its controversial. It would be more notable if either the application or the maker's justification had any merit. As it this will not stay in memory very long.DGG 06:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The most remarkable thing Apple did in the iPhone is the Human-Computer Interface. It is important to track down the impact in other smartphones and PDAs interface. Hgfernan^talk 15:19, 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 no consensus to delete these, and no compelling policy reason to delete despite the lack of consensus. However, I personally think these pages aren't very useful as they apparently contain no actual content yet, and it might be a better idea to just include this information when written on List of asteroids pages, as seems to have been suggested in this discussion. But this can be done without an AfD. W.marsh 18:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meanings of asteroid names (139001-140000)[edit]

Also:

Meanings of asteroid names (119001-120000)
Meanings of asteroid names (109001-110000)
Meanings of asteroid names (138001-139000)
Meanings of asteroid names (137001-138000)
Meanings of asteroid names (145001-146000)
Meanings of asteroid names (144001-145000)
Meanings of asteroid names (143001-144000)
Meanings of asteroid names (142001-143000)
Meanings of asteroid names (141001-142000)
Meanings of asteroid names (140001-141000)
Meanings of asteroid names (131001-132000)
Meanings of asteroid names (130001-131000)
Meanings of asteroid names (126001-127000)
Etc. (There's starting to be too many to list, see Meanings of asteroid names) There are simply placeholder articles with no actual information. Additionally, many other articles only have a handful of entrys. Asteroids 100000 to 140000 could probably stand to all be merged into one article. SeizureDog 07:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap, delete them all. All of this information (for asteroids that actually exist) can be found in the articles on those asteroids. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Core desat 08:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, not every asteroid that exists has an article yet (with 100K+ and counting, it obviously takes time). Plenty of these lists have information for redlinked articles, and I think that sort of information should be kept. However, I just don't see the need for the articles to be spread out so widely.--SeizureDog 08:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even when these numbers are actually allocated a link to the relevant external database would be the correct way to handle this kind of information. --Nick Dowling 09:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge This could and probably should all go in one article. Or failing that, we could just delete them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cream147 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC). Cream147 11:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the place holders. Those with actual information are entirely relevent, merges of those with few entries are possible. J Milburn 12:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the ones that say 'There are as yet no named asteroids in this span of numbers'. They'll be redlinks in Meanings of asteroid names, which won't do any harm. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking out my vote, since someone working on the project says that they are necessary. I still wonder why the links in the main article and the empty placeholders were created at all, but I'm now neutral. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom and Coredesat - •The RSJ• Talk | Sign Here 16:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Let me address the concerns one by one:
- « These are simply placeholder articles with no actual information. » Wrong: the fact that these asteroids have as yet no permanent names *is* information (to quote Einstein, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
- « Asteroids 100000 to 140000 could probably stand to all be merged into one article. » Perhaps, but eventually they will become large enough (see the first few of the list, such as Meanings of asteroid names (1-1000)) that they'll need to be split again. Managing such a large list with a varying chunk size would be a major pain.
- « All of this information (for asteroids that actually exist) can be found in the articles on those asteroids. » It is extremely unlikely (and certainly unnecessary) that *each* asteroid will ever get an article. The overwhelming majority of minor planets are just uninteresting chunks of rock, which don't deserve more than an entry in one or more master lists such as this one. Suggesting that individual articles be created systematically would lead to much more clutter than keeping the current arrangement of lists.
- « A link to the relevant external database would be the correct way to handle this kind of information. » Bull. The {{MPCit_JPL}} database is as yet incomplete, with no guarantee of ever including the "citations" preceding the time (roughly, mid-1940s) when the MPC citation procedure was put into place. Furthermore, there is no way to see the meanings together (MPCit_JPL lists only one asteroid at a time). And you never know when it will break (see {{MPCit_MPES}} for a current example). The Wiki entries in this list are also usually more complete than the raw citations (links to Wiki content, miscellaneous precisions added, and so forth), not to mention that they've been reworked in order to avoid any copyright issues.
- « Delete the ones that say 'There are as yet no named asteroids in this span of numbers'. They'll be redlinks in Meanings of asteroid names, which won't do any harm. » Neither would keeping these short articles, so why delete 'em, just to be forced to re-create them when the next batch of namings comes out of the Minor Planet Center? Leaving red links does do harm, because it leaves the reader with a doubt: are these articles missing because there are no names to explain, or because they haven't been written yet?
To summarise, I understand the temptation to collapse the shorter articles into broader-spanned ones, but I must insist on the logistic nightmare this would represent. I suspect none of the 'deleters' that have piped up above have contributed one iota to the enormous amount of on-going work these pages represent. Urhixidur 18:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The first articles in this series only represent 500 asteroids, it is only after #5000 that they are in groups of a thousand. What I am merely suggesting is that at a certain point, the articles start being group by, say, five or ten thousands. As it stands, even someone interested in the subject will find themselves very frustrated to think they're getting information when they're not. A redlink simply says "sorry, put we don't have any information on this yet", but a bluelink implies that there's information to be had. Empty bluelinks mislead and waste time.--SeizureDog 22:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Useless articles K a mope · talk · contributions 18:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - wikipedia is not paper. If they are meaningful articles to somebody who knows something about the topic, I assume they are verifiable and will be expanded. I trust the editor to have thought about the articles and the scheme for the articles and I support his efforts. --Golden Wattle ^talk 19:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The information is relevant and if deleted, cannot be found in any other articles (as of right now), therefore the above mentioned articles should stay. Merging the articles would be bad, because they almost certainly will have to be split some time in the future. Spot87 20:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, as per Urhixidur. Even the place holders should stay, but should be merged for now. J Milburn 20:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I would strongly urge the use of redirects for these "placeholders". --Dhartung | Talk 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Urhixidur summed up my view on this matter quite well. The only possible variation I would add to this is the possiblity of adjusting the group sizes and although logistically a pain, readjusting them as more names are accepted and assigned. Note that there is a limit to the number of names per astronomer or group can submit, 2 per month. With some groups discovering 100's of SSSBs in a month, in many cases it is quite possible, many will never recieve names. The lack of name or more importantly when a SSSB recieves its name in comparison to when it was discovered, or if it is ever given a name, will help show the degree of importance that either the group or individual astronomy placed on it. —The preceding Abyssoft 05:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lists like this would be useful and encyclopedic if they had something in them. But for all the articles currently listed the main content as "There are as yet no named asteroids in this span of numbers." In other words, there is nothing here to describe the meaning of. No prejudice whatsoever against recreation once we get at least one named asteroid in the span of numbers so that there is something to put here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because there are no asteroids with those numbers. They will soon be some asteroids in the near future, but in the meantime, they have no use, so I don't have a reason why they should be kept for now. Also, you can't assume that those asteroids will soon be assigned those numbers, that is crystal balling - WP:CRYSTAL. RaNdOm26 07:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, as per Urhixidur. Removing them would be pointless.--JyriL ^talk 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keepThere surely will be content for all in time, and some have it already. Given the prior pages in the series, it should be continued, and I can not see why anyone would object to setting up this small number of pages in advance.DGG
Keep as per Urhixidur and DGG. See how out of about 140 such lists of largely mundane asteroids, there's only 14 which have not yet acquired links, and they're mostly the newest numbered asteroids. Names will certainly come. Merging them to make less articles but with huuuge lists of many thousands in each is too cumbersome. Imagine looking for asteroid 123456 in a list from 100 to 140 thousand. Deuar 18:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ctrl+F, search "123456". Not hard at all.--SeizureDog 21:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

17:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete — I'm all for keeping even relatively obscure astronomy articles, but these pages have no value in my mind. There are an infinite number of asteroid numbers with no names assigned. It is trivial to have a page saying that these asteroids have no numbers. This fact can be summarized on a single page. — RJH (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't resist...« There are an infinite number of asteroid numbers with no names assigned » Wrong, there are only 147,951 numbered asteroids [21], hardly infinity. « It is trivial to have a page saying that these asteroids have no numbers » Ah, but they do have numbers. :-) Urhixidur 03:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Meanwhile, here's an update. In the latest batch of asteroid numberings and namings, the numbers have extended from 145,705 to 147,951, and one of the deletion candidates has acquired a named asteroid (which will be filled in shortly): Meanings of asteroid names (126001-127000) : 126749 Johnjones. Urhixidur 04:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added a long comment to this page which was not really relevant for the deletion discussion but concerned a related issue. I have moved it to the talk page of Urhixidur, which is a more appropriate place. Nobody else had made any comment on it. up◦land 06:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — While the empty pages may be of little immediate utility, a framework is in place, one that would make the task of including asteroid discoveries that much easier. Note well that asteroids are being discovered at an increasing rate, what with LINEAR and Spacewatch in place. I also trust Urhixidur's judgement in this topic area, as he has furnished consistently high quality edits on astronomical and solar system matters, and this framework would probably make his life easier. Gosgood 04:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The score so far stands at:

7 Delete
2 Merge (and other compromises)
10 Keep
1 Neutral (including stricken votes)

Comment — To clear up a bit of confusion, the straw poll above is not a part of my disposition discussion, it was furnished, according to this page's edit history, by Urhixidur and whom, I trust, forgot to sign his name. ;) Insofar as to the utility of straw polls, I would like to remind all that the goal of discussion is consensus, which is different from a mere tally of comment summaries. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and all that. See 3.2 Discussion in the venerable Guide to deletion. Take care. Gosgood 16:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal - Some good points were raised in this discussion, albeit in cavalier fashion by the "deletist camp". I'm thinking now that we should rework the entire Meanings of asteroid names series in a way similar to what has been done with the List of asteroids itself: parcel the meanings out into blocks of 100 entries in sub-pages, which would in turn be displayed within "holder pages". The difference from the List of asteroids pages lies in their varying size. As has been noted, the early pages are pretty much topped off, whereas the pages at the bottom of the list are very thin indeed. Because of the required flexibility (which must not complicate the logistics, I insist), this will require some preparatory thinking on my part. What I'd like to know, before I expend my grey matter in this way, is whether this seems like the right way to go? Urhixidur 03:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about just merging the information from the Meanings of asteroid names lists into the List of asteroids lists? It seems the original lists of asteroid have room to spare.--SeizureDog 07:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's why I think such a merge would not work. I've tried to keep the "List of asteroids" as language-neutral as possible: about the only language-sensitive column is the "Location" one, and I've tried to use the local name as far as possible (since they're redirected to the English entries anyway). Such language-neutrality is, obviously, impossible with the "Meanings" explanations. The unstated goal was to make the "List of asteroids" a sort of Wikisource set, or at least something which could be, very nearly, cut and pasted into other-language Wikipedias. Once you understand this perspective, the organisation of the lists (and the heavy use of templates) should make a lot more sense. Urhixidur 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 16:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation Band[edit]

Side project of a member of Ann Beretta, a barely notable band, only one album which is not self-released. Creator has no contributions outside of the work of this individual. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 16:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per WP:MUSIC. Their discography is almost completely self released, which means they don't pass the music guidelines. Jayden54 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND (only one album on a notable indie label). ShadowHalo 10:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:BAND... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:49, 21 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, Core desat 07:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ShadowHalo. Killroy4 07:54, 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) 16:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faspitch[edit]

Unreferenced local band. V-Man737 09:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 16:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 16:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per WP:MUSIC. Jayden54 17:28, 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, Core desat 08:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn band per WP:BAND. Rockpocket 08:22, 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) 16:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott-Riggs[edit]

Notability has been questioned since November 2006. Less than 100 Google hits of "Scott Riggs" are associated when "105.3" or "KIOZ" are added. Most of the others appear to refer to a different man with the same name. YechielMan 02:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to assert notability. —ShadowHalo 04:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or properly source by end of this AfD Alf photoman 19:57, 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, Core desat 08:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article definitely. There is a longer article with his name (correctly) unhyphenated at Scott Riggs (radio personality). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:10, 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 17:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donkachonk[edit]

Non notable neologism, no Ghits. Wikipedia is not for something I made up in school one day. Rockpocket 08:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've personally NEVER heard the term Donkachonk. Considering there isn't even an entry on UrbanDictionary, where this kind of stuff belongs, I HIGHLY doubt this has any amount of notability deserving of an article, not to mention it seems like wiktionary material anyway. -- feb^talk 08:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because. JuJube 08:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to BJAODN. --Candy-Panda 08:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I wouldn't say it was worth BJAODN. Also, beware of sock puppets, as they have been used on the article discussion page. J Milburn 12:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. No Google hits outside of Wikipedia [22] and no sources cited. Hut 8.5 15:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 17:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. —dima/s-ko/ 20:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nonnotable (only five links from google, 1 of them Wikipedia) and should possibly go to Wiktionary at most. --Nehrams2020 03:59, 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. W.marsh 18:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmus Teislev Neckelmann[edit]

Contested speedy. X-Moto has an article, but that doesn't mean that either that (1) its developer rates an article or (2) that the person really is the main or only developer. The links don't help, being in Swedish. Google does come up with 74 hits for the string "Rasmus Teislev Neckelmann", all related to X-Moto in various languages. Herostratus 08:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. If I miss my guess and X-Moto (whatever that is) is some hugely important thing on the level of World of Warcraft or whatever, then maybe we need to know the parentage and early schooling etc. of its developer; otherwise, not. Herostratus 08:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as user. While I agree that X-moto is not the big box-office success like World of Warcraft, I would like to place the following argument:
1) X-moto has grown to become a very popular game worldwide with forums, download pages and a lot of talk on the internet and in communities. The game functions under most platforms (which WarCraft doesn't) and is by that a truly universal game. Exactly in the wiki spirit.
2) I do not believe that the writer or developer of any intellectual work is unimportant. Considering the implications and in complete accordance with Richard Stallman and his GNU policy that this site also adheres to; it is therefore natural to have an article about the creator of this game. As for whether or not he is the main developer it would be natural to use the Rasmus Teislev Neckelmann article to discuss that. Sourceforge seems to be of that opinion: X-Moto project.
Summa Summarum
If we agree that the X-moto Game has it's place on this website (which we seem to have agreed on), and we also agree that wikipedia is an infinite work with the aim of linking knowledge and filling in the puzzle (like the logo seems to imply); I am confident that we can all agree that ideeed this article about the creator Rasmus Teislev Neckelmann is very much in its place.
P.S: Please note that Swedish and Danish are not the same languages. Easy way for non-Scandinavians to tell the difference is looking for the letter combinations ch and words ending with double consonants, hinting that it is Swedish. Best example being och in Swedish and og in Danish (and in English). Now don't get me started on Norwegian! :o) --Jens Jakob Teislev 15:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jens, if I am not mistaken, you are his brother. I respect your high opinion about him as a brother, but in a world-perspective, I don't see how a person who is part of the development team of a game that they admit is a clone of another game, should be called notable. I have similar doubts about the notability of the game itself. Wake 03:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You are not mistaken on that Wake. However I hope that that doesn't mean that we will disregard my argument. Obviously I am not the only that thinks that the game is interesting - amongst other because it can go on my UBUNTU Linux computer. As for the thing with the cloning... hmm think I heard that somewhere else.. ahh yes but let Macintosh and Microsoft fight about that :o). Point taken let's keep nepotism stamped out and see if anyone else will comment on this. Unless WikiDirectives state that the sentence has to be carried out tomorrow at dawn. Jens Jakob Teislev 11:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The basic gameplay clones that of Elasto Mania...": quoted from X-Moto. Wake 02:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right but you could probably say the same about Doom, Ghost Recon and CounterStrike or Red Alert, Dune, and, and.. right? This is not the argument to follow to remove the developer of the game. Please also notice these internal Wikipedia links obviously a testimony that the X-moto game is a worldwide thing:
WikiPedia France listing
WikiPedia Finish listing
WikiPedia Russian listing
WikiPedia Hungarian listing (and finally but not least)
WikiPedia Portugese listing
Just thought that it might be worth noting considering the notability listing. --jakslev 23:52, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roaming book[edit]

I am unable to substantiate any notability on this topic and it appears to be original research - in the form of a type of short personal essay - I suggest Delete unless topic can be substantiated and article rewritten in less personal format V i r tualSteve 08:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete and redirect to BookCrossing. --Candy-Panda 09:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a protologism for a non-notable variant of Bookcrossing, combined with an attempt to use Wikipedia as a tracking site in place of bookcrossing.com. (Bookcrossing's stickers and bookplates refer to the books as "traveling" rather than roaming.) —Cel ithemis 09:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN variant of bookcrossing per Celithemis. No sources, no assertion of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:56, 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 Eluchil404 11:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WebBiographies[edit]

nn website, alexa rank over 100,000 for 5 month. Tgds 10:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ranking/numbers is not a valid reason for deletion (WP:AADD). Appears to be OK, with notable references. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 11:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Numerous verifiable, reliable third party sources. It is notable. J Milburn 12:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above --John24601 13:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. --MonkeyTimeBoy 17:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the media links make it notable per WP:WEB _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:04, 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.

Relisting: this is about a minor blogging site which was started by a notable figure in the internet world in 2006 but generated little or no income and had very little activity after 2010 except for a few entries in 2011. The website has been up for sale for at least 6 months and maybe more. There were discussions about deletion in 2007 and 2012 but no consensus. Now there isn't even a website. Chris55 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2015 (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 speedy keep. Flyingtoaster1337 15:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panaca, Nevada[edit]

Unsourced article that should be deleted per WP:V or merged into Lincoln County, Nevada. Not notable, either.--Ad astra per aspera 10:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for crying out loud. Speedy Keep due to last AfD taking place less than 30 days ago, as well as nom suspected of being banned user. See WP:AN/I. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A second bad-faith nomination, by either a sockpuppet of the original, now indefinitely blocked nominator Justin322 (talk · contribs) or by whom I suspect is the master puppeteer, Primetime (talk · contribs). Just delete this waste of time outright. --Calton | Talk 11:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents 'Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size'. J Milburn 12:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, all real places are notable, article suspected to be nominated by sockpuppet of original nominator. Terence Ong 14:20, 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 Deleted While this should have been at WP:RFD, it qualifies as {{db-author}}. -- JLaTondre 21:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sail indonesia[edit]

The page name Sail indonesia should be Sail Indonesia with an uppercase 'I' Chrisdev 11:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - capitalization is a common reason for redirects. Also, redirects should follow WP:RFD rather than WP:AFD. --Sigma 7 11:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, nominated in the wrong place, and no reasoning for deletion in terms of Wikipedia policies. J Milburn 12:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can I petition to close this AfD because it's in the wrong cat? -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 21:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - I've placed a {{db-author}} tag on the page. Once the file is deleted, I think you can feel free to close the debate. Patstuart^talk|edits 21:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Page has been changed to a redirect. Motion to close? -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 21:31, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Koala sunday[edit]

Hoax - Google for "Koala Sunday" Eugene Oregon shows no related hits. Sigma 7 11:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in your bathrobe one Sunday. —Cel ithemis 11:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons above and then some. House of Scandal 11:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The image about sums it up. J Milburn 12:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have been a speedy! Maustrauser 12:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete This activity is well established in our area. Since when did google dictate what is real and what is not? This tradition is rapidly spreading in Eugene, Oregon, despite what your search engine results may convey. This tradition is real: If you wish to censor truthful information from wikipedia, then I'd suggest you're attempting to contradict everything the site stands for. knuckifbuck 4:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment:If it is such a big celebration, why have there not been any news articles about it? Why has no one written about it at all? And if they have, why is it not mentioned in the article? Also, your argument 'It is real, therefore deserves an article.' Does not work. Read this for the reasoning why. J Milburn 13:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFT. Terence Ong 14:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it's not a hoax then it's certainly not notable. Large portions of it look like nonsense. Hut 8.5 15:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly a hoax - delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fredrick day (talk • contribs) 18:37, 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. W.marsh 02:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Russophob[edit]

Does not seem to satisfy WP:WEB Alex Bakharev 12:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. KNewman 12:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia includes many blogs (it is a Category). How it has been decided that one blog is notable enough and another is not? Please explain. This blog claims to be "the most trafficked, content-rich English-language Russia politics blog in the world". If this is true, this blog is notable, is not it? May be this is not true, and some research on the subject is needed. So, then let us do such research and discuss the matter. I guess Alex may have the following point: "Articles which merely include an external link and a brief description of its contents will also be either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted." But I just created this stub yesterday, and can not modify anything right now because it was marked for deletion. If you give me a chance, I could try to develop the page and see if it is notable. I do not think it is right policy to delete stubs created a few hours ago, just because the author could not complete the editing. I think that such fast reaction by several editors is actually a proof that this site is notable. I do agree that the content of this blog may be controversial. And I do not support or share Russophobia, so whatever you decide is fine. Biophys 16:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not at all: you can still modify it even though it is marked for deletion! If you think you can make a case, please do so. But I should say that "the most trafficked, content-rich English-language Russia politics blog in the world" means nothing, because the statement is from the blog itself. To mean something it would have to be given by some independent publication. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Replay. Thank you for explanation. I will post some findings and questions in the talk page of Russophob. Biophys 19:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Biophys is the article's author. --Dhartung | Talk 21:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Unverifiable, unencyclopedic and non-notable. Vlad fedorov 16:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has been decided that one blog is more notable than other; we use the guideline WP:WEB to determine which blogs pass our notability standards. It may be true that blog X is "the most Y blog in the world", but it may not be verifiable using independent, reliable sources, which is our gold standard. As it is, there are five days to find those sources and confirm the notability of the page. Stubs are permissible in Wikipedia, but non-notable content is not, whether it is a stub or a full article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. plain nonnotable. `'mikka 21:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is just giving more publicity to him. (Yes, "Kimberly Zigfeld" is a dude). Jallor 23:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, how do you know it's a dude? bogdan 23:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and salt the earth. Non-notable and an obvious hate site encouraging russophobia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No problem. If everyone but me suggests to delete, let's delete in a few days. Not a big deal. I am sure this blog will meet WP:WEB in the future. It is only nine months old.Biophys 15:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. If/when this blog grows and meets the WP:WEB criteria, the article can be re-created.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I don't support Russophobia either, but Biophys' argumentation here is convincing. Wlasow 10:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is not Russophobia but Notability. Wikipedia is setup so that it is not a web guide only a very few websites notable not on internet but in the real life are to be included per WP:WEB. Not a single Russian blog or forum is included yet, and not a single one IMHO met the notability criterion (maybe with the exception of the Russian segment of LiveJounarnal/SUP). La Russophobe is just yet another unnotable blog with a catchy name. Alex Bakharev 12:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one except the blog itself claims that it is the most visited and popular.Vlad fedorov 04:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I think this is actually a good point. We have articles about Canadian blogosphere and Pakistani Blogosphere but nothing about Russian or European Blogospheres. So maybe we should? But that would be a different article. Biophys 20:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC) See for example: Russia: 'Phallic' Case Threatens Internet Freedom and U.S. Media Watchdog Criticizes Russia. Seems to satisfy WP as a notable subject; may be not a notable blog. Biophys 16:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not russian blog since it's situated on Blogspot.com which is Google affiliate and is on English language. This blog is not searched by Russian blog search engines - like blogs.yandex.ru and is not rated by any russian blogs search engine. Calling its Russian is very naive and arbitrary itself.Vlad fedorov 04:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, non-notable. --Irpen 18:45, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Norman[edit]

Speedied three times as A7 and reposted every time, taken to DRV, reposted again during DRV process, WP:PRODded, and the re-creator removed the PROD tags. All creations are the work of WP:SPA User:Filmnews2007, whose mission on WIkipedia appears to be to promote this film, the maker of which is personally known to him. His statement on my Talk is that this will change the way events are viewed. So it might, but we can't be part of that process per policy. Consensus at DRV is to AfD this, so here it is. I say get it gone until a neutral third party shows an interest. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.Maustrauser 12:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 206.138.130.2 13:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO as there do not seem to be reliable third-party sources that discuss Matt Norman as their primary subject. In any case, we should not be tolerating pages written with such an obvious conflict of interest. Pascal.Tesson 14:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listed as a film-maker, but no films to his credit. Famous uncles are irrelevant. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Robertissimo 15:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unacceptable abuse of process by the creator, even if the subject were notable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject is non-notable at the time being, as JzG has explained. The author seems to be an new editor trying to do the right thing and has asked for help; I don't think there was malicious intent here (just a few poor decisions). Hopefully the explanation I provided to him here, along with that of JzG directly above it, will convince him to reign in his efforts without biting him. Tijuana Brass 21:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only real assertion of notability still fails WP:CRYSTAL. --Dweller 12:26, 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 18:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circa Ottimo 06[edit]

Unverifiable, two G-hits (Wikipedia and MySpace), 550 G-hits for "Circa Ottimo" but none in English. No hits in G-News. Possible hoax, but even if true, has not played any games yet so not notable. Delete. Accurizer 13:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we are not fake, we have not played any games yet because our season does not start until February 22nd.Flaninthefacerh 16:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Semi-Professional soccer club" says it all. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i don't get it, why are semi-professional teams not allowed? FC United of Manchester is a semi-professional team.
"Football Club United of Manchester (FC United of Manchester, FC United, FCUoM or FCUM for short) is a semi-professional English football club currently based in nearby Bury" Flaninthefacerh 02:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment English teams like FCUM are considered notable if they play in any of the top 10 levels of the Pyramid. That doesn't apply to this club. -- Bpmullins | Talk 04:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting aside the question of football club notablity for a second, lets look at this article. The info box states that they play on the "Grand Old Smith Field", yet the article states they will begin play at the "'Turf City Complex' in Wayne, NJ". "Grand Old Smith Field" gives no google hits, and I found only one 1 hit for a Turf City Complex in Singapore. I found the name of one of the other teams (Corgodayo FC) here [23] but the other teams seemed to be high schools (like Bergen Catholic High School). This would preclude the "semi-professional" status of the team, since it is unlikely that a high school level team would pay its players. There are other inaccuracies as well, but I think by this point it is clear that this is absolutely unverifiable thereby rendering any notablity debate moot. Strong Delete - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
first of all, grand old smith field is in Saddle Brook, NJ. It is our practice field, because Turf City Complex is an indoor complex in Wayne NJ, there are no home and away games. and i dont know what your talking about, go to Google, type in "Turf City" and its the first link Flaninthefacerh 19:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looking at the Turf City website it is an indoor multi-use public sports centre where, by the look of things, small-sided football matches take place. This would suggest that the team is not in fact "semi professional" but rather an amateur hobby team playing in a local league, and there's no certainly no comparison with FC United of Manchester, who average somewhere in the region of 3,000 paying spectators to home matches. Best of luck with the team, lads, but I fear it doesn't qualify for a WP article ChrisTheDude 09:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ....oh yes, and I'm intrigued as to how they can have their own group of ultras who "go to every league game" if they won't even be playing their first game till next month........ ChrisTheDude 09:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
alright whatever, take away our only source of information to give to people (our myspace is for the team and training dates.), if any of you would like to pay for a website for us, that would be greatly appreciated. Flaninthefacerh 12:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As per this policy, WP is an encyclopedia of noteworthy things, not a provider of free webspace for anyone who fancies promoting something..... ChrisTheDude 12:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i understand that, but i just don't understand what you guys are trying to say about us. if your worried that this is some kind of joke, its not. for one thing it has cost $1000 to be signed into the league. i don't know what a "noteworthy" thing is, but if our soccer team is not, then I am confused. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flaninthefacerh (talk • contribs) 18:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Essentially, a noteworthy thing is something that a significant number of people have taken note of. As per another core WP policy, these are the standard guidelines for notability of a club, society or organisation:

“

A club, society, or organization is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:

The club, society, or organization has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the club, society, or organization itself.
- This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:
  - Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the club or organization talks about itself, and advertising for the club, society, or organization.
  - Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply announce forthcoming club meetings or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in directories.

”

If you were able to direct editors to coverage of your club which fits the above description (has there been any coverage of the team in local newspapers which you could cite, for example?), that would go a long way towards being able to satisfy the notability guidelines. As it is, though, all we know from the article is that Circa Ottimo is a new football team in an un-named league which has yet to actually play a match. There isn't anything currently in the article to indicate that anyone outside the squad itself has ever even heard of the team, and for that reason it fails the notability test as it stands. Hope this helps! ChrisTheDude 08:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i see now, so basically this is only being debated because this is a "club, society, or organization" right? anything else and there wouldn't be a problem right?Flaninthefacerh 18:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As this is a club, it has to meet the notability guidelines for clubs. Other types of article have their own notability guidelines - see WP:BIO for articles on individuals, WP:WEB for articles on websites, WP:MUSIC for bands, WP:FICT for works of fiction, etc.... ChrisTheDude 21:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i got it. i just really wonder how having this article up is hurting anybody.Flaninthefacerh 02:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - kindly refer to WP:ATA... Addhoc 15:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless third party sources are included. Addhoc 15:08, 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 nomination withdrawn. Seraphimblade 04:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qerq[edit]

~~Non notable film, prod was contested. Delete from me. J Milburn 13:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)~~ Withdrawing nomination, sources added. J Milburn 22:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What constitutes a notable film? Does it have to be an international release to be notable? Marcus1234 13:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAccording to the guideline, a film is notable if it is released nationwide in a country. Qerq will be released nationwide in Malta on the 31st of January, so that makes in notable. Marcus1234 13:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those guidlines are only proposed, but, in either case, there would have to be a high density of cinemas in Malta, and it would have to be released in almost all of them to meet that guidline. J Milburn 14:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the guideline is only proposed, I guess it's impossible for you or anyone else to say that a movie is non-notable, isn't it? On what are you basing your assumption that the film is not notable enough? And regarding the "density of cinemas", I can't see how that relates to the proposed guideline, which simply states: The film has been theatrically released nationwide in a country, or into 200 or more commercial theaters. Qerq will be released in all Maltese cinemas, ie. nationwide. Marcus1234 14:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:' Apologies, as you guessed, I misread the guideline. J Milburn 15:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In that case, we fall back on plain old Wikipedia:Notability, which is a generally accepted guideline and says that a topic should have multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources in order to be considered notable. In simple terms, find two different newspaper articles about the movie, add them to the article, and I'd vote keep. Good luck, cab 14:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Done: [24] [25] Marcus1234 14:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep refs added by Marcus1234 cab 22:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no opinion on the film, but maybe the clause in the guideline saying that nationwide releases must be of at least 50 theaters should be reinstated? It was deleted as redundant and confusing but this is the exact sort of case it was ment to cover. Eluchil404 11:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But then movies released in small countries such as Malta wouldn't be listed. I think films released nationwide are inherently notable, irrelevant the size of the nation or the amount of theaters. Marcus1234 13:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am most certainly running off to Tokelau, Gibraltar, Clipperton Island, Pitcairn Islands, Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Spratly Islands, Coral Sea Islands, Monaco and that old favourite, Vatican City when I make a film. Surely one of them will have a theatre? In any case, multiple independant sources have been provided, and so I have withdrawn my nomination. I can't understand why this debate is still open. J Milburn 16:39, 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 Keep. Agent 86 01:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R++[edit]

Non-notable programming language. Obtaining a US patent is not a sufficient sign of notability. Tens of thousands of patents are granted each year by the USPTO (see [26]). Edcolins 14:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a notable language developed by Bell Labs, but hung up in software-development hell by the breakup of AT&T. [27][28] The article needs expansion and references. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - language seems to be notable for its legal status (limbo) rather than what it does, but there are "multiple independent articles" written about it. Argyriou (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - patented really means something. --Deryck C. 09:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? See for instance US 6368227 . It is an actual US patent. This one does not mean a lot for science, doesn't it? My point is that "patented" does not necessarily mean something. --Edcolins 20:45, 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.

While several links have been provided, these fail to demonstrate the multiple non-trivial coverage required by the coprorations guideline. Further, it's entirly possible for a company's output to be notable (for example, had a larger number of sources been provided regarding distributions of an episode) while the parent company remained only "worthy" enough to be a redirect to that output.

Not that that's the case here, simply stressing the point.

brenneman 05:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pendant Productions[edit]

Nonnotable radio/fanfic production company. Vigorously contested speedy (see article talk page), so moving here for debate. NawlinWiki 14:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As was mentioned on that talk page of the article, Pendant Productions shows have been broadcast on the BBC and U.S. radio stations. Since those radio stations are notable enough to have their own wiki articles, then Pendant should be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Pendant is not something isolated to a small corner of the Internet. It has thousands of listeners on the web and more on the radio. Something that is broadcast internationally must be notable.

Pendant shows have aired on CHLY-FM radio in Canada. http://www.chly.ca/

Pendant shows currently feature on "The Pendant Audio Power Hour" on KTDR-FM in Del Rio, Texas, every Sunday night. http://www.ktdrfm.com/ http://www.ktdrfm.com/Default.aspx?tabid=115390

Clips from Pendant show "James Bond: To The End" were featured on the program "Saturday Live" on BBC4 radio. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/

Arrangments are being made to air Pendant shows on the radio in New Zealand.

Brendan 16:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Finish Productions is a for-profit radio drama company that has less "big press" notoriety than Pendant Productions does, merely lengthier descriptions of its programming. Pendant is non-profit and has been a pioneer in the field of digitalized voice acting. More on the talk page. Folklore Fanatic 16:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give this article one night as it is rounded out by multiple users, and you will see it's not spam. Pendant is not for profit, and its not my website. Its just a very popular source online of audio seriels, with thousands of listeners and subscribers on iTunes.

This is advertising. Something doesn't have to be for-profit to be spam. Obviously, this is non-profit because they are using intellectual property belonging to others. If they charged a fee, they would be sued. IrishGuy ^talk 00:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's no different than an entry for NBC, ABC, CBS or Fox. Pendant simply

another entertainment content provider. Those other entries list the history of the networks and even their current air schedule. If they allow that, how can they not allow this?

There is more than a little difference between this and NBC. NBC is notable and meets all the criteria for inclusion. This doesn't. IrishGuy ^talk 01:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious as to how encyclopaedic pages that link to NBC.com, ABC.com, CBS.com, etc. are any less 'spammy.' All of the websites in place for major TV studios, movie production companies, universities, etc are electronic advertising for entertainment/educational systems that started (and for the most part, remain) independent of the web. Whenever someone clicks on NBC.com, s/he becomes a unique visitor to a site OVERTLY designed for advertising purposes. Pendant Productions may not be a message board like FLAVA was or Voice Acting Alliance is, but they were one of the first collaborative studios to successfully form a 'virtual actors' studio' that mass-produced serialized fictional shows in mp3 format. Profit or non-profit status is ultimately irrelevant because Pendant has set a standard for quality that passes muster with internationally recognized studios. Just because Clurman, Crawford and Strasberg don't appear in the credits doesn't mean that Pendant hasn't been a large influence on narrative podcasting. Folklore Fanatic 03:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are less "spammy" because they are notable. Either this is becoming a sockpuppet convention or the subject of this article is sending people here. You and Queen of blades47 made your first edits here. IrishGuy ^talk 07:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, 'notable' is only in your POV. Did you even BOTHER to check my IP address before calling me a sock puppet? No, of course not. That would be too difficult. If you can't tell the stylistic differences of I spent two hours editing the entry on "Guinevere" last night, then I surfed over to some voice acting pages and did a search for a site I frequent, since I thought it would be included on here like many other art forms and workshops are. This is not my first time at Wikipedia, just the first time I bothered to register. I wanted people to recognize when I spoke. You have not made a compelling argument as to what is or is not notable, and I for one learned a lot about the istory of online voice acting from Wikipedia's in-depth coverage of FLAVA and VAA. This place is supposed to be a repository of information. It's really not the place of spam moderators to decide what does or does not have enough artistic merit to be 'notable.' Folklore Fanatic 16:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said: Pendant has thousands of listeners, how many more before its notable?

The alexa ranking doesn't make the site very popular. Googles predominately brings forth blogs that mention Pendant. Verifiable notability from recognized media is lacking. IrishGuy ^talk 02:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Define 'recognized media.' If a tv show never makes its way into Time Magazine or the NYT, then it technically doesn't exist? I personally do not recognize the Fox News Channel as 'verifiable' media, but a lot of people disagree with me. Still others no longer subscribe to any form of print media at all because they read all of their news online (having worked at a large media news magazine, I can say this with a certain degree of authoritative knowledge), and now Google mixes in articles from blogs into its news search results in a non-filterable way. Again, how do you define recognized when some people watch You Tube channels more than Dateline NBC? In the podcasting world, Pendant is a longstanding site with dependable broadcasts. Its directors make guest appearances on other radio shows. Its shows are aired on live radio stations. Folklore Fanatic 03:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recognized media is outlined in the criteria for inclusion. IrishGuy ^talk 07:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the list of links that someone else added (Yourockmywalrus?) to the page more than meets those criteria. Folklore Fanatic 16:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pendant has been featured on BBC radio and other outlets. I'll tell you the other ones as soon as i get the full list (sometime soon)

Pendant was miss-said as a company. They are a not-for-profit fanbased club community, with a few of their own features as well, that are meant to entertain those who listen. This would not be considered spam if the original writer of the wiki had used the words "fan-based community." All he wanted was to make information about the content easy to find, not advertise. I am user queen_of_blades 47 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen of blades47 (talk • contribs)

Whether they are out for profit or not, it is still advertising. IrishGuy ^talk 02:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then technically all the stuff that advertises fanfiction is also spam. As well as the stuff that recognizes blogging, TV, and other things of that nature. There is nothing wrong with posting information about things like that. It is valuable information to the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen of blades47 (talk • contribs)

Actually, there is somthing wrong with posting information like that. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. Article subjects must be notable. IrishGuy ^talk 02:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. So delete all artists, musicians, actors, TV shows, literature and novelists that haven't shown up in a newspaper. But you're not going to do that, because that would be defeating the purpose of Wikipedia. You're answering several well thought-out and reasonable arguments with unjustified one-line answers, and I find that to be unacceptable when you're arguing about the historical value of art. Folklore Fanatic 16:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Finish Productions is the perfect example of a for-profit company having an established and unchallenged page on Wikipedia, yet it does all of the things that Pendant Productions does. Folklore Fanatic 16:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ability to be notable because he is receiving information from more than one source and site.

This is an arguement for why this article should stay, and i'm going to be adding it to the page as well:

Pendant shows have aired on CHLY radio in Canada. http://www.chly.ca/

Pendant shows currently feature on "The Pendant Audio Power Hour" on KTDR FM in Del Rio, Texas, every Sunday night. http://www.ktdrfm.com/ http://www.ktdrfm.com/Default.aspx?tabid=115390

Clips from Pendant show "James Bond: To The End" were featured on the program "Saturday Live" on BBC4 radio. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/ Yourockmywalrus 02:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not much different than Tiki Bar TV. The only difference is that it is a group that produce more than one podcast and are aired on multiple stations. Only1skeemer 03:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are also other sites that have interviews about the shows, and information on it on other sites such as

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/multimedia/multimedia.php?topic=radio-kal

http://www.scifisite.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=2064&hl=pendant+productions

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=9490 --queen_of_blades47

So how many different references do you need to see that this a valid enty, Mr. Irishguy? Also, you have already allowed another wiki entry, so it is only fitting that you would allow this one.

Pendant not only produces the fan shows, but is producing three original shows: The Kingery, Seminar and This Week In Pendant! while remaining non-profit. In many respects this is very much an active workshop. A Wiki entry strikes me less as a promotional item that an FAQ and summary of what the group does. It's no more spam than an entry for me as a writer (Steven E. McDonald) would be, or an entry for me in my composer guise (David Alexander McDonald.)Wyldemusick 04:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What they produce is irrelevant. The fact that they fail the criteria for inclision is relevant. IrishGuy ^talk 07:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IrishGuy, Forgive the formatting and other errors I might make in procedure, I ask your indulgence since i haven't posted on Wikipedia since the last attempt to gag Trek fan productions. You are talking to many new users here so could you please do them the courtesy of defining your terminology. I am speaking specifically about your insistence that this or that meets "criteria". It is (or was when *I* used to post) common courtesy to link to Wikipedia definitions and protocols, could I ask your indulgence in doing so now?

As regards your idea that it is advertising, I find it novel but ultimately untenable. Advertising is "paid communication through a non-personal medium in which the sponsor is identified and the message is controlled." A Wikipedia article is neither paid, non-personal nor controlled. the only reference close to relevance here is "Other non-profit organizations are not typical advertising clients, and rely upon free channels, such as public service announcements." so at best you can say is that this organisation is an atypical advertiser. Please explain your premise more clearly so that we may be illuminated.

Might I cut to the chase and tell you what this is going to hinge on? Notability. It always does. Wikipedians will insist that is up to the users who want to create the new article to show that the subject is notable (a concept that, the last I heard, was still contested as a hard-and-fast guideline - update here, please?). Criteria for notability will be IMDB listing, Google hits and significant mention in mainstream media. I'm not familiar with the alexa ranking mentioned above but from a statistical viewpoint you really should say not popular compared to *what*. Compared to NBC? Compared to Alfred E. Neuman? Please be specific so that we may understand your viewpoint. It would be nice to think that the argument about speedy deletion will not be decided on inaccurate or inappropriate data. Knowing, as i do that you wish this discussion to be fair and balanced also, I am sure you will help us in this.

As a reporter on fan productions of some modest standing I can tell you that Pendant Productions and Darker Projects (in part due to their common ancestry) represent seminal groups in the field of fan audio productions and are now leaders in the growing movement of fan production groups that are heading towards Indie production. These groups are even further along the line towards independant production than Star Trek: New Voyages and Star Trek: of Gods and Men - fan productions that have had scads of mainstream media publicity. The difference is simply one of scale and media, the precedent that they might set with their success could easily be seen as an example for video, TV and Movie production.

Could you perhaps explain, sir, how you believe them *not* to be notable? I await edification.

Kirok of L'Stok

----------------batlHa' vangIu'taHvIS quv chavbe'lu' ---------------

------ One does not achieve honour while acting dishonourably ------

--Kirok of L'Stok 15:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB does not list ANY podcast shows that I know of; it's a film/TV-based web site. Now, what is the IMDB of radioplays/podcasting? Dramapod? iTunes? Can there even be only one website that dictates what is and is not 'notable' about any particular art form? That notion seems completely misguided at best and aristocratic and erroneous at worst. The neutral historical representation of pioneers in a specific artistic field appears to be exactly the sort of information that searchers on a modern encyclopedia intend to find. Folklore Fanatic 16:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, sir, I used IMDB as an example from my previous experience with fan films. In this case you have a valid point: what yardstick of excellence can be applied to an audio drama? I had a brief look at the alexa ratings site and sadly Pendant productions does rate poorly against the likes of Google, MSN and Yahoo. Perhaps the mighty Wikipedia site itself might rate a mention against such greats but the average organisations website cited on Wikipedia? I doubt it! Again I ask, pendant rates poorly against what?

As regards the concept of notability as a criteria for inclusion, believe me I've had it out on this subject before. Such is the paradox of Wikipedia (I have to leave for work in 5 minutes so i can't link all this) Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and can have a virtually limitless numbers of articles yet Wikipedians insist that it should not be clogged up with inconsequential material. It's just one of those mysteries of life that only the very wise (and Wikipedian) can answer.>(-_-)<

--Kirok of L'Stok 18:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirok, I'm not responding to your comments so much as backing them up. I'm NOT IrishGuy, and I support the inclusion of artistic sites like Pendant that provide context to the dawn of new media such as podcasting. See my above comments rebutting IG's arguments. Check the signature at the end of a comment and also whether or not it is indented. Furthermore, I'm a woman. ;) Folklore Fanatic 19:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Irishguy either! I'm trying to be helpful and keep the page because there are others like it. I don't think they should consider it spammable unless the person says that that all he's, or she's, going to do for the article. Queen of blades47 23:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Copied by queen_of_blades47 from the talk page]!!!

The whole idea of notability is fraught with problems. Notability is not an absolute measure - there is no brass rod of notability in Paris that we can measure things against. Notability is a relative term, it is an abstract and like all abstracts (truth, beauty ...) it means different things to different people. To a fan of one of the genres that Pendant et al produce works for (for the same goes for many fan productions), they are significant. Significant to the stage of having fans of fans! To an afiscionado of professional audio dramas they represent a modern phenomena, similar in it's way to all endeavours where "everyman" contributes towards his own entertainment or edification. Dare I point out that Wikipedia is a prime example of the same movement in the field of information technology? Well, yes, I dare. To someone outside these circles they (Pendant) represent a fascet of the said movement, but only to a smaller extent. So small an extent in fact that they would only be found if they were looking for them.

Isn't that the purpose of Wikipedia though? To provide information, knowledge, for those who come looking for it. The next time someone comes looking for information on audio dramas are you going to say, "Yeah I remember we had some people who wanted to submit an article about that subject but we decided it wasn't notable so we deleted it." In that case gentlemen, you will have failed Everyman by picking and choosing for him in advance what you decide is notable enough for him. You can, of course tell him to go to a specialist Wiki but that simply marginalises Wikipedia - setting boundaries on something that should have none.

I can wax philosphical about it until the cows come home but it is all wasted if some young Everyman, disguised as a would-be Wikipedian, simply repeats doctrine as if it is some protective mantra to keep the problematical articles at bay, the ones that require judgement, that require what used to be called wisdom. I say again, if you expect new users to respect Wikipedia's protocols then the process cannot be slipshod. Define terms, link to Wiki policies, admit when doctrine is not Canonical, merely apochryphal and above all show flexibility where the guidelines allow it.

In this case the new users have given evidence that Pendant productions is notable within the fan and Audio drama community the question to ask is - is that notability significant to mainstream society? Considering the frequency with which fan productions and new media arises as a subject in media such as Wired, SlashDot and even the New York Times, i would suggest that fan and indie productions are a movement of vital importance that will be viewed in the future in the same way that we now look back on the rise of fanzines and fan fiction.

The article just needs some work, that's all - why not ask an admin with experience in Wikifying articles to give advise to these new users? If that fails I would say that a general article on Fan Audio dramas covering pendant et al would be a must. I'd be tempted to contribute meself.

Yr Obd Servant

Kirok of L'Stok--Kirok of L'Stok 15:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The applicable guideline here is WP:CORP, and I see no evidence in the article that the organisation meets these tests. In particular, there's no evidence that anyone unconnected with the organisation has written about it. Eludium-q36 18:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are links to non-Pendant things that support evidence to which states that WP:CORP is in effect. Look in external links!Queen of blades47 11:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- You apparently didn't search hard enough.... they're featured in a wikipedia article about Star Trek Fan productions as well as an article on the BBC Radio website, amongst other popular sites on the internet. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/saturdaylive/2006/11/james_bond_to_the_end.html -- perhaps wikipedia should put a new standard in place... People who are incapable of utilizing the internet for their research, or have no experience in a given topic, should not have their opinions counted... or even represent the company as a 'moderator'... Makes sense.

There's no evidence that everyone here is a member of Pendant, either. There's no evidence that you aren't from some anti-podcasting movement somewhere in space and time, for example. That entire line of thought is irrelevant and untenable. Furthermore, Under the Criteria for notability for web content, Pendant Audio clearly meets guidelines 1 and 3 as demonstrated by the multiple examples cited here, in the article itself, and on the talk page *multiple times.* Folklore Fanatic 20:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pendant meets the "Criteria for clubs, societies, and organizations" as it has multiple mentions in various media - which are detailed in the article.

In response to the statement, "there's no evidence that anyone unconnected with the organisation has written about it,":

What evidence is there to see? How can you tell the difference between a Pendant fan and a Pendant creator in the way they post an episode guide or cast list?

Plus - the article meets the criteria for Fiction, as is detailed here: WP:FICT

Oh, also meets the critiria for Web content: WP:WEB as it is broadcast on FM radio.

Brendan 19:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IrishGuy -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play_it_by_Ear_Productions <-- they are nowhere near as notable as Pendant, and yet somehow this article remains. Are you trying to say this article is up for deletion as well? How about the Amateur Voice Acting article? How about the Negavision article? How about the article on fandubs? In fact, what about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebox_Radio_Theater ?? I haven't heard of these guys before, and I've been around the online voice acting community for roughly 10 years. I know people who are in the voice acting industry, and have been for 30 years who are no more aware of them as I am -- I'd also take their opinion over your own given their credentials. Is this what it is going to take? Or is Wikipedia full of power-hungry moderators putting their opinions of what should be considered as information -- if that is the case, then it does defeat the purpose of this entire organisation... ETA: Also, IrishGuy, it is spelled "Pendant Productions"... Google pulls up the following: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=pendant+productions&meta= .... In fact, you'll also noticed they're refered to in an existing article on Fanbased Star Trek projects... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions ... as well as a reference on the BBC website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/saturdaylive/2006/11/james_bond_to_the_end.html ....

Friends a note of moderation here. The purpose of this discussion is to mediate a solution that will make Wikipedia a better and stronger online resource and for those who wish to create this article to see it remain on the site as a good example rather than something that is just tolerated. Wikipedia has a guideline called "assuming good faith" WP:AGF (could someone link that for me? I'm not lazy just very, very rusty) wherby to keep debate civil you should assume "that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." Yes, this includes the people who tag things for deletion. There have been some <coughWCMcough> who have taken advantage of this ruling to attempt to cut a swathe ... well, it's water under the bridge now.

The point is that like a gardener needs to prune a plant to make it stronger, Wikipedia needs to be kept clear of inconsequential articles that are put on the site for reasons other than to inform and educate society - vanity, commercial gain etc.

You new Users will be the prime movers in creating the article on Pendant productions (assuming the guillotine does not fall!) and need to take on board the comments here to make the article stronger and better to counter the same problems later. For example Eludium-q36 (I remember that!) says "I see no evidence in the article that the organisation meets these tests. In particular, there's no evidence that anyone unconnected with the organisation has written about it." So place links in the article to address this. Don't wait for a clearance from the establishment, work on the article now.

On the note of "evidence that anyone unconnected with the organisation has written about it." I must shake my head sadly that my fame as an independant reporter of fan productions has not spread to you, Eludium-q36, for I write regular updates about Star Trek: Defiant on Hailing Frequencies Open, the newsletter of Trekunited with a circulation of thousands (check the website for details). You see this is where the statistics fall down. Have you Googled or checked Alexa or whatever for the individual show names? Try Star Trek: Defiant for one. Friend, when people talk about Star Trek they don't always mention CBS so googling CBS will not get every Star Trek reference! Goodness, what a sad indictment on the level of logic and maths taught today!

Friends lets work together to get this article online and set up as a good example of Wikipedia encyclopedic writing. Debate about it's notability is rapidly deteriorating (>sigh< as it usually does) into a popularity contest or a count of opinion rather than measurable citation and expert opinion as it should. Actually if 68.148.64.209 (registering a name would aid your credibility friend) has as much experience in the audio drama field as he (damn, there I go assuming it is a he again!) says then i would cite them as expert opnion.

is there any serious opposition to this article going ahead? If so please post so that we may get some closure on this.

In service to the fleet!

Kirok of L'Stok--Kirok of L'Stok 11:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think those in favor of this article have made their points, and those against its inclusion - have faltered in proving that Pendant is not noteworthy. It's time for the "Article marked for deletion" tag to be removed. Brendan 03:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any indication that -any- reliable secondary source have articles about this subject, and I don't see any indication that Pendant Productions passes any measure of notability in WP:CORP. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article feels like a copyvio but I can't find a source... delete if anyone can show this a copyvio. W.marsh 21:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big John Bates[edit]

Fails notability under WP:BAND, has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." Avi 14:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above reasons. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 14:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Official site shows a number of reviews for albums and live shows, as well as a ton of international touring. [29] --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs cleanup, proper citation and wikification, but the band does appear to have been the subject in several reliable published works.--Kubigula (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Addhoc 14:51, 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 Keep – Pea ceNT 07:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline[edit]

This article, ostensibly a chronology of Alan Moore's The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, in fact includes vast amounts of information invented by Wikipedia editors and marked as "speculation". It also contains numerous historical events that are assumed without evidence to have occurred in Moore's universe. This is an exercise in creative writing in the guise of a Wikipedia article. Nareek 14:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. When this was PRODed I skecthed out my thoughts on how the entry could avoid deletion. [30] As it stands the entry needs a lot of work but I do think that it is possible to produce a good entry from this (probably two). (Emperor 15:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete as a basic violation of WP:NOT's point concerning articles entirely composed of plot. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 16:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With proper editing could make a useful addition to the LOEG main page. Ottens 00:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Feeling Chatty. Clear violation since its just plot. Also, lack of sources leads me to believe that a lot of this is original research. Without any real-world context this is unnecessary fancruft that can be summarized in the article on the League of Extraordinary Gentlement. --The Way 05:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of sources as well as speculation can easily be corrected. Real-world context could take a bit of time but would be interesting. I can add some info concerning the travels recorded in the almanac of Vol.2. I can also edit and clean up following the suggestions of Emperor. The timeline could also benefit from a list of the sometimes obscure but interesting Novels the League draws from.

FourtySixNtwo 06:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a long article but it appears to meet notability (a feature film as well I believe?) - it appears well written, just needs some slight touches. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to butt in again after nominating this article for deletion, but I'm afraid that people aren't recognizing what's problematic about this article. The basic issue is that it's not a plot summary of Moore's work; instead, it takes characters that are appear (often in the briefest way) in the comic and imagines what kind of interactions they might have had in Moore's imaginary universe. This is a fun project but completely unencyclopedic. I think editors who say this problem can "easily be corrected" or that it "just needs some slight touches" are completely understating the problems here--it is very difficult and I believe impossible (hence the nomination) to separate the references to Moore's work from the fan fiction. An article that restricted itself--as Wikipedia is required to--to dates that are actually found in Moore's work would be a very short article indeed. Nareek 15:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but fan fiction? Everything in the timeline is directly from the pages of Moore's work, or in the text of The New Traveller's Almanac, and furthermore every entry in the timeline gives what works of literature the events/characters are drawn from and in a large part where they happen in Moore's work (volumes 1-2, NTA, A&SV). Jess Nevins and Jean-Marc Lofficier themselves have contributed to this timeline. Fan fiction? Khat Wordsmith 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suppose my concern is that it isn't clear how much is OR and/or if it is largely plot summary. A lot us drawn from The New Traveller’s Almanac and often with information from Jess Nevins' books. Taking an example 1789: "(Speculation based on the internal timeline of Scarlet Pimpernel series by Baroness Orczy and The New Traveller’s Almanac by Alan Moore)." This would imply this is speculative guesswork combined with plot summary. As I said on the talk page I think this would probably be better on a fan site and I am concerned that this timeline is either just largely stating the bulk of The New Traveller’s Almanac with original research, especially as no one seems to have produced such a timeline before (it also impinges on my broader concerns about canon (fiction) in that often the creators make no real attempt to create a canon and it is largely a product of fan speculation and has no real place in Wikipedia). It may be largely correct and is certainly of interest (at least to me) but is Wikipedia the best place for this? (Emperor 17:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment, I'd love to better understand what the issue is, I don't seem to understand the argument about plot summary and canon. There is a very small amount of speculation and fanfic in the Timeline. It would indeed be easy to clean it up and restrict it to what is explicitly told in Moore's universe and keep out speculation (and I will work on that). The Timeline, without fanfic and speculation, is in fact a chronology (based on Moore's work in the Almanac) of the time between the dismantling of Mina's First League and the events in the upcoming Black Dossier, as well as the travels of Prospero's Group (the first league). If you actually sit down and look at the dates in Moore's work you see it spans from the 1600's to about the 1920's and that doesnt sound like it would constitute a very short article to me unless you're extremely concise. FourtySixNtwo 18:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At it's worst it is a bit rambling and shot through with speculation on what Moore only implies in NTA, which, I'll admit, are a bit glaring and need to be ironed out. I think most if not all of this can be filled in properly after BD comes out. As far as to whether this is or is not better suited for a fan page... I defer to other's better versed in the religion of "what does or does not belong on Wikipedia." I for one am for keeping it, though. Khat Wordsmith 00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean up Most of the events referenced state are acompanied by their sources. But you do have a point that some of this is marked within the text itself as "speculation" of one form or another. Either remove speculations or attribute who is doing them. Nevins, Lofficier or someone else, but not anonymously. User:Dimadick
Keep and fix up. Spacepotato 00:30, 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. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moteru[edit]

Contested prod. Foreign-language dicdef (WP:NOT), claimed as an English cognate. In that context, it is a non-notable neologism with 0 relevant Ghits (fails WP:V and WP:N). The "vocabulary-related" stub has been in its current state for about a year, and was originally created as an attack page by an IP user. Dekimasu 14:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't support Wiktionarying this in any form. Dekimasu 11:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the Wiktionary with it! Oh dear. So much wrong with that article. Not slang (I've witnessed it used by elderly ladies), not an English cognate (quite the contrary, a purebred old Japanese word, and one that can (and usually does) act like a pure verb), hopelesly misunderstood meaning of the word (mojo? 200 cigarettes? what? It just means something like "popular" or "attractive", no less no more)... I wish we didn't have all these poorly researched articles about notions poorly understood by the respective article writers in the Japanese parts of WP. Of course, if the author of this article had actually researched or had an inkling of what they were talking about, he/she would realise this is not WP material to begin with. Sigh. TomorrowTime 15:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Wiktionary the definition. Not a strong ideal like kawaii, so delete the rest of the stuff. Neier 01:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just don't see the use of this article anywhere. It hasn't made the jump to English at all. MightyAtom 04:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and very weak Wiktionary, with zippo ghits in English, doesn't appear to have made the jump into English. SkierRMH 08:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary would want the original word, not a romanization of it. Uncle G 16:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I only realized later that "English cognate word" was a failed attempt at sounding high-brow about the expression "loanword". I was under the misguided impression that this article is about the actual Japanese verb. Having realized my error, I am even more convinced that the place for this entry is in the Wiktionary and certainly not WP. TomorrowTime 19:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggest reading Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. This is not attested as an English word. It's a mis-spelling in French, of moteur, but not one that occurs frequently enough to be recognized as a word. As I said: Wiktionary would want the original word, not an unattested romanization. Uncle G 00:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I did have the Japanese wiktionary in mind... If by "putting this word into Wiktionary" an entry as an English word is understood, then I change my wote to delete - this is not an established loanword (and much less a cognate word). Sorry about the misunderstanding, everyone. TomorrowTime 19:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>>It's a mis-spelling in French, of moteur<< Huh? Where did this come from? The word is 持てる, using the kanji　持 meaning to "have," like "That dude's got it!" No French connection at all...MightyAtom 02:43, 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. W.marsh 01:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RremundO LTD[edit]

nn company--Csfq 14:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No or limited assertion of notability. Zero employees, which should indicate that it is defunct (which is odd for a company having a website). History implies that the company was created "on-the-fly". The Change/Expansion section seems to imply a rather trivial name change. While these issues might not individually endorse deletion, they do add up. --Sigma 7 12:55, 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 keep nominated in error, withdrawn by nominator with apologies all around.

Alan suddick[edit]

This bio of a footballer (apparently still living) fails to establish notability. ➥the Epopt 15:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep played professionally. WP:BIO says 'Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league' are notable. (article needs to be moved to Alan Suddick, though). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not sure what the problem is here, a professional footballer (enough for WP:BIO) and additional notability offered with references. Nuttah68 16:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that Alan Suddick should remain as he was a professional sportsman and also at one time a record transfer fee in English football.Mick4839 19:21, 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 17:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Hamilton (footballer)[edit]

I could not find sources for a Jamie Hamilton on the Partick Thistle club. Furthermore, the article was created by a user indef blocked for vandalism, so it is possibly a hoax. Prod was contested without explanation. SpuriousQ 15:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No first-team appearances for Partick Thistle so fails criteria for sportsmen at WP:BIO. Catchpole 17:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 03:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO from no first-appearances. No sources given in article and no non-wikipedia related google hits, possibly WP:Hoax. Scottmsg 04:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, WP:HOAX and WP:BOLLOCKS ChrisTheDude 08:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ChrisTheDude and others --Angelo 14:05, 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 Speedy close as Delete per WP:SNOW. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous people responsible for a death[edit]

Another list of famous people who... The big problem with this article is that it's scope is not clearly defined. Who qualifies as a celebrity, what qualifies as responsibility for death. Do you need to pull the trigger, fail to call the police at the right time, not know CPR, refuse a kidney, where is the line? Beyond the problem with scope, I question the encyclopedic value of this article. This article was just deleted(google cache) and recreated due to the large amount of unsourced statements that living people were responsible for death. I think this is a magnet for unverified information and a violation of WP:BLP waiting to happen. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First "magnet for unverified information" and "violation of BLP waiting to happen" are not useful or valid reasons to delete an article. Given the phobia of the dreaded "overcategorization," this is a perfectly worthwhile, verifiable, and easily-maintainable list. I see no valid reason for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the other issues I brought up? Regarding the scope? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That can easily be dealt with via editing. One editor's inability to define a scope doesn't mean that a scope cannot be defined. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so where would you draw the line? So far no editor has defined the scope. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and specifically for the scope; such a list is inherently arbitrary, taking in, potentially, everyone from Laura Bush to celebrities who've served in the military (Clark Gable was an air force gunner during WWII; does he count? Or would he count because he didn't convince Carole Lombard not to fly that night?) It could include John Wilkes Booth (famous before he shot Lincoln), but not Lee Harvey Oswald (although, since there was pre-'63 press regarding his Russian hijinx, might he have counted, after all)? Robertissimo 15:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not have the sober encyclopedic tone required for an encyclopedia article. By its nature this article will invite poorly sourced information in violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Also it is a POV fork. Fred Bauder 15:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tere being no encyclopaedic topic "famous person responsible for death", the term "famous" being subjective, and the degree of responsibility likely to vary between failing to call the cops and actually pulling the trigger, plus the potential for endless sneaky POV and including the objections raised by Robertissimo, this list is arbitrary, subjective, and likely to violate WP:BLP by lumping together living individuals of varying degrees of complicity. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This is much better than the already deleted version. I don't think we should delete articles just because they are a magnet for abuse - the answer is to closely monitor the article to make sure it isn't abused. However, the scope is too poorly defined, and is too difficult to define. I don't think there is encyclopaedic value in this list. --Tango 15:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy's points, to which might be added that it will inevitably fall afoul of WP:BLP in that even when a negative, well-sourced fact is available, a list cannot communicate it in a balanced, sober fashion. It also seems to me to run afoul of WP:NOT#IINFO. Bucketsofg 16:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete scope too poorly defined. --Fredrick day 16:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned above, the critera of being 'resonsible for a death' is too vague to be clearly supported. If a source mentions that someone is not reponsible for a death in a legal context but clearly describes them as the primary actor in the event, does that qualify or disqualify for inclusion? If in an interview a man declares himself responsible for his wife's death because he was out of town of business, or forgot to load their home defense weapon, is that the type of resposibility that is being referenced? The large scope of things that the word 'responsible' describes, which can potentially conflict, is inherently problematic. And that is even apart form any consideration of merit or potential for negative interactions with BLP or POV issues. Bitnine 16:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is Bush responsible for deaths in his Iraq war? Bin Laden for the trade tower deaths? The format does not provide room for encyclopedic coverage of the grey areas and "fame" and "responsibility" are mostly grey with very little black and white. WAS 4.250 17:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Astounding BLP implications aside, the scope of this is too wide and much too vague, per most of the above. Grand master ka 17:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I concur with tango. The article is a magnet for abuse yes? reason to delete probably not, althought there may be other reasons. I did delete it when 100% of article was unsourced. NOw it isn't. -- Drini 17:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Robertissimo about the dangers if this list is allowed to stay. How long before we get into a dispute over whether to add George W. Bush and Tony Blair on the grounds that they were responsible for the Iraq war? Or celebrity women who have had an abortion? I do not think this is a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer 18:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inclusion is arbitrary, and it's not clear what inclusion signifies; better covered in individual articles where it can be presented in context. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cost/benefit analysis is, in my opinion, a sometimes valid way to look at deletion questions. Encyclopedic value? Very little. Potential for trouble? Fairly high. Friday (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too vague. "Responsibility" (apparently meaning moral responsibility) is not something an encyclopedia can decide. Would a soldier make the list for shooting enemy troops? What about a general who puts the troops on the field in the first place? What about a CEO whose company's factories have poor safety records? This looks like a libel magnet waiting to happen, and with very little encyclopedic value to offset the risk. I could see a "List of convicted murderers" or even "List of court cases involving a death", but not this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 'Famous' is ridiculously subjective; as is 'responsible'. If Madonna has an abortion, does that qualify as being 'responsible' for a 'death'? If Mel Gibson's dad has a stroke and ends up in a coma on life support, does Mel become 'responsible' for the death if he agrees that it's time to pull the plug? Further to that, is the judge who agreed to let Terri Schiavo's feeding tube be removed 'responsible' for her death? How about the family members who made the request? Just the one(s) who removed the tube? Maybe the doctors who declared that she was in an irrecoverably vegetative state? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per subjectivity of famous. Plus it could be listcruft easily if not handled properly.--Wizardman 19:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if properly verified and referenced, I see no insurmountable problem with this article. The ambiguities can be resolved by specifying more detail in the lede (not necessarily needed in the article's title, which should be kept simple) or by splitting the list into sub-articles. Now granted, looking at this AfD's results so far it looks like this is a futile "vote", but similar articles may show up later. Bryan 20:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - famous is too subjective, "responsible for" is too broad, and, quite frankly, I don't think this is encyclopaedia content. Guettarda 00:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete • Legal liabilities are too great. The integrity of Wikipedia is the primary concern, and this article threatens that integrity. Period. If it's kept, I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see it get Office attention in the future. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 03:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the arguments above, particularly the argument that famous is a subjective term. --The Way 05:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. I honestly cannot think of any defined scope that would prevent this list from being unmaintainable. Resolute 06:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Far too broad in scope. Wikipedia has around 300,000 biographies; under the broadest interpretation, this page could link to at least half of them. --Carnildo 07:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not only would this list be close to infinitely long, wasting hours that can be spent on more meaningful articles, the criteria for inclusion on this list is ridiculously vague. Who determines who is famous? Who determines if they're responsible for a death? That, and all the other reasons listed above. Gab.popp 09:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list is extraordinarily vague, as TenofAllTrades and others quite rightly have pointed out. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scope is too wide. Degree of responsibility required is not clear. Mgm|^(talk) 12:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Friday already beat me to the cost/benefit argument, which a strong reason for deletion. Very weak reasons to keep this vague list yet endless problems to deal with. SuperMachine 13:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adhering to our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy is only part of the picture. Another large part, ignored by all of the editors above who have asserted that individual entries can be sourced standalone is our Wikipedia:No original research policy's bearing upon the list as a whole. The legal systems of the world don't have a single "responsible for death" category. They have gradations, including murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and others. The world outside of Wikipedia does not lump all of these together, and thus Wikipedia should not do so, either, per our policy. Doing so is a novel synthesis of data that does not reflect the world outside of Wikipedia.
And before someone suggests constructing individual lists of famous people who have been convicted of (say) involuntary manslaughter: Even ignoring for now the admonition in Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) not to create lists of "famous X", a list of famous people who have committed a particular crime is of little relevance to encyclopaedic discussion of those crimes, and is of no use to readers who have come wanting an encyclopaedia rather than a tabloid newspaper. The important cases as far as readers, who come to an encyclopaedia to learn about involuntary manslaughter, are concerned are not the cases that involve famous people. They are the landmark cases where the details of the law on involuntary manslaughter have been settled, and where important legal principles were invented or overturned. Those, not lists of cases involving famous people, are the sort of lists that we as editors should be constructing for readers. (Better yet, we shouldn't be constructing mere lists of cases at all, but full discussions of the legal principles and details, citing the cases that were involved.)
Delete. Uncle G 17:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; far too vague. I appreciate badlydrawnjeff's efforts; perhaps a separate list of people responsible for accidental deaths? I like the Burroughs/Tell entry, but the other entries on the page are just murders/manslaughters that are just a drop in the bucket of famous people responsible for a death. Ral315 (talk) 17:46, 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 02:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take It Easy: 15 Soft Rock Anthems[edit]

Non-notable single promotional compilation CD from one edition of Q magazine. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 15:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete this spam. — coelacan talk — 19:09, 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 Eluchil404 11:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swindon Town F.C. seasons[edit]

I believe that this page is not necessary. However, I also believe it may be useful to have some of the information moved to Swindon Town F.C.'s page. Such as greatest achievements, I do not believe it is useful to have a full list of every season for a minor professional team. Asics^Talk 14:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the table of season-by-season performances should be included on the main club page, replacing if necessary some of the other stuff on that page (e.g. historical kits?) - fchd 17:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to prevent overwhelming the team's article page with the long table, and also per featured list Chicago Bears seasons -- Neier 01:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful information, well formatted, well referenced. WP:5 and WP:NOT#PAPER also both apply. Obviously way too big to fit in the main article. Nominator offers no reason for deletion other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Resolute 06:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful, well referenced information. Standard page for the more polished football team articles - see Arsenal F.C. and Sheffield Wednesday F.C.. HornetMike 10:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons given above. Many teams have this type of information on their main article (e.g. St. Blazey A.F.C.), and in my opinion it is stylistically better to remove it to it's own article. Gasheadsteve 10:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per reasons given above. Would be good to have these pages as standard for all professional clubs. WikiGull 10:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A good work, and very useful, as per above. --Neigel von Teighen 10:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your points, but would it not be better just to have a smaller list of the major/semi-major achievements merged with the Swindon page. But I am not just listing the page here under WP:IDONTLIKEIT as you suggested. I did think I had a valid point. However, if you believe the full page is necessary then so be it. However, I still stick with delete and take the most useful information across to the Swindon page. Hornet Mike and Neier see WP:INN and then perhaps rephrase your arguements. I hope you can see the reason why I listed it, purely because I didn't think it was necessary. Thanks Asics talk 18:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT for reasons not to nominate the article. The list I pointed to above was not a simple WP:INN argument, but rather a point that the community in general approves of lists of this type, even to the extent of awarding "featured list" status to that one. Lists of seasons may not be of interest to everyone, but, they are WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Neier 23:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Forgot to address the first point) Merging back to the Swindon page would create a long page (more than 50KB, which is above the point where the MoS recommends splitting articles). Listing a smaller more-notable list in the main article is acceptable, and should be done, but it is no reason to sacrifice thoroughness (WP:NOT#PAPER) Neier 23:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:INN, I think that's irrelevant. Whilst I wouldn't see the point of every single minor team having a page like this, I don't see why Swindon shouldn't. After all, they're a football league club. 2 years ago they were in the same Division as Sheffield Wednesday. 10 - Arsenal. They're a big enough side to justify having a page like this. HornetMike 23:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very informative - I'd hope every team will have a page like this sometime in the future. -- Mattythewhite 20:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Very nice piece of work, encyclopaedic, meets all WP policies. BlueValour 04:43, 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 Redirect to List of Disney Channel series as redundant article. I'll copy this one to Talk:List of Disney Channel series and leave the merging to the editors. ~ trialsanderrors 06:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney Channel Series (in Episodes)[edit]

Useless list of lists. Redundant with List of Disney Channel Series [Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Smerge with List of Disney Channel series. TRKtvtce 19:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the articles creator is currently blocked and cannot comment on this AfD. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redudant copy of other list with unclear purpose. Why have a list of episode lists rather than show main pages in mainspace? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge with List of Disney Channel series. This list is a bit different in that it contains links to the episode list articles, while "List of Disnel Channel series" currently only contains links to the main articles for each series. If we are going to have "List of Disney Channel series", then I see no harm in having it contain links to both the series page and list of episodes. Certainly there is no need for two lists.--Kubigula (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT] /Blaxthos 08:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made a merged version that I've got here as I'm not sure if I'm supposed to just merge it (only the changed section is there, so if someone copies it back don't delete the rest of the article by mistake). I'm not really sure if either of the pages are really that useful though, surely categories could cover them? FredOrAlive 15:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perfect. That's exactly how I thought the merge could work. It is pretty marginal in terms of usefulness; I think either a list or a catagory would be fine.--Kubigula (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice work Fred. Remember... Be bold!. Caknuck 03:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Disney Channel series and/or Categorify as Category:Lists of Disney Channel series episodes under Category:Disney Channel. Pomte 18:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge Pascal.Tesson 00:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - There's nothing on that page that couldn't be covered by a "category". Actually it looks like there already is one. Plymouths 03:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the hybrid proposed by FredOrAlive. Caknuck 03:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy redirect. If some admin feels this is an utterly harmful, unlikely and completely useless redir, I'm not against deleting it, but redirects are also cheap... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BIKE pATH kILLER[edit]

Reason ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 15:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have never heard of this person, but after looking on Google, it appears that he is well known. However, I believe it should be moved to Altemio Sanchez and have Bike Path Killer redirecting here. It would also need a complete re-write, with more info being added. Asics^Talk 16:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete didn't realise a better one already existed. Asics^Talk 16:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Already existing, in a better form, at Bike path killer -- feb^talk 16:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: redirect would be better? (In fact, an IP editor already redirected it to Bike path killer. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 21:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ISP:71.243.181.204 was bold and did the redirect! SkierRMH 07:39, 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 Keep. Agent 86 01:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the Word Was.....[edit]

Article content fully covered in existing page From Genesis to Revelation. This is a reissue of that album, already mentioned here. Robotman1974 15:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's not exactly a reissue, there are 4 additional songs, different packaging, etc. At the very least it should be a redirect. --Jamoche 16:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jamoche.--S kully Collins ^Edits 08:33, 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 17:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Bad Apple...[edit]

Article describes a science experiment, which constitutes original research. Wikipedia is also not the place for how-to guides. ::mikm t 15:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article is strange, and it references Wikipedia as a source a lot. J Milburn 16:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not the place for this. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Malevious and WP:OR - reads like a student's writeup of his/her school experiment. Walton monarchist89 17:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Original research. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like a science report, ergo WP:OR! SkierRMH 08:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible science project. Original research. | Noticket 19:00, 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 17:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Logo Creator[edit]

This is a software product with no published independent reviews or anything of the sort. Archive.org is used to back up the article's claims, but the archive only establishes that the website existed in 2000. It cannot possibly establish that no other websites "of its kind" existed prior to 2000. And in any case, the archive does absolutely nothing for the rest of the claims about success and growing markets and other companies products being "clones" of it. When a few unverifiable statements are removed, the article looks like this, and it contains no claim to notability. Therefore I nominate this for deletion. Please comment. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - looks like advertising. Walton monarchist89 17:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless claims are backed up. Pomte 03:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been opposed to this article for these reasons since it's inception and seem to have lost. This one still strikes me as advertising. Philippe Beaudette 17:49, 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 01:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFOrce[edit]

This article fails WP:WEB for lack of third-party coverage. As it also asserts no notability, it could be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7, but in view of the article's age and number of contributors, an AfD is perhaps in order. Sandstein 16:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the site is popular (~5200 Alexa Traffic rank) they've manged to keep under the radar enough that no one has done a story on them outside of web based file sharing news stories (i.e. places like Slyck).--Crossmr 17:56, 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. Withdrawn Agent 86 01:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The iSONEWS[edit]

This article fails WP:WEB for lack of third-party coverage. As it also asserts no notability, it could be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7, but in view of the article's age and number of contributors, an AfD is perhaps in order. Sandstein 16:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn in view of coverage provided below; I suggest you link to these from the article. Sandstein 17:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:WEB only requires multiple non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. Multiple being more than one. [31] and [32] clearly satisfy that. While the coverage isn't extensive, it does satisfy the notability guideline.--Crossmr 17:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already done.--Crossmr 17:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject has received non-trivial coverage by the mainstream media. Yamaguchi先生 00:49, 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. W.marsh 18:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blu-ray releases[edit]

This is a list that doesn't seem to have a place on Wikipedia. The external links 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. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of HD DVD releases. —Cleared as filed. 16:39, 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 blu-ray releases, and that's not something for Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 18:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of HD DVD releases. J Milburn 20:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also as per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of HD DVD releases. 23skidoo 00:20, 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 BlueRay releases in 2007(or possibly 2007 and 8), DGG 04:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soon-to-be-unmaintainable listcruft for shoppers. --The Way 05:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Teply 02:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Static Universe ^talk|edits 05:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG -- Karl Meier 19:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep if we don't have anything for VHS or standard DVD then make one. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and what that means is that it's not a texbook or news website but it's a refrence and deleting something from it because it needs a lot of work is wrong. No one says a refrence shoul be compact. I also want to propose to restore the List of HD DVD releases.(you3f 21:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
There are better resources out there, that will be kept more accurate. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be a massive pile of information. It makes a lot more sense for the Blu-ray article's external links section to simply link to an outside source that will show what movies have been released for this format. —Cleared as filed. 21:50, 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. Nomination withdrawn, no delete votes – Pea ceNT 07:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natalism[edit]

Non notable neologism, appears to have only one unique occurrence referred to in a small number of blog entries. The topic is covered extensively under Quiverfull already. ALR 16:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw based on CyberAnths commitment to expand beyond dic-def, below. ALR 08:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - links to CBN and the New York Times suggest term may be more widely used. Walton monarchist89 17:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times is the only unique reference and it appears to have been coined by that author, there is no derivation in that article and the article itslef is over two years old. CBN references the NYT so is not a unique instance. The only other instances which I've seen all refer to the NYT article.ALR 18:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but fix -- I'm not sure whether there's a more commonly-used term (if there is, then the article should be renamed to it), but discussion of such things as government policies to increase birth-rate (everything from establishing child benefits to Ceaucescu outlawing abortion in Romania) is a very well-established topic... The article does need a better focus -- most of what's in there now duplicates what's on Quiverfull (which is just one very narrow aspect of a whole broad topic).AnonMoos 18:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, merge -- Articles Pronatalism and Natalism should be merged (not sure under which name). AnonMoos 04:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting. I have never encountered Pronatalism. It survived AfD.[33] and Natalism is much better referenced. I think since there can be both pro- and anti- natal stances, they need to both be addressed in Natalism. CyberAnth 04:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that it survived afd 18 months ago and nothing has happened to it since to make it anything more than a dicdef. Is the same going to happen here?ALR 07:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Natalism" is a policy concern of most nations. Please feel free to go through the list of sources I posted below. There is very much more than that, as well. I intend to expand it too, as time-permits me. After Natalism survives AfD, the first thing I plan to do is request that Pronatalism - now that I know it even exists - be merged into Natalism. CyberAnth 08:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of activity in Pro-natalism I don't see any need to go through process, looking at AfD guidance you can reasonably redirect it without debate. In terms of going through the sources below, not all of us are cooling our heels in academia and having full EBSCO access. Whilst I'd love the prospect, I do have to work for a living. :)

In any case, if you are going to expand the article to anything other than a poorly referenced dic-def then that's fine. Forgive me if I'm sceptical, there are lots of articles which survive AfD on the basis of keep and improve which never see any development after the fact.

ALR 08:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Quiverfull is an exclusively evangelical Christian thing. Natalism potentially includes all religions' reasons and secular reasons as well. — coelacan talk — 18:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A neologism but it is to wide spread and I can see it being notable enough for people to look up to find out what it is.--Dacium 23:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - please do a little research outside of google before AfD'ing something. Natalism is an ideology, not a neologism, and it has been studied in cultures from time immemorial and a subject in academic papers, including in anthropology and governmental policy, since at least the 1950s. The Quiverfull sub-culture represents only one occurrence of natalist ideas. The article ~~needs some expansion, that's all~~ could readily be expanded into a lengthy article - even a book or dissertation could be wrote - on the subject. CyberAnth 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are just a few of the sources from just one search using the term at EBSCO:
  - Higher Order Nuptial Fertility in New South Wales, 1996: context, process, implications. By: Wilson, Murray G. A.. Australian Geographer, Jul2001, Vol. 32 Issue 2, p181-199, 19p; DOI: 10.1080/00049180120066643; (AN 4896825)
  - Liberation or oppression? radical feminism and in vitro fertilisation. By: Denny, Elaine. Sociology of Health & Illness, Jan1994, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p62-80, 19p; DOI: 10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347010; (AN 11347010)
  - N. S. Khrushchev and the 1944 Soviet family law: politics, reproduction, and language. By: NAKACHI, Mie. East European Politics and Societies, Winter 2006, Vol. 20 Issue 1, p40-68, 29p; (AN 56.3326)
  - Romancing Singapore: When yesterday's success becomes today's challenge. By: Leong, Pauline; Sriramesh, Krishnamurthy. Public Relations Review, Sep2006, Vol. 32 Issue 3, p246-253, 8p; DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.05.011; (AN 22010816)
  - Arab Political Demography: Volume One: Population Growth and Natalist Policies. By: Yount, Kathryn M.. International Journal of Middle East Studies, Aug2006, Vol. 38 Issue 3, p476-478, 3p; DOI: 10.1017/S0020743806383201; (AN 22402655)
  - The Reproductive Effects of Family Planning Programs in Rural Ghana: Analysis by Gender. By: Benefo, Kofi D.; Pillai, Vijayan K.. Journal of Asian & African Studies (00219096), Dec2005, Vol. 40 Issue 6, p463-477, 15p, 5 charts; DOI: 10.1177/0021909605059516; (AN 19242052)
  - From Anti-Natalist to Ultra-Conservative: Restricting Reproductive Choice in Peru. By: Coe, Anna-Britt. Reproductive Health Matters, Nov2004, Vol. 12 Issue 24, p56-69, 14p; DOI: 10.1016/S0968-8080(04)24139-8; (AN 14870701)
  - Creating a 'socialist way of life': family and reproduction policies in Bulgaria, 1944-1989. By: Brunnbauer, Ulf; Taylor, Karin. Continuity & Change, Aug2004, Vol. 19 Issue 2, p283-312, 30p, 6 charts; DOI: 10.1017/S0268416004005004; (AN 15233231)
  - Polygamy, disrupted reproduction, and the state: Malian migrants in Paris, France. By: Sargent, Carolyn; Cordell, Dennis. Social Science & Medicine, May2003, Vol. 56 Issue 9, p1961, 12p; DOI: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00216-2; (AN 9288081)

CyberAnth 01:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep There is obviously support for the use of the term, and I see no basis to delete. DGG 17:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 00:50, 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 17:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deus ex machina examples[edit]

Unencyclopediac grab-bag of original research. This requires people to conclude that specific plot points from various fiction are deus ex machinae, which is unacceptable in Wikipedia. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 16:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR, unless sources (e.g. commentaries by literary experts) can be added to back up some of the author's choices. Walton monarchist89 17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV, OR, indiscriminate. Otto4711 18:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced original research, which is a shame, as I can see this article being useful. However, it is at such a stage where deleting it and starting over would be the best option. J Milburn 20:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR indiscriminate, not verifiable. Wikipedia cannot be an authority on what is and isn't a deus ex machina. Even the very first example (from Homer) is questionable because Homer is meaning that gods interviened due to storm (hardly dues ex machine since it is meant to be at least some what historical) I can see tonnes of problems in the rest of the document due to original research.--Dacium 22:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and above. I cannot find a single acceptable point in the whole article. hateless 06:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, As I found this as useful source of examples when I first learnt what DEM was all about. Having said that, I agree that the article is too long. Trim it down so that there are a few good examples of each category. I would suggest that the current categories are ok. That is, Books, Cinema/TV and Music, each subdivided into actual examples of DEM, examples for comic effect, and references to the phrase. Limit it to no more than (say) 5 examples of each.StephenBuxton 17:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Integrate I think that the list is long. It is longer that the main article. However, I think that there are many good examples in the list. I think that the best examples should be included in the main article. I do not think this article should be deleted. I also agree that they are difficult to cite with references, and that this does not diminish their relevance.--Minotaur500 18:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, See above. --Nicklinn 05:31, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hancock[edit]

Can't really see any evidence of notability to satisfy WP:BIO. Walton monarchist89 17:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps speedily under WP:CSD#A7. Resume/self-promotion posted by User:Simonhancock. FreplySpang 17:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I didn't spot that. Amazing, the number of users that create logins using their own name and then create articles on themselves, assuming no one will notice... Walton monarchist89 17:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It's an advertisement for a guy seeking employment. I deleted the text from the page for now. Wikipedia isn't the place for this, even if he is notable, he can't post his advertisement on Wikipedia. KP Botany 21:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Personal advertising. V i r tualSteve 08:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Quite, quite blatant personal ad. 212.219.154.45 08:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No place for this self-advertising, clearly not appropriate. Rainbowfanclub 08:45, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of USAF Air Refueling Training Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command[edit]

Seems like it may violate WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Walton monarchist89 17:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list was made to decrease the size of Strategic Air Command Wings as suggested as being too long. Looks like you can't please everyone some days.R. E. Mixer 18:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list with one entry is ridiculous. J Milburn 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strategic Air Command wings could easily be split into active and inactive wings and/or reassigned wings. --Dhartung | Talk 21:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the wing entries being moved out from Strategic Air Command wings should be grouped into bigger lists - maybe 'USAF Air Refueling Wings', Provisional Wings etc. The subpages being created at the moment are too small, such as List of USAF Air Base Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command. The full list of wing pages at the moment, many with only one wing, can be seen at Strategic_Air_Command#Wings. Buckshot06 15:27, 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. W.marsh 01:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next day music[edit]

A band promotional page that fails to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Delete unless more evidence of notability is provided. Walton monarchist89 17:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. ShadowHalo 05:33, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 18:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International High IQ Society[edit]

Advertising Mark 17:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an ad to me. Navou ^banter 19:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs some cleaning and such, but it's been linked to on the high IQ society page for awhile last I checked, and i'm sure it can be easily NPOV'd and improved. -- feb^talk 19:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks notable to me Continue cleanup Lumos3 17:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to me to meet notability guidelines for groups. I see no write ups in 3rd party notable publications.TheRingess 03:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the guidelines here at Wikipedia no reliable third party sources. Whisp e ring 21:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete slightly advert-like, but more importantly doesn't appear to pass WP:V or WP:RS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like a thinly-veiled attempt to use a wikipedia article for the promotion of Mr. Haselbauer's books.--OinkOink 20:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More inclusive than Mensa, so same reasons for retention must apply. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Second largest IQ society (behind mensa) certainly seems notable to me. The original request for AFD is invalid, "ratio IQ" is no longer used, see:definition of IQ.Tstrobaugh 01:40, 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 deleted speedily for having no assertion of significance. Looks like self-promotion. Friday (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rikky mayanto[edit]

One link to the subject's own website isn't enough evidence of notability. Could have speedy-deleted, but decided to give the article the benefit of the doubt - it's easy to make mistakes when it comes to applying WP:NOTE. Walton monarchist89 17:27, 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} 03:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Enigma Project[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

no assertion of notability per WP:BAND.

I am also nominating the following related page because this album does not assert notability beyond that of the band, which is itself not asserted:

Astronaut/Microcosm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 05:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I point you to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_%28music%29&oldid=100995042#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles, which reads, and I quote;

"A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable."

I believe the hour long radio show at BBC Radio Berkshire, and the numerous quotes about the band from numerous sources, including the NME all stated in the article, nullify and void your claims for deletion. --Scuzzmonkey 01:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The band in question have been on the prime time show the session on BBC Radio Berkshire.

Is doing a UK TOUR from 28th March - 5th April in many venues from North to South of the UK

Album released on Napster/Itunes by Record label Automator records and was also stocked in HMV and Fopp stores nation wide.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.67.151 (talk • contribs)

The band does not meet the touring criterion, as it has not actually happened yet, and the record label is not established as a major or an important minor label, so that criterion is not met either. Could the band's appearance on radio be characterized as the band being "the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast"? If not, that criterion is failed as well. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 00:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also cite Special:Contributions/86.138.67.151 as indicative that 86.138.67.151 is a single-purpose editor. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 00:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The band was broadcast out on the hour long BBC "The session" which has established bands on the show. Including bands like Biffy Clyro.

Been reviewed and fetureed in UK and USA magazines. Also been a feature in NME.

I state that Wikipedia is to provide knowledge and information for everyone to enjoy. During the UK tour the public of the UK will be searching the internet for information on this band. Is it such a big deal that Wikipedia get the internet traffic that it wants for the information that people want. This is what the service is all about

86.138.67.151 was myself who forgot to sign in

I state that more then one criterion has been met to and put across this article should not be deleted. Alexbeglin contribs 10:50, 19 January 2007 (GMT

I cite Special:Contributions/alexbeglin as evidence that alexbeglin is a single purpose account — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 14:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ, as more than one article has been edited using this account.Scuzzmonkey 22:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only thing I can garentee I know the most about. I find this rather pethetic that a user like myself tries to contribute to Wikipedia and gets put down constantly by somebody who seems to be nominating this article for deletion purley on the basis of pride and not for wikipedia represents. This band meets some of wikipedia's rules on Bands, I don't see why this is not the end of the matter— Alexbeglin ^{talk contribs} 18:28, 19 January 2007 (GMT)

There is no need to get personal. I have not insulted you in any way, I have only addressed your arguments. The matter is not settled because the article does not convincingly show that the criteria are met, no matter how sure you are that they are. There is no "pride" involved on my part, as I have no personal feelings about this band, though you, as the band's manager, have a definate Conflict of interest. Considering the edit history of a user as a way to put their comments on an AfD in context is a perfectly acceptable and well-established practice on Wikipedia; users who have edited numerous articles in different subject areas show a dedication to the project, rather than just to their particular cause. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 21:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cite No Personal Attacks as a source that Swpb has attempted to disregard Alexbeglin's view due to his affiliations with the band whom this article is associated with, as stated within the policy, and I quote;

There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: [...]

Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.--Scuzzmonkey 02:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI is perfectly legitimate and is the applicable guideline here. Attacking a contributor based on ideological or political affiliations is one thing - pointing out a distinct conflict of interest is something else entirely. I have not said that this discredits any user's opinion, so your quotation is not applicable - but I stand by drawing the conflict-of-interest to the attention of anyone who reads this discussion. I am very familiar with the letter and the spirit of the policies, I think I adhere to them very well, and I don't find your attempts to make them apply against me to be very constructive. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 05:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in WP:COI

conflict of interest is not in itself a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is.

The notability of this article has already been proven, as I have stated above, and below, but shall get repeated again, the hour long radio show at BBC Radio Berkshire, and the numerous quotes about the band from numerous sources, including the NME all stated in the article, are proof of this notability.--Scuzzmonkey 10:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, not as the article creator, but the major contributer to a vast majority of the information supplied on the page believe that reasons stated above by Alexbeglin are both valid and indeed very good reasons as to why the article should not be met with deletion. The hour long radio, as well as the upcoming tour, plus the reviews by several magazines and a mention in the NME all qualify this article about The Enigma Project to stay, and not be deleted. Scuzzmonkey 20:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I cite Conflict of interest. as source of this face by arguing that Swpb has a conflict of interest between personal issues regarding the deletion of this artical and the facts that stand for this artical. The facts have been proven to how this artical has met the requirments regarding bands WP:BAND. (As proven at the top of this discussion by Scuzzmonkey. alexbeglin 01:34, 21 January 2007 (GMT)

I have followed the progress of The Enigma Project for a considerable length of time now. It is true that at the time of creation, this article did not meet the required criterion. However, as it currently stands the BBC Has articles on their website regarding the band Enigma Project BBC Article exhibit A Enigma Project BBC Article Exhibit B. This thus means the band has at least met the criterion for a verifyable article by a notable company, and hence, the band's notability is confirmed as it has met one of the criterion, which is all that is required according to WP:BAND. Furthermore, Itunes (on which The Enigma Project's work can be found) is significantly notable- could this be counted as a label of production? Finally The broadcast 1 hour long on the BBC Berkshire mainstream radio confirms this band's notability. Therefore, I feel that this article no longer qualifies for deletion under Wikipedia's policy, as any artist must only meet ONE of the criterion listed on the link given earlier- as such I would move that this discussion is closed? Phil 10:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that motion--Scuzzmonkey 11:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this isn't Parliament, and you don't make motions, you wait for an administator. Secondly, stop twisting my words. I didn't use WP:COI as a reason to delete, I raised it as a valid factor potentially affecting editors' motivations. Thirdly, isolated quotes do not constitute non-trivial coverage, full articles do. And fourthly, still no one has explained whether the band was the subject of the entire hour broadcast, or merely appeared on a brief portion of it, which I believe would definately not meet the criterion. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 17:26, 21 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, — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 17:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Failure of WP:MUSIC. Band manager should not be involved in writing articles about his own band - that's self-publicity and an obvious conflict of interest. Read WP:NPOV. Walton monarchist89 17:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would research into the show in question on BBC radio Berkshire you will find that bands are the feature of the show. They are subject to an hour long show being interviewed and even playing live on the shows. They played two songs on the show and interviewed for at least 45 mins. This means an hour long broadcast purley on this band. More information about the show can be found on http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/the_session/index.shtml. Also all users can find Wikipedias rules on deletion and all users can see that after 5 days administrators make their decisions. It is clearly stated at the top of the main article. There is no need to explain this and patronise other users. I find again a personal Conflict of interest into the deletion of this artical. — alexbeglin ^{talk contribs} 17:43, 21 January 2007 (GMT)

I am not the band manager, I am just someone who goes to all thier shows because of my interest in thier music. I said I was to try and convince wikipedia that the facts are true as sometimes facts can not be backed up by things on the internet. A perosn by the name of Alex is the manager and part of T.N.T music http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=87532714 I herby retract the statement of the band manager above and have deleted it. - alexbeglin ^{talk contribs} 17:53, 21 January 2007 (GMT)

I apologise, I meant no offense and must have misunderstood your comments above. Nor did I mean to patronise anyone. Walton monarchist89 18:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was directed to a different user SWPB not you. You did not cause offence nor did you patronise in any way. The comment was not directed to you. I respect your opinion with your previous band manager comment. However I am not band manager but understand that if I was it would be a conflict of interest. Please note to all users reading this discussion I am not band manager.alexbeglin 19:09, 21 January 2007 (GMT)

Keep: Regarding Swpb's comment about isolated quotes, the quote from Josaka is infact referenced, and the full article is availible by the link provided at the bottom of the article, or by clicking here. Also the feature article regarding them on the BBC, which can be read by clicking here. Those are two articles from different sources, on top of the other quotes, on top of the hour long radio programme. There surely cannot be any reason to delete the article, as more than one criteria stated in the WP:BAND (which is the orginal reason this page was submitted for deletion) has been met. I therefore cannot understand why this discussion needs to be continued, and if you (Swpb) could explain why it would be much appreciated. (the previous statement is not meant to be read in a sarcastic or patronising way, if that is how it came across, then I apoligise.)--Scuzzmonkey 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Also even though BBC Berkshire is a "local" radio station, as it is part of the BBC it can be listened to internationally via the internet by clicking here. As such, it reaches a far greater amount of people than standard local radio, and as such is notable. The cited articles on the BBC are notable due to the fact the BBC actually had to approach the band and ask if they could feature them on the website, thus proving the BBC must know about the band, and thus they are notable. --Scuzzmonkey 14:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC, and also WP:COI as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have already stated above as to why WP:MUSIC is not a valid reason for deletion, and the WP:COI is possible to only 1 person, I myself have no connection to the band, as manager/roadie or any other position.--Scuzzmonkey 21:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC articles (which I've fixed the links to, by the way) makes this article pass WP:V. so, Keep -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI State that the users comment Andrew Lenahanshould be disregarded as this user has just repeated what others have stated without looking at evidence from above. I also state this user has not given any reasons to why it violates certain rules. alexbeglin 21:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of anyone reading this page, The preceding post was made by user 86.138.67.151, but signed as alexbeglin. I believe this indicates that the two editors are one and the same, and should be treated as a single user for the purposes of this AfD. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be stated that this was confirmed earlier, by Alexbeglin himself.--Scuzzmonkey 21:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the one source presented, this seems to be a self-published website, which does not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources or Wikipedia:Verifiability, prerequisites to the source being applied to WP:BAND. Also, evidence of this claimed hour-long radio broadcast has not been added to the article, and until it is, it's just that - a claim. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails every part of WP:MUSIC except the radio broad cast. However their '1hour show' wasn't on BBC radio nationaly it was BBC berkshire local radio only, thus it fails as it wasn't a national broadcast. Both 'cited' BBC articles are under 'berkshire local bands', therefore they are trivial. So there are no non trivial and notable sources of information at all, and nothing that passes WP:MUSIC. Josaka site is non notable.--155.144.251.120 22:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly user Swpb is finding stupid things to attack me on to try and back up his claims. I CLEARLY stated above that ip address was me that I forgot to sign in, and I just forgot to sign in this time again but still signed, but yet you seem to feel you need to mention this. In response to the above comment .--155.144.251.120 I cite that this user is a single purpose account as has not signed in OR signed. I find his arguments are NOT BACKED up with proof at all and move that they should be ignored . — alexbeglin ^{talk contribs} 22:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly its not a single account it has a history, secondly it was me just not loggin in. Thirdly the 'proof' is in the articles you linked to, as said the mentions on BBC were not national and were local only and so there is no proof from you or anyoneelse that it passes WP:MUSIC ~~DELETE~~--Dacium 05:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Struck second vote, user voted above. I have struck the second, rather than the first as alexbeglin had done, because it just makes sense - the first is formatted in the standard way, and the second is in response to a reply to the first. Frankly, whatever administrator reads over this is not likely to be confused by this so-called "double vote", but I have struck it through all the same, in the futile effort to keep alexbeglin happy. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me that seemed to be a rather personal attack Swpb as regarding to "keep alexbeglin happy". He is just after all attempting to stop an article, that he and others believe to be satisfying criteria stated by Wiki's Policies, being removed. It also seems (to me) that you are attempting to discredit his opinions by insinuating that he has lost his temper or started attacking other users, when it seems to me, the only user that is personally attacking over users is in fact yourself. (Again, the previous is only how I see it, and I apoligise if it has been read in a way that is different to anything other than an insight)--Scuzzmonkey 21:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BAND as it stands, potential to pass in future, so everybody just chill and hang out until they do. Very disappointing continued personal attacks on the nominator and other editors. Advice: don't sour people who might be inclined to support you if you behaved. --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BAND. Soltak | Talk 23:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepMeets WP:BAND. By having review on http://www.josaka.com/Reviews/2006/The-Enigma-Project-000706.htm and also on BBC which is reputable source. http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2005/06/01/localband_enigmaproject_feature.shtml and also http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/11/29/enigma_project_christmas_party_feature.shtml.

alexbeglin Talk 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josaka is non notable. BBC articles are only local to berkshire and not national and therefore not notable to WP:MUSIC standard, as has been pointed out twice already.--Dacium 05:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the articles suggest there may be some notability here, but I'd be happier to see an album on a known label before keeping. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ Moved upto my original vote, due to actually making more sense there. If this is against policy then I apoligise.

Struck through multiple !vote. One opinion per person, please. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Dacium has voted twice above as he claims it was him who signed the first one. Have struck threw his 1st vote vote. alexbeglin (arf!) 17:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it stands at present, the article contains no claim to notability per WP:MUSIC or WP:BAND. If properly sourced, I would be minded to review. Also delete Astronaut/Microcosm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eludium-q36 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Most people are saying it is a weak delete because it is very close to meeting criteria. Well the band are doing there UK TOUR in the next 2 months, and it does seem rather silly to delete this and then within 8 weeks having to spend hours remaking the page. This is one of the reasons plus many of my other arguments why i am not backing down from my previous vote of KEEP. alexbeglin (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one needs you to back down. But your opinion has been thoroughly expressed, and at this point you're not accomplishing much but giving the admins more to scroll through. Feel free to keep commenting and complaining about people attacking you, but be aware that you're probably hurting your argument more than helping it. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 20:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BAND. If they're almost on the borderline, well, then wait until they pass it and then recreate the article. Wiki is not paper -- it's exceedingly easy to recreate content once its topic becomes notable according to our applicable criteria. —ptk✰fgs 03:36, 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 speedily. This group has no assertion of significance and no sources. Friday (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wynnton[edit]

Delete under WP:NFT and WP:V; no evidence of notability, or even existence, except this "micronation"'s own webpage (hosted on Freewebs). Walton monarchist89 17:36, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Doemain of Our Own[edit]

Per WP:DRV#A Doemain of Our Own Avi 17:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. -- Avi 17:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless non-trivial coverage by reliable sources are found to show notability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a sliver of notability in having had a print collection published (ISBN 1929462662), but the collection has no Amazon sales rank and no reviews that I can find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. - Francis Tyers · 19:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some verifiable sources can be produced -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears non notable. --Nehrams2020 03:46, 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 17:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woos[edit]

Delete per WP:NOT(Wikipedia is not a dictionary) and possibly per WP:NEO. Walton monarchist89 17:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neologism. – Tivedshambo (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for goodness sake. Nonsense. -- RHaworth 18:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could have done a speedy delete but I thought it was coherent enough to be given a chance - where there's any doubt I always prefer AfD to speedy, as I think it gives articles a chance at improvement. However, as it stands it's in clear violation of WP:NEO. Walton monarchist89 18:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, contrary to what Rhaworth said, this isn't nonsense. J Milburn 20:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh, yuck. Get rid of it now. Should have been titled "wooing," I assume, but still just a dicdef.--N Shar 23:49, 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 resulte of this was Speedy Delete (deletion by User:Friday). semper fi — Moe 18:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie Ownage[edit]

Self-publicity; no evidence of independent coverage per WP:NOTE. Walton monarchist89 17:48, 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 Keep. Agent 86 01:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Pica[edit]

Not Notable. No major releases (one unknown album in the 1950's) with hardly any Google hits outside this Wikipedia entry. Uncategorized and no sources, which doesn't need a encyclopedia article. semper fi — Moe 17:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are references, and one album and a crapload of singles is close enough to two albums to pass W:MUSIC in my book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Andrew Lenahan. Also, he is associated with a notable record label. J Milburn 20:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the article. He's well known to people in a certain age group on the East Coast (U.S.). He was, by all accounts, an excellent piano player and showman. He had many singles and one album (perhaps more). He represents a certain type of artist/performer -- i.e., small-time piano player and lounge singer -- notably more successful than most. He composed at least three piano accordion solos: "The Silver Streak Polka," "The Helicopter Polka," and "Whisphering Willows." At least two of them were published c. 1953 by PostScript Music. Chironomia 23 January 2007; updated 24 January 2007
Weak Keep appears to be marginally notable, but only one source has him as aprimary subject. Note that Google really is worthless for topic like this. Eluchil404 11:47, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YurNet[edit]

Non-notable webpage as per WP:WEB J2thawiki 17:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt to comply with WP:V. No WP:RS. No evidence it meets WP:WEB. --Shirahadasha 18:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable website. Dar-Ape 02:29, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milton High School (Alpharetta, Georgia)[edit]

Ok, this nomination might be a little controversial because of the whole WP:SCHOOL debate, but hear me out here. This article simply can't be verified without going to the school's official page, which is vague and spun. The article is far from neutral anyway, and is full with unverifiable facts. It is original research. P TO 18:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but Stubify - I absolutely agree with you that the article's current content violates WP:V (or at least WP:CITE, and for the record I think we need some way to restrict the exponential growth of articles on obscure schools (of which a lot have appeared today on Special:Newpages). However, as it stands, thousands of other schools with no claim to notability have their own article; we can't really deny coverage to this one. I say remove all the unverifiable facts (which is most of the article) and reduce to a stub. Walton monarchist89 18:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: This needs to be completely rewritten, but I see some notability. Last I checked WP:SCHOOL, nearly winning state was pretty notable. Of course, you can't really cite

WP:SCHOOL and expect to be heard seeing as how it's not a policy now. This at least tries to establish notability, if we can get rid of the schoolcruft this will be a good enough article.--Wizardman 19:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only thing noteable is winning state in 1 sport in 2003. Which is hardly enough to get press coverage or indepedant sources. WP:SCHOOL will continue to be rejected because they shouldn't be letting schools like this in. EVERY school has probably won state for some sport at least once in its histroy, this is expecially true for non-americian schools in other counteries where the states are alot smaller. Nothing is notable about this school at all.--155.144.251.120 21:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hate to beat a dead horse, but high schools really are inherently notable. Why are we bothering to chase these articles on places that are important to communities. Furthermore, these verifiability arguments are needlessly bureaucratic. Why would you assume bad faith on information provided on a high school website? It seems natural that there would be good info available on the school. These nominations waste people's time. Nlsanand 04:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that everyone thinks schools are notable? WP:SCHOOLS will never get through either because everyone always wants to put in enough allowances to there own school squeezes through. Oh well might as well keep all of these for now.....--Dacium 05:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Nlsanand. Killroy4 05:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete because I do not think high schools are necessarily notable, except to the inmates. Some are, but as there will never be consensus that all are, its time to stop pretending that there is. Instead, the people who want them in should help the rest of us develop some usable criteria.DGG 06:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but reduce to a history, including present arrangements and sporting achievements. This much should be verifiable. Eludium-q36 18:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs work. — RJH (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep - High Schools should be kept up, but with limited access. TheSun (talk • contribs) 23:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
keep please this article needs some improvement but not erasure yuckfoo 20:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:RS states a subjects own webpage can be used as a primary source in an article upon the subject. add more references, cleanup the POV... and KEEP! ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly the school exists, but there is no evidence of notability. ( I don't buy the "alumni" argument: there's no consistency to the alumni suggesting that the school has a notable record of developing people's talent for some particular skill-set. ) WMMartin 13:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets all relevant policies and guidelines. Please read this email by Jimmy Wales for further details. Silensor 02:30, 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 g1, patent nonsense, unsourced protologism. NawlinWiki 19:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyksycopfort[edit]

Obvious violation of WP:NEO. Walton monarchist89 18:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete --J2thawiki 18:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear neologism with no currency.zadignose 18:26, 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 delete. W.marsh 01:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

‘connectivity is productivity’[edit]

The author of the article has clearly made an effort to satisfy WP:CITE, but the topic of the article doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NOTE, which is certainly the more pertinent policy. Two references from a single entrepreneur isn't enough evidence of notability. Walton monarchist89 18:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for the feedback. I am relatively new to Wikipedia. I still think this is a notable quote that has influenced major discussions of development, economics, and ICTs role in developing countries. The phrase is used and discussed by Thomas L. Friedman on Page 360 of best-selling book The Lexis and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization, published in 2000.BangladeshScholar 09:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC) — BangladeshScholar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]
Keep I didnt know it existed either but that doesnt mean it cant be notable. Killroy4 05:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC) — Killroy4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]
Do NOT Delete / Keep This phrase is now used by the United Nations and Telecommunications experts. It was used in July 2006 in the 53rd Meeting of the Study Group on Information Technology and Telecommunications. I think it should stay, especially considering how good the sources are. I checked them out. Did you? See: http://www.sdpi.org/training/53rd_meeting_of_study_group.htm. Susanna339 22:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC) — Susanna339 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete the phrase is very NN. meshach 20:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN quotation. --Dhartung | Talk 22:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable quote. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is a non-notable slogan whose meaning is fairly obvious given some context. If kept, rename to a standard title (Connectivity is productivity) per WP:MOS. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:39, 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 17:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nyx band[edit]

No evidence that they pass WP:BAND. Like all too many such articles, a single link to the band's Myspace seems to be the article's only pretension to notability. Walton monarchist89 18:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article seems little more than a promotion for the band. The band has no listing on All Music Guide or Discogs. Their AudioStreet.net page doesn't signify any notability (663 plays, < 3000 pageviews). Band's homepage is a Geocities site which further indicates lack of notability/commitment. ::mikm t 18:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 05:32, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NBA All-Star Conspiratists[edit]

No evidence; delete per WP:V. Walton monarchist89 18:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. I follow the NBA obsessively, and I've never heard of this. There certainly are conspiracy theories about the NBA Draft and NBA Playoffs, but this specific theory seems to exist solely in the mind of the article creator. Zagalejo 20:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zagalejo, alse the article is totally unsourced/ meshach 20:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:NFT. Resolute 06:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, it's rubbish.--Downwards 22:02, 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 Meeaow ~ trialsanderrors 02:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buyo (Inuyasha)[edit]

Non notable cat from the anime Inuyasha. It's not even a real character... it's just a cat you see sometimes on the show... Article was re-created after being prod'ed, so taking to AfD. See also WP:FICT. -- Ned Scott 18:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 18:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incidental character that contributes nothing to the plot beyond the first episode. --Farix (Talk) 19:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect information or, if not logical/possible, delete. — Deckill e r 19:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Farix. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 19:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has been around for around a month, has seen various improvements since, I'd like to give articles a little longer before consigning them to the bin. --Oscarthecat 19:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the article was better written and had more info, it still fails things like WP:FICT. We shouldn't be covering such a minor and non-notable topic in the first place. -- Ned Scott 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list of minor characters. Definitely not deserving of its own article, but perhaps a place could be find for it in such a list. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of minor InuYasha characters or Kagome Higurashi if possible.--♥Tohru Honda13♥ 20:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, a cat does not need its own article. --tjstrf talk 20:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, a minor cat doesn't need one. Kirara is a cat, and she has her own article because she's major. Just pointing that out. --♥Tohru Honda13♥ 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kirara really is a minor character. However, if you consider WP:FICT it suggests that all characters should be kept together with a series or general characters article until "an encyclopedic treatment" of the subject causes the page to overstep size guidelines. --Kunzite 21:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete Send it to the minor character's list. The character is also, very very very very very minor and it wouldn't do any harm to delete it. We need to consider every character in the Inuyahsa characters template for possible merging. --Kunzite 21:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Straight up, it just doesn't need to exist. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 23:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kagome Higurashi or List of minor InuYasha characters. The cat deserves a mention, as it played a part in the first episode, but maybe not an entire article devoted to it. --Candy-Panda 23:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge...we have a perfectly good article (List of minor InuYasha characters) to merge this into. Buyo is undoubtly a minor character, and the current list of minor characters is not too long. Besides, it's not like there's much to merge. The "contraversy" section needs to go - it's original research, and wrong original research too.--`/aksha 11:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, damnit. Indiscriminate deletion blows. --Zeality 16:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Indiscriminate"? This is the only character from the show I've AfD'd.. I have no problem with merging, but calling this AfD indiscriminate is far from the truth. -- Ned Scott 19:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to wherever - does not assert real-world notability. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:43, 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 17:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pimp slap[edit]

Unverifiable, fails WP:NEO Walton monarchist89 18:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dictionary definition. Include to Wictionary?. Navou ^banter 19:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, also just a dicdef with no potential for expansion. Otto4711 19:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and (if it fits Wikitionary requirements) transwiki there. This looks like it could never be an article. It's only (but slight) hope to exist is on Wikitionary. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. Not exactly a neoglism, but it's really not going to get bigger than it is, unless someone adds a "Pimp slaps in popular culture" section...and I don't think we want to go there. --UsaSatsui 11:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — a neologism. and, beyond using the back of one's hand, apparently not entirely stable in usage yet. See Urban Dictionary Gosgood 04:49, 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 per {{db-band}} -- The Anome 20:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St flynn and the penes[edit]

Self-publicity; no assertions of notability per WP:BAND Walton monarchist89 18:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND --Mhking 19:00, 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 Redirect all to List of One Piece story arcs. Feel free to retrieve stuff from the edit histories if it can be sourced, but don't ask the closing admin to shuffle unsourced stuff around. Unsourced stuff doesn't magically become sourced by copying-and-pasting. ~ trialsanderrors 05:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Piece plot summaries[edit]

Contested Prod. Entirely a plot summary with no real-world context and sourced analysis, which violates WP:FICT and WP:NOT. Was originally prodded along with all of the other arc/saga articles in {{One Piece}}. ~~If the other articles are deprodded, I prefer to roll them up into this one AfD.~~ Already rolled into this AfD --Farix (Talk) 19:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Also included in this AfD:[reply]

East Blue Saga
Baroque Works Saga
Skypiea Saga
- Jaya arc
- Skypiea arc
CP9 Saga
Others:

Related One Piece discussions:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Farix (Talk) 19:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an encyclopedic "Storyline of One Piece" article or something like it. I know that the arcs are used as arbitrary divisions to link the various parts of this near 300 and ongoing anime series (and an equally as abundant amount of manga chapters).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even if merged, it would be one hell of an long article which would still violate WP:NOT#INFO as a plot summary. Also, many of these articles contain a fair amount of original research and fan speculation and no third-party citations whatsoever. Better to wipe the slate clean and start all over with a very brief overview on the main article with annotated episode lists as subarticles. --Farix (Talk) 22:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge useful information, such as episodes summaries and whatnot.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Isn't this what List of One Piece story arcs already is? --Squilibob 00:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For related discussions, see The Past Of The Three Swords! The Promise Between Zoro And Kuina! (AfD discussion), The World's Strongest Weirdo! Django The Hypnotist! (AfD discussion), Completely Infuriated! Kuro Vs Luffy Final Battle! (AfD discussion), I'll Make It Bloom! Manly Usopp's Eight-Shaku Ball (AfD discussion), and I'm Luffy! The Man Who Will Become Pirate King (AfD discussion). It is worth noting that having articles on the story arcs (with redirects, of course) may make better sense than having individual articles on the individual episodes. Uncle G 17:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ Merge There is technicaly no basis for deletion; the pages themselves do not have this information on them, but the actual One Piece page does indeed make these assertions. (Justyn 11:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

(Cchanged actual vote; but reasoning remains. (Justyn 06:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)))[reply]

<move discussion about appropriateness of AFD to the talk page.>

Merge: Into one article maybe... But if this article was deleted it wouldn't be too much of a loss... :/ Angel Emfrbl 13:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I have to agree that it wouldn't be too much of a loss if they were deleted. Netuser500 21:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go for delete, as even if someone's willing to condense / merge it into a single article giving a far more general overview of the series's plot, I think such an attempt would basically involve a completely rewritten article rather than a merge of the existing ones. FredOrAlive 01:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's my problem with the merge !votes. These articles can't be reasonably merged because there is just too many plot details to deal with. This is a case where starting over would be the best option. But one must also question the relevance of such high levels of plot detail in an encyclopedia article. That's why WP:NOT actually forbids such "Plot of" articles, instead it states editors should focus on the work's real-world context, achievements, and impact. With all of the plotish articles on One Piece, there is almost not mentions of it as a marketing franchise nor it's impact on Japanese/anime culture. --Farix (Talk) 04:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A big thing with that is because all of the information on real-world context is either: hard to find, falls under Wikipedia's definition of "original research", is in Japanese, or does not satisfy WP:RS. For instance: a 4Kids executive has said flat out that they will not dub One Piece anymore, Toei has said that 4Kids will not dub One Piece anymore, pretty much EVERY One Piece fan on the internet knows that the 4Kids dub is dead: Wikipedia will not allow this fact to entered because there has been no public announcement. (Justyn 22:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Seems you've made a pretty good argument for deletion. Though I do want to correct one error you made. Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines are that English language sources are preferred over foreign language sources, not English language sources are required while foreign language sources are excluded. --Farix (Talk) 15:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of the frequent editors of these pages (myself included) speak anything close to a native level of Japanese, meaning that even if we could find the sources, we would have no idea that we found them. (Justyn 17:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete I've checked WP:NOT and I must change my vote. Admin/vote counter, please ignore my vote to "Merge". Netuser500 23:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful information into the individual saga pages would be the best option, in my opinion. True, it is just a plot summary, but completely deleting all this information would be too big a loss.--The last sheikah 16:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what's the useful information that should be merged? As you say it's mostly a plot summary, and I think it would be basically need to be rewritten from scratch to become a far more general description of One Piece's plot, rather than the lengthy summary it is now. WP:FICTION discourages having even one seperate article for the plot summary, so have 4 or 5 (depending on how you handle "filler") is still probably too much. FredOrAlive 17:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IN addition to that, looking at that List of One Piece story arcs page linked above, that's a far more reasonable article to use for a general plot overview, and it already exists, so perhaps rename that to something like "One Piece plot overview" or something similar if these pages are deleted. FredOrAlive 17:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Per nom, WP:NOT and WP:N /Blaxthos 08:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please explain what notibility has to do with this in the slightest. (Justyn 18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
We are an encyclopedia, not a place to summarize the various storylines of your favorite anime. /Blaxthos 19:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That has absolutly nothing to do with notibility whatsoever. And we should maybe take this under consideration. (Justyn 20:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

How is it notable that "Django resorta to hypnotizing his men into believing their invincible but that tactic backfires when Luffy is hypnotised as well and procceds to wreak havoc on the Black Cats and their ship before Django puts Luffy to sleep"? Has this episode description "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself"? Pomte 02:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew that Wikipedia pages had to be the subject of reveiws, only the subject that the page is about. And the pages will be improved if they are kept... the only way to make them worse would be to put them back as dub reviews. (Justyn 02:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, I'm not saying keep or delete because I don't have a definite stance. So are the arcs themselves notable enough to detail every plotline scene-by-scene? At brief glance it looks to me that the arc names are not official and merely fan-made descriptions. What's so bad about brief, concise summaries? That's how official sites would describe episodes anyway, and they're a lot easier to maintain. Practically, what's the use of all this information? Someone might forget a minute detail in an episode and want to confirm it quickly, someone mean can skim the spoilers to paste to spite a friend, but that's it. No one unfamiliar with the show is going to spoil it for themselves, and if you're crazy about this show you're probably going to read dialogue/discussion/interpretation instead of a neutral description. It was argued elsewhere that this belongs in a One Piece specific wiki where fans can add all the trivia they want. Pomte 03:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Christ, stop your bitching.

Comment Also, FredOrAlive, the individual saga pages are great. Please don't screw things up with your stupid ideas, Wikipedia elitist. Thanks.
Redirect all to List of One Piece story arcs. Current articles clearly are against the spirit of WP:NOT. Pascal.Tesson 00:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TAT (band)[edit]

Anonymous IP removed ProD without discussion, now goes to full AfD... Non-notable band (fails WP:MUSIC); zero sources (WP:V and WP:OR). /Blaxthos 19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not, as yet, satisfy WP:MUSIC or WP:NN.--Anthony.bradbury 20:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced; doesn't satisfy WP:BAND. Trebor 21:28, 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 18:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daron Murphy[edit]

Autobiography. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Though he went through one world tour as a guitarist backing a major artist, he doesn't seem to have much of a claim to notability. Most of his career amounts to small time "local" bands. --Wildnox (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Does his world tour, albeit as a backing artist, not qualify under WP:MUSIC?--Anthony.bradbury 20:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats why I was on weak Delete, I'm not sure if it does. --Wildnox (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think he passes WP:MUSIC, but the article has no sources, isn't verified, and is written by the subject. Change that to a Keep if someone can find some verification, though. Someone OTHER than the subject. --UsaSatsui 11:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Satisfies notability guidelines I think. I've hacked a load of unverifiable material out of the article, and provided a couple of references for what remains, although one of those is too directly related to the subject to count for WP:BIO purposes. I might have another look later and see if it's worth pursuing further. CiaranG 12:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep After recent changes on the article, and some better consideration I think he just barely satisfies WP:MUSIC.--Wildnox (talk) 22:34, 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 18:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bodmin Moor (novel)[edit]

As far as I can tell, this is just a vanity published book. Mhari 19:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable book. I think Exmoor: Project Genesis should also be AfD

Good point. Should I add that under this? Mhari 02:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its just a book. Not notable.--Anthony.bradbury 20:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - I don't see why it should be deleted. So it's a 'non-notable book' so what? Has anybody even read it? --Bobbo Bear 17:45, 24 January 2007 (GMT)

Kindly refer to WP:N and WP:NOT... Addhoc 15:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's non-notable then why should wikipedia have an article on it? Are you the author? Is it vanity published? --J2thawiki 18:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author? No. What gave you that idea? No idea if it's vanity published. Just for the record, how do we determine if a book's non-notable? --Bobbo Bear 19:32, 24 January 2007 (GMT)

I just thought you might be as you seem to be a single purpose account that is the main/sole editor of the two articles on books by R J Bavister. Do you have any connection to the author or publisher? This link shows the proposed policy on what makes a book notable. --J2thawiki 19:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have read both books and I think they're pretty good, and I've met a few people who 'claim' to know the author (probably lying). I wouldn't say the books are non-notable, they're not quite Harry Potter but I think they're worth articles in Wikipedia. --Bobbo Bear 19:13, 25 January 207 (GMT)

Weak Keep The article isn't much better or worse than most covered in 2006 in literature. Too soon to truly establish notability but nothing to indicate its just a vanity press product. User:Dimadick

Er, you mean besides the fact that it's from AuthorHouse, which is described as "generally considered a vanity press"? —Mhari^* 07:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refer to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS... Addhoc 15:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless third party sources are included. Would respectfully suggest the inclusionist arguments given here are not valid. Addhoc 15:00, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mcdavid[edit]

Advertisement style, presently no indication of meeting WP:CORP due to lack of third party coverage. A G11 speedy was previously declined. Sandstein 20:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced. There's no evidence of any independent coverage currently (and I can't find any after a quick search) so at present not-notable. Trebor 21:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP doesnt assert WP:N.--155.144.251.120 21:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than their product offerings, there doesn't appear to be 3rd party coverage; thus fails WP:CORP. SkierRMH 08:10, 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 A7 --BigDT 22:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advance bodycare crew[edit]

Non notable sports team; isn't professional or semi professional Mcr616 21:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 4th division of a tuesday corperate league, not notable--155.144.251.120 21:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 22:07, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathon Sharkey[edit]

The notability of this individual is borderline at best; he is a self-proclaimed satanist and vampire who's claim to fame was announcing a bid for the 2006 Minnesota gubernatorial election on Friday 13 January 2006. Starting in the beginning of October, the individual himself, Jonathon The Impaler (talk · contribs), began editting the article and editwarring over the course of several months. I had reverted the article in its present state to a point prior to either Mr. Sharkey and the WP:SPA that goes by Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs). The Impaler has since been indefblocked for threatening legal actions, but as previously stated, this article is a bare WP:BIO passing, and based on both his withdrawal from the Minnesota election, and stating prior to my reversion that he's running in his own third party for the 2008 presidential election, that this guy is simply not notable for entry in Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, notablity is very borderline Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are news articles about him and featured on CSB. He farily well known for being a crazy vampire guy. --155.144.251.120 21:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Self-evidently notable: significant amounts of media coverage, subject of a film --Stlemur 22:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have spent a bit of time upgrading (I hope) since the article was listed here. IMHO, the subject is notable (if not fascinating) in several respects. He's run for president twice and congress at least three times. He is the subject of a documentary shot by independent filmmakers who have stated that the subject will have no input into or control over their film. His story has been reported in major television and print media across the US, including a report on Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update. He has been involved in dozens of lawsuits, some of which have resulted in reported opinions. If the consensus is delete, that's fine, but please review the most recent version. --Butseriouslyfolks 22:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC), revised by Butseriouslyfolks 19:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, with a condition that the article be cleaned up. I personally find the article to be an eye-roller as it exists right now, but the one problem I have of it is that it feels like it's autobiographical in such a way as to spin shock value. In short, POV issues. --Dennisthe2 22:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stelmur. Killroy4 05:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guy seems to have a moderate amount of infamy for being a raving loony. It might benefit from a lock to stop him sodding about with it though.--Hikari 00:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several articles on Wikipedia about people like him who are mostly famous for being mad in public. He probably shouldn't be able to edit his own article though. We're operating under the assumption that 'Butseriouslyfolks' is him, right? --Apeloverage 08:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Droids[edit]

Does not appear to be an explicit CSD, because the article asserts notability. However. has verifiability issues (no sources), and a claim to fame is to have sold "60 reconds in 3 days". Hardly notable. --Afluent Rider 21:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. WP:COI, WP:N. Also lots of unencyclopedic nonsense ("extraordinarily talented" -- yeah, sure). --N Shar 23:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense (" 'I like to make beats,' Yu said when asked if he liked to make beats."), and would still be non-notable even if cleaned up. Dar-Ape 02:27, 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, cheap and simple. - Mailer Diablo 17:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All simpsons episodes[edit]

Contested prod. This is redundant, episodes are already avalable under their respective seasons FirefoxMan 21:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A worse version of information already available elsewhere on the Wiki. -SocratesJedi | Talk 22:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep yeah but it is easier to readMighty Zeus 22:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, already covered in List of The Simpsons episodes. meshach 23:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant, per above. List of The Simpsons episodes is more elaborate and existed first. --Czj 00:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant, though if there is material here that is better than that in existing wiki-articles, then those articles can be adjusted accordingly. 23skidoo 00:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - another current AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Guy (All Seasons) seems to be proposing to do the opposite of this one (keep the longer article, and delete the individual seasons). One of those two methods is a good thing for WP. However, to have two AfDs going on in opposite directions seems like a bad idea. Voting Keep until a consistent approach is available. Neier 01:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Sorry. Thought this was the other list of Simpsons articles mentioned above. This list is mostly incomplete, and contains nothing that the better article does not. Neier 02:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as worse/redundancy of List of The Simpsons episodes. SkierRMH 07:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant with List of The Simpsons episodes. BUT note that I would have voted STRONG KEEP based on the nomination. There is nothing wrong with a list that is an overview of other lists: indeed they're good because they make navigating the encyclopedia easier. AndyJones 09:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Simpsons episodes. --UsaSatsui 11:31, 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 Keep – Pea ceNT 07:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Hill influences and trivia[edit]

Wikipedia isn't a guide to trivia. Editors think this is useful (and eliminates list pages on Silent Hill articles), but it's still cruft. Imagine if every popular series had articles to eliminate lists: Wikipedia would be flooded. Also, as per: Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, this article doesn't need to exist. It belongs on a video game Wiki instead. RobJ1981 22:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All game pages have trivia and popular culture. In this case the list is to big for the game page so it is made a seperate article. The only thing unacceptable in this article are the big worded sections that may be original researched and are not sourced.--Dacium 22:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~, and only until this information can be transferred to other pages. In addition, it should be said that the creation of this sort of article isn't without precedent, although I will acknowledge the example was executed far better than this page. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete after seeing all the screenshots Thaddius loaded as Public domain, I feel more skeptical about this article than ever. The sheer volume of images would probably prevent all the linked images from qualifying as Fair Use. I'll continue working to get the information transferred to the appropriate pages, however. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 11:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. From what I can tell, all of this information is avaible through the respective pages' histories, so it wouldn't really be lost anyway. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 14:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge into other articles about the series, else Keep and cleanup. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Wikipedia is full of trivia i dont see the need to destroy this particular one. Killroy4 05:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just because Wikipedia is full of trivia, doesn't make a certain article more notable or not. There is trivia guidelines for a reason: so articles aren't flooded with it. When articles of trivia (and other information) get posted in a new page: that's just moving the problem, not solving it. RobJ1981 05:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much of it is unsourced original research. The parts that aren't are non-notable trivia. We have guidelines that specifically say we should try to minimize trivia as much as possible with the end goal that no articles will have any trivia. Having an entire article about trivia flies in the face of this. This sort of in-game trivia is unencyclopedic. Also, in reply to Dacium's argument that this list is too big for the game article: that's a sign that the list itself should be trimmed without mercy, not that it should get it's own article. --The Way 05:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. While I understand the sentiment behind the move to delete, Silent Hill contains an exhaustive amount of both references to other works and references to other games in the series, and is generally considered to be a milestone in horror gaming. While this page may be an inelegant solution, deleting it out of purist notions of "cleaning up" Wikipedia will only serve to do exactly the opposite, as people will start plugging all these various assorted facts back into the main pages, where they will be harder to fact-check and keep organized. - Tzaquiel 18:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The games that are the subject of this article are unique in their referential content. Rob speaks of this happening to other pages, but I maintain that it will not as this situation is unique. I am opposed to this deletion because, while lists and trivia are frowned upon, this article contains interesting information that is hardly able to be conveyed differently. I'm also of the mind that this is not necessarily simply trivia, but references and influences in most cases. Also, I'm working to source a lot of these things, and while Lenin and McCarthy believes that I'm doing it in a strange way, removing this stuff will only make it reappear on the main SH game articles eventually. The article IS being worked on to maybe make it less list-like. --Thaddius 21:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article might need editing, but that doesn't make it any less informative and useful. --Ti-Ana 22:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like 6 to 3 in favour of Keep. What now? --Thaddius 18:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think actually we're supposed to reach a consensus rather than just vote. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I sincerely doubt that everyone involved can come to consensus, but I suppose we'll have to entertain the idea. --Thaddius 16:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Never forgive you, never forget you. --Simon the Dragon 02:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't understand how an article that is informative and helps people appreciate Silent Hill by providing background and context deserves to be deleted. This looks like the people who contributed to this are being punished for overachieving. Richard Cane 12:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I say keep, but only on the grounds that it be trimmed, edited and sourced. Quite a bit of it is original research, and that has to either be sourced or it has to go. Levid37 03:24, 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. – Pea ceNT 07:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yechi[edit]

Delete - Is a phrase used by a small subset of a Hasidic group considered notable? I'm not certain, especially as many Lubavitchers themselves disavow connection with this phrase and those who utter it. Avi 22:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per my comment on Chabad-Lubavitch, I could support splitting the controversy section off into its own article and merging Yechi into it, as I don't think it is notable in and of itself, but it is as a section of a controvery article. The main Lubavitch article is rather long as it is. -- Avi 13:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Avi 22:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Within Chabad, the "subset" of members who proclaim that the Rebbe is Moshiach is not small. In addition, much of the notability the phrase has accrued is due to its notoriety. --DLand ^TALK 22:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like it or not, agree with it or not, this is a notable controversy. There are clearly sufficient sources to meet WP:V and WP:N. Gaps in sources can be filled in or unsourced claims deleted, leaving substantial notable and sourced content. --Shirahadasha 23:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly. The controversy regarding adoration of the Rebbe has long since left the Chabad world, to the extent this Yechi business is well-known, even by Sfaradhim in the hinterland of Wisconsin. Tom e r ^talk 23:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. It's a notable controversy. Kolindigo 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Although this phrase is used by some people, and is notable for those people, and involved circles it is not notable enough for Wikipedia. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we merge this article to the page about the movement? It appears to be a notable controversy - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 01:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This chabad article is long enough as it is... Way past the official limits as to how long an article should be before it is broken into pieces. Therefore, I would strongly oppose any merge. Perhaps a new article about the controversies in chabad, would be good, and this could include the yechi article along with the controversy section in the chabad article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a recommendation I could support. Tom e r ^talk 03:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Article size for relevant policy. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep , editing the article size is a separate matter. Whatever one may think about them, the group involved is large, active, & very good at getting media attention. And the substance of the issue discussed is intrinsically of some importance. DGG 06:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's the key slogan ("battle-cry"?) of the Messianist wing (probably the majority) of Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic Judaism today. They sing this at every event, morning, noon and night, like a mantra. IZAK 08:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the above reasons, and because it is the most important issue (arguably the entire mission) of one of the most influential groups of Jews in the world. --Meshulam 05:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Per nom, utter nonsense. frummer 16:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 00:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Non notable phrase. —King Ivan 06:12, 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 17:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scene Maker[edit]

This article does not appear to meet notability criteria and has had a notice to this effect since October 2006. Further, it is not written in encyclopedic style as one editor observed on the talk page saying "Wikipedia is not a how-to". I have not been able to find references to this upon search through Google. At best, it should be transwikied to wikibooks or deleted as a non-notable article. SocratesJedi | Talk 22:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to-guide. No sources (unverifiably, no asserted notibility fails WP:N WP:V). Possible WP:OR issues due to its writing style. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dacium (talk • contribs) 22:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete original research and per Wikipedia is not a how-to-guide. Gwernol 12:17, 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. No prejudice against someone creating a category. W.marsh 18:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible puzzle[edit]

Impossible Puzzle was prod'ed (by me) but the tag was removed by an anon (who seems to be the article's creator, User:Independentdependent), who explains that the purpose of the page is to list the puzzles that are "impossible". Since the point of the page seems to be a dictionary defintion of a commonly understood phrase and to list puzzles with no solutions, this page should be deleted as it exemplifies what Wikipedia is not, in particular Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (The puzzle that is so far listed on the page is better described on the puzzle's own page at the three cottage problem which will probably be moved to a better title) --C S (Talk) 22:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorify. Saw the prod yesterday, thought of endorsing but didn't. There ought to be a category (called something different -- perhaps "insoluble puzzles"). Such a category would include the N-puzzle, the Seven Bridges of Königsberg, the three cottage problem, et cetera. If kept, this article will turn into a list; I prefer categories to lists, so I'd suggest replacing this with a category. --N Shar 00:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is nonsense Paul 03:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorify per N Shar, though it is questionable how many non-trivial unsolvable puzzles there actually are. Pomte 04:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorify Useful category topic if there are actually a lot of these types of puzzles, but delete this. --The Way 05:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete, with a possible recreation as a category. What's there is not correct. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorify There are quite a bit of puzzles that are unsolvable, but do not have Wikipedia article, you can help out by writing more articles for impossible puzzles such as the ones listed above and Three cups problem.--Independentdependent 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as looks more like a definition than an article. I'm not sure I like the idea of creating the proposed category, but I'm not sure why. If I come up with more coherent thoughts I'll add them later. WMMartin 14:31, 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 17:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Bowles[edit]

Fails WP:BIO as never having played in a fully professional league. Delete. BlueValour 22:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. BlueValour 23:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per current guidelines. In the future just prod such articles. Punkmorten 09:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WMMartin 14:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Scottmsg 18:57, 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 17:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zorpia[edit]

This article fails to demonstrate Zorpia's notability per WP:WEB and Zorpia's claim of 4.6 million members is not verifiable. Also the domain zorpia.com was blacklisted earlier for spamming Wikipedia. See AfD talk page for details A. B. ^(talk) 23:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Delete. One, the AFD talk page bot is frightening. I was involved a bit in the removal of blacklisted stuff on this page for like, one day, and I get a comment... Two: Nothing is really verifiable. Besides the obvious lack of sources, which demonstrates lack of notability, most of the stuff on pages like Zorpia or Facebook is likely original research or from a primary source, the website itself. Third: Even if the have 1/10th of that estimated number of members, they have more members than Wikipedia. We wouldn't get our own Wikipedia article. There are 160 thousand editors with more than 10 edits. Size of the population base might need to be taken as a statistic and not a measure of popularity... But yea, just remove the size and it might work. Fourth: The entire article has been changed thanks to User:Zorpia, which is clearly a Conflict of interest, and the references are just horrible for the stuff added: 3/4 are within the site itself (primary), and one might just be a press release (Didn't look). User:Logical2u_Talk 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a bot, my bad. User:Logical2u_Talk 23:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was me impersonating a bot by using the standard {{Adw}} template. When I look at it, the wording is a bit brusque to say the least.

We only send the bots if you don't respond. --02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete No references, no article. Melchoir 03:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: Delete it. No amount of cleaning I did seemed to make it anywhere like a popular article as opposed to spam. Viifog ^Talk 12:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What makes this site any more notable than any other social networking site ? Notability not adequately demonstrated. WMMartin 14:25, 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, CSD A7.. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Aaron Lucas[edit]

A sad case but not within Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I am also nominating the following related pages because they refer to the same event:

WWGB 23:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT a cellotaph. No reliable sources, probably never will be. I suggest we userfy these if the authors want them. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin was VERY noted in the Tech community during the entire development of the Windows Codename: Longhorn / Windows Vista projects. --Demondyne 05:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lucas was one of the most influential people involved in the community during the Windows Vista and Windows Codename "Longhorn" development period and I believe that this article should stay. It will be improved upon as more information is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmkenney (talk • contribs)

References, please. If it survives this AFD and no references get added, it will more than likely be renominates a few months later since it still doesn't have refs. Make sure they are added to the article. The best references I can see pertain to the fire, but there's almost nothing pertaining to his work. --Sigma 7 12:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as delete, clear violation of CSD A7. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:49, 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. Nishkid 64 15:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pendragon[edit]

An IP editor, who is also removing valid "article for deletion" templates, restoring copyvio material to articles, and leaving unsigned criticism on my talk page, has removed the "notability" template from this article several times without adding any information about notability to the article. This subject is an "internet novel." A stab at notability is made by asserting that the novel was recently reviewed, but I don't see that even that helps this come close to WP:N janejellyroll 23:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IP editor (who has apparently been blocked) aside, don't see any reason why this is notable-even one review being the case, notability requires multiple non-trivial source mentions, enough to write a comprehensive article on the subject. Seraphimblade 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - 71.232.29.141 02:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete easily. Block the IP as a sock of that one guy who inserts copyvios and removes AFD debates.. forgot his name. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 05:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Wikipedia is not a directory of every novel ever written. Goochelaar 09:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, specifically per Goochelaar's comment. WMMartin 14:22, 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. W.marsh 01:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmoe[edit]

Delete Project that released a few preview releases and then died, two years ago. Non-notable. AlistairMcMillan 23:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable software project. WMMartin 14:19, 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. W.marsh 18:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Just Vote, Get Active[edit]

Non-notable campaign, there are some ghits but all seem to derive from campaign creator's info. No news coverage. WP:NOT and WP:V problems. Wehwalt 23:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - There's some news coverage. http://www.ainfos.ca/04/feb/ainfos00454.html There's a link to an anarchist news agency-type organization who talks about it. There's also other links as well. It seems to me like this could barely skirt under the definition of notable, and perhaps it can be kept and rewritten. .V. -- (^Talk _Email) 06:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Numerous political campaigns are launched every day; there is no evidence that this is more notable than any other. WMMartin 14:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourced evidence of notability. Nothing on Google news or the news archive. Eluchil404 12:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless third party sources are included. Addhoc 15:14, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 18:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent clothing[edit]

The problem with this article is that there is no accepted definition of intelligent clothing. It's mostly used as a marketing gizmo that can mean anything from wearable computing to high-tech textiles. For instance the top Google hits [34] includes a company defining itself as "Intelligent Clothing is an emerging pediatric and maternal-fetal health telemonitoring company.", descriptions of unrelated high-performance textiles [35] [36], some references to wearable computing, a management tool for Marks & Spencer [37]. I don't think we can seriously hope to build an encyclopedic article that won't be a perpetual spam-target with little or no meaningful content. Pascal.Tesson 23:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, this article needs a lot of work, but I think Wikipedia needs an article about wearable computing and high-tech textiles. --Candy-Panda 23:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We do have an article on Wearable computing and a few related to Textile engineering. My point is that there is no scholarly definition of "intelligent clothing" and the best we'll be able to do with that article is echo marketing memes. Pascal.Tesson 00:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate references, and term looks like a neologism. Possibly more appropriate for Wiktionary ? WMMartin 14:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure Wiktionary would be too thrilled though. There's not really anything like a standard definition of the term. Pascal.Tesson 14:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep--interesting concept and there's some related sci-fi. & relevant material in some of the computer magazines. Possible material for an article.DGG 04:20, 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, reliability of sources was not established, but Good Luck with the recognition. ~ trialsanderrors 01:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bramble Cat[edit]

not a recognized breed; article appears to have been created for self-promotion H-ko 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Some person's attempt at advertising a non-existent breed. pschemp | talk 01:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are discovered that are independent of the cattery. —Cel ithemis 01:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE I am the author of the article and no pro at Wikipedia - in fact, I have no idea where to respond to this comment. However, I do believe that Wikipedia should be for everyone and include all cat breeds. Here is my case and please excuse me if I am not doing this correctly. The "Bramble" is accepted by the Rare and Exotic Feline Registry [38]. It is a new breed and not an attempt to "self promote". There are several breeders now working with the Bramble. I am not sure that I understand where the "self promote" comes from. I am the founder of the breed and have my name in as such. We have just started working toward TICA inclusion. Shouldn't Wikipedia cover new breeds of cats? I would certainly agree to have my name removed from the article, if that is what is causing the problem, but it seems that the founder of the breed should be included. Just let me know. I am a long term reputable cat breeder and member of TICA (The International Cat Association) in good standing. Please tell me the issue about this article. No cats are even for sale. This is a breed of cat, just like any breed. I can type in Sphynx, Siamese, etc... and get to an article. Again, if it is just the founder of the breed's name, please let me know. It seems that Wikipedia should include articles on cat breeds. There are new breeds and historical breeds that have gone away. If Wikipedia is going to be a source for information, it should be a source for all things. --Garybr 10:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not cover all things. It covers things that are significant enough to be the subject of multiple, reliable sources. In order for the article to be kept, you would need to demonstrate that there are good sources that are independent of your cattery, such as newspaper or magazine stories, that can be used to verify the article. —Cel ithemis 10:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what has already been said, the Bramble article mentions the Bengal. If you look at that page, multiple cat societies are listed with the breed standards for each. The Bramble cannot be found at any of these societies. So far, you and the Rare and Exotic Feline Registry are the only ones who even mention this cat. And the REFR doesn't seem to be a recognized registry in the cat world much like the AKC of the dog world. For one, their web site is hosted at homestead.com and for two, the registration of new breeds seems to only require filling out a nine question form and paying $25. And lastly, the issue with you writing the article is that you can be biased. If someone writes their own autobiography, they're probably going to come off sounding really good and not include any criticism people may have of that person. Since you are the originator of this breed, you are inherently biased. Please see WP:AUTO for Wikipedia's policies on autobiographies to help understand why I made this comparison. And please also see WP:NPOV to understand why Wikipedia must maintain a Neutral Point of View. Until some third party verifiable source comes out, my opinion is that this article should be deleted. Dismas|^(talk) 11:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I don't have anything else to add. This is a brand new cat breed and will be advancing quickly. I was under the false impression that Wikipedia would want articles such as this. People go to Wikipedia to find sources of information that are unavailable in other locations. Cat breeds advance just like dog breeds do. No breed starts out in AKC. The breed has to be developed and then works toward advancement in TICA and CFA - which are two registries, but not the only ones. Usually, a cat breed starts in one place and then works for inclusion in one of the above registering bodies. The Peterbald, Sphynx, and Bengal all started this way. I am the longest standing breeder of the Peterbald in the U.S. and was integral in the acceptance of that breed by TICA. I will be doing the same with the Bramble.

However, if this is not appropriate, please remove the article. I will now know that Wikipedia is not for new information. No hard feelings - this has been educational. --Garybr 11:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also,I am wondering when the Peterbald, Bengal, Sphynx etc. were added to Wikipedia. Were they added only after TICA acceptance? The Bengal and Peterbald are not accepted in CFA yet. Also, when was the Border Collie added? Remember, AKC went a long period of time before accepting that breed. I am not even sure if it is yet accepted, but believe that it finally made it in. This was despite much popularity of the breed for years before that.

The Bramble is, also, included on the Messybeast site. That is at [39] I do not know if that will make a difference or not, though. Please do what you feel is necessary. --Garybr 11:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dates at which articles have been added to the site can be found by clicking on the "history" tab at the top of the article and going to the earliest date. The articles you asked about were started on the following dates:

Bengal - 20 July, 2002
Peterbald - 26 September, 2005
Sphynx - 24 July, 2002

And the Border Collie was added on 10 October, 2002. But take into account that Wikipedia is entirely volunteer written so just because something was added on a certain date doesn't mean that it has any significance related to that particular subject. It's just the date that someone noticed that there wasn't an article about an already established and verifiable breed, so they decided to add the article. Dismas|^(talk) 13:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ResponseIf you only accept entries on breeds that are accepted by one of the two registering bodies, then please remove my article. All I ask is that you keep this same standard when it applies to other breeds of dogs and cats. There are several other new breeds of domestic animals out there now. I was one of the instrumental people in the development of the Peterbald breed in the United States and getting it accepted to TICA. The Peterbald gained championship status in May of 2006 with TICA. It is not CFA recognized yet. The Bengal is not CFA recognized yet either. I have always used Wikipedia to find out about things that I cannot find otherwise. This changes my view on that. Apparently, there should not be an article on here that is not recognized by certain registering bodies. I am not some person that has put together two cats in my backyard. I am a TICA member in good standing. This breed will go through the same steps as any other new breed. Thank you for your time. Please remove the article. I would rather it be removed than to have that big sign on it stating that it is up for deletion. That makes this breed look like it is not something real and out there. --Garybr 15:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an attack on you or your integrity as a breeder. However, a new breed (which, by the way, I could find no mention of on either of the links you provided) which has not yet stood the test of time doesn't really belong in an encyclopedic website such as this. Ten or twenty years down the road, the breed may no longer exist. On the other hand, it may gain supporters who continue to expand the breed. In that case, at some point down the road, an article may be appropriate. You may find it beneficial to read the policies on what Wikipedia is and isn't as well as the guidelines for contributions. --H-ko 00:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CORRECTION: I did find a one-sentence comment about the Bramble cat under the History of the Peterbald, and a few photos, all of one individual Bramble cat. Still, not much information there. --H-ko 21:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gary, this article needs to be deleted for a couple of reasons:

(1) We try to avoid "conflict of interest". You seem to be the creator and principal advocate of this breed, so there's an immediate concern that you may be biased in the way you have written this article. As the previous comment notes, this isn't an attack on you or your integrity as a breeder, it's just one of the safeguards we try to work with. (2) The article is weak in the quality of references it provides. Right now there are three references provided: one is to your own site, which gets an automatic disqualification ( "conflict of interest" ), one is to a site which appears to belong to someone who knows you well enough to help your business via a link ( "conflict of interest" again ), and one is to the "Rare and Exotic Feline Registry". The last of these looks superficially more useful, but when I look at the REFR site I find that anyone can register a breed without any independent oversight; it looks to me as if that's what you've done, so the quality of independence of this reference is also suspect. As H-ko says above, and as I'd like to strongly emphasise: this is in no way meant to question your integrity and skills. If the breed continues to exist, and takes off, it will certainly attain coverage by Wikipedia. The time for that, though, is not yet. Yes, it's important to share news about new breeds, but Wikipedia is not the place for that. The best thing you can do is continue to develop the Bramble Cat, and seek to advance its cause in professional, hobby and trade publications and websites: if it's as fine a breed as is seems from your website, it will be a great success, and the Wikipedia entry will happen when the time is right ( and, probably, when you've completely forgotten about this discussion ). With best wishes for the breed. WMMartin 14:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response I have asked for the article to be deleted. I don't mind if Wikipedia does this, because it is hurting the breed and my name for that big sign to be on top of the article. As for REFR, they are a legitimate registering body for new breeds. The process is not as easy as just paying the $25. There is a genetic committee and process. Again, please delete the article, but PLEASE delete all articles of any cats that do not have TICA or CFA acceptance yet. According to this, they are not a breed yet. Also, remember this for future articles that are written on other topics. Something does not exist on Wikipedia until it is on many other resource lists. I am not angry, even though this appears that I am. I simply wish for the article to be deleted. Do I do this or does someone else? I have seen something that states that the article cannot be blanked. I want the article taken down as quickly as possible. --Garybr 00:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't as simple as that. An article written is not the property of the contributor; it belongs to the community as a whole. The process for deletion, as initiated by me, involves putting it up for a vote and then acting on the majority opinion of the community. Since most of the people who have commented on it so far seem to be in favor for its deletion, that is probably what will happen. However, due process still needs to be followed. I don't believe that being put up for deletion really casts a topic in a negative light. There are many valid reasons to delete an article which do not reflect on the subject. However, that is just my personal opinion.--H-ko 03:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ResponseWell, I know hundreds of cat breeders, so I could always get them to come on here and give their opinion in favor of keeping the article, but I won't do that. I think this is a pretty silly argument.--Garybr 10:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modified I have changed the article some, since that seems within the rules of Wikipedia. All references to myself have been removed. If that satisfies the experts above, who I am unsure of how much breed development experience they have, the article should remain. If not, I would still prefer that this article be completely deleted - quickly! I am so tired of checking on it daily to see if it is gone yet. Wikipedia has truly disappointed me on this. If this chooses to be a source for information, there is nothing wrong with showing a new breed that is in development. It is a fact, no matter if some believe that it is not. Acceptance of the breed by TICA or CFA do not validate what breeds are in development. What if I wrote an article on the Mexican Hairless cat breed. It is no longer in existence and was never a TICA or CFA breed, but it was still a fact in history. If Wikipedia wants to limit itself to only some facts, that is certainly a choice. Since this is a "user" built source, though, Wikipedia could be so much more. I appreciate the comments above and know that none were meant to be offensive. However, as a respected breeder and shower in the cat fancy, this has been truly humiliating. I will continue to work toward the continued success of this breed and will not be using Wikipedia as a source for any information in the future. It is painfully obvious that this is not the purpose of this site.--Garybr 11:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We've told you that the debate lasts for five days. We're not trying to humiliate anyone by keeping it here. There is no cabal that is out to get you or the breed. As for the Mexican hairless breed you mention, if outside, independant sources can verify the existence of the breed, then yes, an article could be written about it. It's the same thing for, let's say, a dinosaur. There aren't any around anymore but those species have been cataloged by scientific journals. And unless you told a number of people about the article, there probably aren't very many people at all who have seen the article or seen the AFD notice on it. It's only linked from four other pages. One is this page, another is the log of all AFDs, and a third is from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cats where someone has asked for people who are more familiar with cats to please weigh in on the matter. I, at least, don't doubt that you've bred this cat but simply doing something unique isn't verifiable or possibly even notable. Wikipedia is not a collection of random facts and figures. Dismas|^(talk) 12:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
response So, what you are saying is that if the Bramble were to disappear like the Mexican Hairless, before it is recognized by TICA, then an article could be written about it THEN? My point is that a fact is a fact. This breed does exist and it was created by a reputable cat breeder that is known in those circles. Careful planning and years of work went into the creation of this new and exciting breed. The Bramble will be a household name, much like the Siamese or other known breeds in the future. This was no "fly by night" endeavor. It is shocking to me that Wikipedia does not want information such as this to be included. --Garybr 12:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the Bramble were to dissappear right now, no, it would still not warrant an article because it hasn't been mentioned by third party independent sources, notable cat breeder organizations (such as this TICA seems to be), or scientific journals. Please see Wikipedia:Notability and think of that applying for cat breeds. I don't doubt that a lot of time and effort goes into creating a new breed of cat. Think of it this way... An automobile engineer creates a new design for a car. He does this in his spare time, i.e. he's not ordered to do so by the company that he works for. He shows this new car to a number of his colleagues and they all agree that it's a fascinating design and really different. If the engineer were to die and nobody were to pick up his work and carry it on, an article should not be written. At this point, an article shouldn't be made according to Wikipedia's policies because we are not a primary source of information. All encyclopedias, such as Britannica or Wikipedia, are a tertiary source. Now, this engineer gets an article written about the new car by independent third parties such as Car & Driver or Popular Science magazines or even industry publications. At this point the existence of the car can be verified by reputable sources which are well known, in this case, not only to auto enthusiasts but also to the general public. Now this tertiary source, Wikipedia, can have an article about the car. So, as it stands now, the Bramble, while it has had a large amount of time and effort devoted to it, has not been reported on by literary sources such as Cat Fancy magazine, the TICA (just using that as an example as a recognized reputable source), or scientific journals. Policies that I have thought of and tried to work into this example include Notability, Verifiability, No original research, and most specifically, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not with special emphasis on point #2 found here. Does this help? Dismas|^(talk) 13:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ResponseThis now seems like it is less of a policy issue than a personal problem with new cat breeds. If you saw my records, you would know that this is extremely difficult and time consuming process. I do it because I love the cat. As for literary sources, it is nice to know that "Cat Fancy" qualifies as that. Every breed that you see in existence today starts somewhere. The Bramble is a new breed and will be recognized as time goes by. If Wikipedia does not acknowledge a new breed until it is in a magazine, then I wouldn't consider Wikipedia a good source for information. The fact that Wikipedia is able to publish articles that cannot be found in other places, be on the cutting edge, and be open to being fluid, is an advantage - or not, depending on the willingness to do that.--Garybr 15:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a problem with new cat breeds. If I had something against cats, I wouldn't have three of them myself. Nowhere on this site does it say that Wikipedia is on the cutting edge or that it is the place for publishing of new information. Right at the top of the page under the logo it says "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia" and as I've pointed out, encyclopedias are tertiary sources. Wikipedia is a good source of information, just as any other encyclopedia, but it is not the place for original publications. This same point has been explained to many people who thought as you do that Wikipedia should accept all information whether it can be cited or not. We've had people try to publish their new theories about philosophical concepts as well. I'm sure they put a great deal of thought into them after having read the articles but they weren't documented anywhere notable, verifiable, etc. Therefore this is not the place for them. Through this whole process I've been trying to explain to you that an article about the Bramble is welcome once the breed has become recognized by third parties and those who deal in this sort of thing. I've tried to explain why the REFR is not thought to be a standards organization that we can base our inclusion criteria on. This is in no way a personal thing against you or against your breed. Dismas|^(talk) 17:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
response I feel that a cat breed is much different than a theory. Since I have 3 of them looking up at me right now, it qualifies as a fact - not even a well thought out theory. So, I think that comparison is apples and oranges. It comes down to you not believing that REFR is a qualified source to verify the breed. However, all breeds start in this fashion. Any new breed in the last 30 years has gone through a process such as this. TICA is not the only registering body, although that will be the next step for the breed - and it is a breed. Why not include something that is living and breathing on this planet - especially one that is recognized by a registering body? What made TICA the only source for cat breeds? I am responding to this above what someone else has already stated about TICA - it is no different than REFR - just larger. REFR is a common place for new breeds to be registered. So, to repeat myself, the Bramble IS a breed of cat. It is a breed that exists today. It is just starting out, so it isn't a household name yet. The only choice for Wikipedia is if it wants to include facts that are not household names yet - or stick to only things that everyone already knows.
- So find other users that feel as you do. I'm not the only one that's allowed to post my opinion. I'm not even an admin so I can't close the debate and delete the article. Try some of the users at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats. Dismas|^(talk) 21:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
responseI have no need to do that. --Garybr 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly, there are problems with the page, but the article feels well-intentioned. It is in no way an autobiography or advertising, and despite the WP:COI I think the author has done a good job of keeping the article fairly unbiased. A recognized cat breed is notable. If some random person decides that their pet cat should be called a new breed, then that 'breed' is not notable. In this case, I feel like trusting that, while this isn't an accepted breed now, it will become one, and will be notable. It seems silly just to postpone the creation of the article until the cat becomes a TICA breed. There are many worse articles on wikipedia. Also, let's not bite the newcomers, and I hope, Garybr, that this doesn't discourage you from writing for wikipedia in the future. Lesnail 02:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a crystal ball. Your prediction for the future that this will become a breed is irrelevent. I predict it won't become a breed. There, now we're even. However, wikipedia is written on what exists now, not what might exist in the future. As far as I'm concerned, this is someone reproducing with their pet cats and calling it a breed. Regardless, it is NOT NOTABLE right now. pschemp | talk 22:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
response Thank you. It is heartening to know that someone, other than my collegues, believe that this is worthy of an entry. It would be easy for me to get other known cat breeders into the discussion, but I have chosen not to do that. I have never had to defend myself like this before. I am very disheartened by this whole episode. My point throughout this has been to please delete the article, if it is not deemed worthy. I will go about my way and know that Wikipedia is not the place to find this type of information. Someone else can write an article on this breed in the future. I have truly enjoyed Wikipedia before this time - thinking that I could find things here that are new and fresh, since it is not a stale source. Apparently, that is not always the case.--Garybr 11:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" I would love to know what 'makes' a breed. The fact that there are breeders breeding this particular breed of cats should mean something. TICA or CFA is nothing but a club of people. What makes you say they should have the decision to accept or not accept a certain breed but REFR which is another cat association should not have that right? Discrimination comes into play here and I believe that could cause trouble from someone if this type article is deleted. Besides all that, TICA does accept new breeds for registration. They may put experimental on the papers but they do group new breeds together under their breed name, they do accept money to register them and they do give out registration papers with that breed name on them. This article on the Bramble Cat breed has as much right as any other article to be here. If it is deleted, that shows that Wikipedia is not interested in gathering 'all' knowledge but discriminates on whose knowledge. Not a place I will support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.91.86 (talk • contribs) (Note the anon commenting here has edits to nothing but this page.)

Nothing has a "right" to be here without notability, independent sources and a lack of original research. The Bramble cat has none of these. Frankly, I don't care what you support, but wikipedia has rules for what is included, whether you agree with them or not. pschemp | talk 22:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepA cat breed without original research????? That does not make sense. Of course there is original research. It is all original. There is no other cat breed like it. Years of work went into it. If anything, it is all original research.--Garybr 00:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response Thank you for the above comments. It is true that TICA and CFA should not be the only sources to verify. They are groups of people just like REFR. TICA accepts new breeds just the same as these others. I guess we shall find out soon if Wikipedia values this article enough to keep it.

--Garybr 21:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definite distinct breed. It's silly to claim that a breed only comes into existence when one of two clubs gets around to declaring so. A breed is a line of animal being bred for specific characteristics, and there were breeds for thousands of years before these clubs. --OinkOink 23:27, 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 A7 by Crazycomputers. Tevildo 12:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Lodge[edit]

No claim of notability. Hillel 23:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NN. -- MarcoTolo 01:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, and I suspect WP:AUTO. Dar-Ape 02:22, 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 a7, high school principal, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 20:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Winston George Willis[edit]

Incompleted AfD submitted by 203.3.197.249 (talk · contribs). I'm only finishing off the process and submitting no opinion on the deletion myself. -- Longhair\^talk 23:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 23:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of any notability. His online biography does not paint him as a person who will pass biographical requirements. - Peripitus (Talk) 00:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a great guy, but, as Peripitus noted, not notable in the greater scheme of things. -- MarcoTolo 01:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under criterion A7; tagged as such. Not to mention not meeting WP:BIO otherwise. Kyra_~(talk) 20:32, 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.