Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 27

< January 26	January 28 >

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 no result. This is an orphaned AfD that never started; if you still want the article deleted, start another AfD. --ais523 10:46, 12 February 2007 (U T C)

High School of the Dead[edit]

Reason Cuttyflam 18:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is r4edundant: we just have another page with complete information and correct title. Cuttyflam 18:55, 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 deleted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Viveiros[edit]

Google returns zero hits related to the supposedly influential and amazing career of Mr. Vieriros. Notability is extravagantly asserted, making this likely hoax uneligible for speedy deletion. Without sources, fails WP:V regardless of truthfulness of claims. janejellyroll 00:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When he 'rose to fame at teh begining of the millenium' he would have been 11, not verifiable. Hell's Edge doesn't exist. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 00:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-notable and unverifiable. ~ Arjun 00:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 00:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. S .D. ¿п? § 00:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy if possible. Not notable and blatant vanity. --Sable232 00:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverified, non-notable, and seems to be a clear WP:COI violation. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 01:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not verifiable, not notable. ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 06:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 07:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{09:04, Saturday, January 27 2007}

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

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

The result was Speedy delete WP:CSD#G4 – substantially identical recreation, after comparing content. ~ trialsanderrors 01:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T. Allen Greenfield[edit]

Delete This article was deleted under the initial heading of "Allen Greenfield." The overwhelming opinion was Delete as this person was deemed "non noteworthy." Attempting to reintroduce this article in this fashion circumvents Wikipedia's policies on deletion and reinstatement. If the person in question wishes to recreate the "Allen Greenfield" article then they MUST do so according to the rules! Eyes down, human. 00:39, 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. Bucketsofg 00:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon Dynamite (Character)[edit]

Delete or Merge I don't feel the character should be described in a totally different article, but, if anything, should be covered in a section of the main movie article. Not every single main character in a popular movie should have its own article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 00:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

··*Yeah but Napoleon Dynamite is very popular and should have his own article, It isin't very Big right now but its going to grow. It should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sean mc sean (talk • contribs). Comment-changed to Delete in view of most comments to date... (1) If it was indeed a stub as found and had not been developed any further in time I agree with nominator...(2) however the reasoning - it also depends to what extent the character has been described in the main article. (3) Due to the cult following of the character - if the stub had shown signs of development - expand tag would have been more relevant than afd - note debates elsewhere re the overuse of afd.... SatuSuro 01:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC) :::Follow up comment - fair enough - I think someone needs to learn to sign with four tildes here.... SatuSuro 04:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The character has been describe enough in the main movie article; the best the character article could do is mimic all of that info exactly. I also feel that, regardless of its popularity, it doesn't deserve its own article, mainly because of what I said above: the film article describes him plenty. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 03:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Main article Napoleon Dynamite has more than adequate information on the character (including all information listed in this short article), and this article just creates an unnecessary disambiguation. Wait until the information in the main article is expanded before splitting off into subarticles. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 01:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THERE!!! I improved the article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sean mc sean (talk • contribs).

Merge merge to the main article. Kyriakos 02:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete redundant. Artw 04:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to the film's article. --Dennisthe2 05:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge or redirect. Redundant. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant per WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 06:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete several TV shows and movie characters have their own pages but they're the product of multiple movies or episodes. All he did was appear in one movie so all that's needed is the movie's page. Quadzilla99 07:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. MER-C 08:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Napoleon Dynamite is already covered in the main movie article, GOSH!!! --Candy-Panda 10:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above, he's covered in the main article, and the article itself isn't over 30KB, so there's no need to create a page for Napoleon Dynamite - •The RSJ• Talk | Sign Here 15:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article about a charcter in a movie/TV program and most tv or movie articles and their charcters have there own article so I think it should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tellyaddict (talk • contribs) 15:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

- Please refer to WP:ILIKEIT, and note that the creation of character articles for other films does not set precedent for every (title) character in a movie. --Dennisthe2 19:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge to the main article. Always best for minor characters. Retiono Virginian 15:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main article covers him. Nothing that isn't in the main article is really needed. Incidentally, the word character in the title should have had a lower case c. Wryspy 19:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to have a separate article about a character who is covered in the main article. Ronbo76 21:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - covered in the main article, and that's really all that's necessary. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to have a seperate article. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 03:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I disagree with the above. The character has been in the feature film as well as the short fillm that inspired it, a series of promos for a farm competition out in the Western United States, and a number of TV appearances as the character. Those things would be inappropriate for the film article, so a move to its own article is more than sensible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Regardless of all those appearances (which some are not notable, I feel), not enough information is known about him to make an article any larger than a stub. Also, just because a character is in a popular film doesn't mean he needs an article; I might as well go make an article about the conductor from the "Conjunction Junction" School House Rock show, if that's true. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 00:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't oppose it if you did, honestly. I think the appearance of the character in so many non-film contexts confers even more "notability" than meets the grasp of the movie article. You call them "not notable," I call them excellent sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Napoleon Dynamite. Could be a useful redirect if someone comes looking for the article. Anyway, redirects are cheap. delldot | talk 17:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- No disrespect, but I'm quite confident that anyone coming to Wikipedia wouldn't type "Napoleon Dynamite (Character)" into the search field. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 20:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A movie is a movie, but the character of ND has already become a phenomenon rather than just a part of a movie, like Harry Potter. Wooyi 01:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- This is, about, the 4th time I've had to say this: Just because he's popular doesn't merit him for an article creation. You wouldn't be able to create more than a stub. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 05:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. There's no content here that couldn't go into the movie article. I doubt that this article would ever go beyond stub status. Croctotheface 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just added, in the words of Napoleon himself, a butload to this article. I think it deserves to live, and i will gladly write other articles on the other main charicters of this film.

- Forgive my sarcasm, but WOW. That sure was a buttload! Sarcasm aside, adding section title is, in no way, a "buttload," as you so eloquently put it. Plus, you help prove my point even more that no relevant info can be found on him to merit an article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 02:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely redundant, and all the necessary information is in the main article. TheRealFennShysa 18:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely redundant. Netuser500 00:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Navou ^banter 22:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retecool[edit]

disputed PROD for NN-blog. delete Cornell Rockey 02:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would require a major re-write. Reads like an ad to me. Navou ^banter 03:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has been rewritten and expanded since nomination. Navou ^banter 00:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a translation of the Dutch Wikipedia article and shows multiple outside coverage in independent and reliable sources. The article could do with some clean-up, but that is no ground for deletion. Aecis^Bravado 21:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried to clean up the article and some of the pov language and translation problems, added some assertions of notability (like being the fourth largest blog in the Netherlands atm), fixed the references, etc. A ecis^Bravado 21:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Won a notable and independent award and article cites non-trivial mentions in news media. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 01:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup (sectioning). The site definitely appears to be notable (due to national recognition) but I think it needs to be expanded and sectioned to make the information it presents easier to read. ◄Zahakiel ► 01:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and further clean notable national blog TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 02:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I Googled it and it is definitely notable. Jeepday 05:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article would not some cleanup as mentioned by users above but it is notable though. Tellyaddict 15:53, 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. Bucketsofg 00:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Customer experience[edit]

Promotional; COI; single, self-published source: The first paragraph of the article is a word-for-word copy from a consulting company's newsletter, with two minor changes. The second paragraph is a word-for-word copy from the same source. The editor that created the article is the author of the source material. The author is not a "well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field" per WP:V. Ronz 01:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect. Useful information should be merged with "Customer service," which is the far more common term for the concept this article appears to be conveying. The current article may contribute particularly to the Competitive advantage section, and its title can be used as a redirect. ◄Zahakiel► 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly agree with redirecting, I'm just not sure what content can be merged. Nothing from the body of the article can be per WP:V. --Ronz 02:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with merging and redirecting. -- Iotha 02:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Zahakiel. Keep and rewrite per Dhartung. Intent of the article did seem to be self-promotion, but that doesn't mean the content is totally useless. As long as the external link to the "journal article" is not there, I don't have a problem. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 02:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Customer experience is not customer service, I would not suggest a merge. Customer service -contributes- to the customer experience, just as satisfaction with the usage of a product does. The article is not self-promotional. Whether the author is "well known" is relative, and whether he is "professional researcher" seems to be a personal judgement. Agree on removing the external link. Apart from that I feel as it is there is not sufficient reason to delete this article. -- DavidJacques 05:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and cleanup and reference), this is an important marketing terminology and that lies somewhere between customer service, branding, and environmental psychology. 825 hits just on the New York Times site. --Dhartung | Talk 07:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the importance of the term. It is a commonly used term in marketing and its usage is increasing. Again, it is not customer service, branding or design but includes them all and more. -- DavidJacques 07:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not significantly rewritten by the end of this AfD and better sourced from reliable secondary sources. This is a copyvio from the newsletter and appears to be original research. --Charlene 11:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced things made up one day. Seems like an attempt to attach special meaning to a common phrase. meshach 15:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesnt seem to be relevant to Wikipedia so i'm going to have to say delete. Tellyaddict 15:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wryspy 19:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- either a dictdef or an attempt by a nn company to hijack an ordinary phrase (in which case spam.) Sdedeo (tips) 21:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and Cleanup). Customer experience management would now lack a definition of Customer experience. Perhaps the management can follow its definition. There are references to a few books in the Customer experience management article, one of them (of the same name) from which the article is directly derived. -- DavidJacques 17:52, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 04:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BrainBread (Band)[edit]

Proposed deletion contested[1] by 72.144.25.77. Article provides no verifiable sources to establish passing of WP:BAND, nor does a Google search, all results of which point to the Half-Life modification. Michaelas10 (Talk) 01:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete 65.2.214.90 (talk • contribs) left a message on the talk page saying "Please delete this article, thank you". Since that IP is part of a range that edited the article frequently after it was created I'm going to assume it's a author's request to delete and have tagged it as such. Anyway the band is also non-notable per WP:MUSIC as they've released no albums yet. Flyingtoaster1337 01:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice they edited the page to say, "please don't delete". But speedy delete still, because the article doesn't assert notability in any way. Flyingtoaster1337 03:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per non-notable. -- Iotha 02:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, author, along with several others keep on removing the AFD and Speedy Tags. Article shows no sign of any singles or albums, or even a signed record deal. Floria L 03:13, 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. Bucketsofg 04:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beuron Art School[edit]

Not notable Avi 15:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequately referenced. If references can be added, I'll change my opinion. WMMartin 13:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination as unreferenced. Flyingtoaster1337 02:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google search found many potential sources. I'll try to beef the article up a bit. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 03:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, there is an article on the topic on the German wikipedia: [2]. I don't read German, though. But, still, working on beefing the article up. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 03:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I've added some sources and tried to explain the notability a bit more. Though the article is not great now (I am no art historian), I've tried to show that it at least has potential to be good. I'll try to work a bit more on it when I get a chance. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 03:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and leave the clean up tag User:JaimeLesMaths did a good job of making the article a starter stub. Lots of work to go on it but Wikipedia is not a race. Jeepday 05:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, kudos to JaimeLesMaths for the WP:HEY effort. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. School of art is clearly notable and now contains references to verifiable reliable sources. --Charlene 11:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup Its agood aricle but needs proper refs and general cleanup. Tellyaddict 15:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JaimeLesMaths's references. Needs cleanup as per tag and wikification. Ronbo76 21:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing My Opinion. A couple of days ago ( see above ) I felt that this article should be deleted because of the poor quality of its references. Now that references have been added, and other improvements made to the article, I am changing my opinion to Keep. Kudos to JaimeLesMaths for substantial effort in improving this article, and to Trialsanderrors for additional work on references. If all AfD debates were as fruitful as this I'd be a very happy person. WMMartin 13:54, 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 keep, bad faith nomination by banned user: see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DogJesterExtra. Part Deux 21:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Belton[edit]

Seems like fancruft. Also no verifiable sources for titles won Aqua Nation 01:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sportcruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO for sportspeople due to lack of reliable sources. MER-C 08:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - He has a number of hits on google. However, the page has stayed in the same shape since my last edits with no indication of exspantion and as i dont really know enough about him or have the time to expand it, i guess it should go. -- Paulley
Keep This is about a wrestler and although its a small article, sometimes small articles are the best - remember its quality not quantity!! Tellyaddict 16:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This isnt just small.. its a stub.. with little to no info and no much in the way of references or notabillity. --- Paulley

Delete Non notableDogJesterExtra 16:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that creator is under investigation for being a WP:SOCK account of User:JB196 and if proven, the AFD will be Speedily deleted as a Keep (with no prejudice against renomination) See section on WP:AN/I for more details. SirFozzie 20:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor/sportsman. Sdedeo (tips) 21:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Brainsynth 21:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ChrisO (talk · contribs) deleted with deletion summary: "Speedy deletion - non-notable". James086 ^Talk 13:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Active Recordings[edit]

Unreferenced article that does not claim notability. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 15:58, 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, Agent 86 01:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no assertion of notability. Flyingtoaster1337 02:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete "Official Homepage" doesn't even exist.--Tainter 02:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quickly or slowly. Promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Speedy" delete - A7. MER-C 07:20, 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. Bucketsofg 00:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In-N-Out Burger timeline[edit]

Let me preface this by saying I am a rabid fan of In-N-Out Burger. That said, I can't see how a timeline of its history is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. It seems to me to be of interest only to those who (like me) are interested in the chain. Heimstern Läufer 01:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to In-N-Out Burger. Montco 02:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Artw
Gonna be hard to merge this. I hate to say it, but delete. Dennisthe2 02:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure a small fraction of the article is worthy of merging with the main article, but the vast majority of the timeline seems quite trivial (example: Store #118 opens, etc.) -- Iotha 02:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Sable232 03:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Op-ed comment: In-N-Out Burger = O-v-e-r-r-a-t-e-d; when in CA, seek out Barney's Gourmet Hamburgers instead - superior burgery deliciousness at a very reasonable price. Bwithh 04:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- :p Heimstern Läufer 04:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Barney's = the burger for the architect's spouse demographic. Nation's is the sole burger joint on the Left Coast. Oh, and Delete (or transwiki to Wikisource or somesuch). ~ trialsanderrors 08:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wish I was an architect's spouse. <=P Bwithh 14:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keep any useful info and merge with text of article. Can we delete the previous comment per CSD:G11? ;-) -Freekee 04:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subtrivial cruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information.--Jersey Devil 07:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly one or two items missing from main article mergeable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In-N-Out may be notable, but a timeline is no more notable for this company than for any other mid-sized business. --Charlene 11:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont really think this is relevant, not even enough so to be merged. Tellyaddict 16:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cruft. Yes, the eatery is notable, but this article is totally irrelevant to this encyclopedia. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Terence Ong 17:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I posted the article and I'm fine if it's deleted. What could be merged is already under consideration in in-n-out's Talk area. There is also In-N-Out Burger history that needs deleting.--Berol 09:52, 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 Speedy delete. ChrisO (talk · contribs) deleted it with deletion summary: "Speedy deletion - non-notable" It has been protected from recreation. James086 ^Talk 13:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miaarose[edit]

Her appearance in Rolling Stone magazine means she is not without notability.

Way too many pages on YouTube users on Wikipedia already. See Youtube#Fame beyond YouTube.

Non-notable musician. See WP:N#The primary notability criterion. Might gain notability due to controversy surrounding Mia Rose, but hardly notable at the present time.

Already deleted twice. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 01:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Flyingtoaster1337 02:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non-notability. -- Iotha 02:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G4. So tagged. --Sable232 03:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could be an example in another article (perhaps about YouTube, sockpuppetry, hit counts, or similar), but not worth a separate article. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 05:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete slowly or quickly. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I couldn't resist checking to see whether the article creator and the AFD nominator were one and the same. ;-) No such thing as... --Dhartung | Talk 07:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - copyvio from [3]. So tagged. MER-C 08:14, 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. Bucketsofg 00:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Mattson[edit]

Does not meet notability requirements. ↪Lakes (Talk) 14:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep If the claims made in the article could be documented, he seems to meet the notability guidelines -- he is noticed. --Kevin Murray 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is written surprisingly well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kris Classic (talk • contribs) 01:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep If this is supposedly non-notable, then how can any wrestler be notable unless independently a celebrity? -- Strangelv 15:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 01:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has won at least two NWA Great Lakes Jr. Heavyweight titles. That's sufficient for WP:N. I've added a link to Obssesed with Wrestling profile which makes this article verifiable. Flyingtoaster1337 02:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Having won the NWA Great Lakes Jr. Heavyweight championship doesn't make him notable. It's just a small regional title. The title itself is notable, but people who have won it are not, unless notable in some other way of course. Also OWW is not really a valid source since it has many factual errors, as its contributions are apparently not verified. ↪Lakes (Talk) 07:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Move this article to a wrestling wiki. Also: as stated above, OWW isn't a reliable source. It's a glorified fan site. If Wikipedia had all those wrestlers listed, many more AFDs would be popping up. RobJ1981 14:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although they may not be very well known worldwide they are still known in that area and therefore meets my criteria for speedy keep. Tellyaddict 16:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "In that area" does not qualify for Wikipedia. ↪Lakes (Talk) 16:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From the article, he seems to meet notability guidelines. However, I would really like to see some sources cited in the article to proof that he is really that notable. Terence Ong 17:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor wrestler in minor league -- what is the notability here? Sdedeo (tips) 21:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have seen him on TNA on TV, that's notable enough for me. Govvy 10:20, 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 keep. Bucketsofg 00:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Genovese[edit]

Notability Euphonic 02:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)— Euphonic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Insufficient reasoning provided to delete. A quick-and-dirty google search indicates that there is non-trivial independent media coverage about this person[4][5]. There's also this press release from the United States Department of Justice. Agent 86 02:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable criminal hacker, though article needs cleanup. Possibly move to illwill. --Dhartung | Talk 07:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually he was not convicted for (or ever accused of) hacking, but for selling source code that he downloaded off of public peer-to-peer networks. Euphonic 23:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Non-trivial and notable independent press coverage cited. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 08:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, while undoubtedly notable the article fails to cite neutral sources and reliable references, both unacceptable for a reliable encyclopedia. Alf photoman 14:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Needs a total rewrite, article to be wikified per WP:MOS, categories to be added, and sources to be cited. Terence Ong 17:15, 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 g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EBlah[edit]

Article is blank. Jonathan Potts 01:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as you are the author and you blanked it, I have nominated it for speedy deletion under CSD.G7. Black Falcon 02:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete yup. per everything.--Tainter 03:07, 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. Bucketsofg 00:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Briles[edit]

This article is for a member of a band called The Second Guess. After researching that article and adding sources to it, I think the band passes WP:MUSIC . . . by a hair. I do not believe that the band members meet WP:N. If there is any useful information in these articles, it can be moved to the (very short) article for band. janejellyroll 02:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [they are also members of this band]:

Merge and redirect the band members' articles to their band's article. -- Iotha 02:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all (band members + band). Promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as they fail WP:MUSIC. MER-C 08:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per MER-C. Sdedeo (tips) 21:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Band article, The Second Guess, is not up for deletion. It should be properly nominated and discussed before any action is taken. —siro χ o 00:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect band members to The Second Guess —siro χ o 00:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Cricket02 07:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for this article. - Sean mc Sean 08:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illmob.org[edit]

Non-notable Euphonic 02:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7. --Sable232 03:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unremarkable webcontent. Only assertions of notability are for the webmaster. So tagged. MER-C 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into William Genovese. Though that article is currently being considered for deletion, there seems to be a keep consensus forming. Since the "[o]nly assertions of notability are for the webmaster" (per MER-C's comment), seems to make sense for any useful information to go into that article. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 08:36, 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. Bucketsofg 00:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MC Dope[edit]

Delete or userify. Non-notable artist. Has released no albums. De-proded by author, who is also the subject of the article. eaolson 02:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And what if i am a non-notable artist. At least i am an artist! And i said my album will be ready for sale when the time comes. I am promoting my work on here! Nothing is wrong with promotion! You know why? Because its everywhere! Advertisements, commercial, newspapers, movies, everywhere! I beleive i have the right to have this page. And if not, you should delete Eaolsons page because i never heard of this guy. He's not known to me, so he should be deleted too. Mcdope_2x 02:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Above post speaks for itself. Euphonic 02:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would just like to say how the "keep" vote gives more creedence to why it should be deleted than kept. delete per-non-notable rapper.--Tainter 03:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly unnotable. Herostratus 03:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:: You clearly cant even state another reason why to delete it. Instead you just go, "i agree with this guy". Wikipedia wouldnt even be what it is if no one made unknown articles on here. How do we even know some of you hate rap and just want to delete it because of that? Or maybe you have something against mexicans? And i am not stating an issue over race right now, but some of you exceed your own rights on this website so dont even act like youre the innocent. All of you are hypocritical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcdope 2x (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete and WP:SALT given tenacity of creator. Natalie 03:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt per CSD A7 and WP:COI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sable232 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fine. if it makes you feel any more superior, delete the page. Go on, just do it. cuz thats all you can do. i tried reasoning with you but you had to act like a bitch. so do what you want to do, ok, cuz i dont give a shit anymore of what your decision is. Whatever i say is not gonna change it. i already see how many of you say "delete" so there is no more of a point to argue in said argument... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcdope_2x (talk • contribs).

Does the above count towards G7 - author requests deletion? Natalie 03:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At the very least his comment and your reply count towards a BJAODN. Oh yeah, Delete. No notability established, definite conflict of interest, and the article makes baby FSM cry. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. Only notability assertion is Myspace, and per the author's request, we'll be happy to delete it for you if that's the way you feel. --Dennisthe2 05:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quickly or slowly. Promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mcdope_2x, this is an advertisement. Maxamegalon2000 06:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...isnt this kind of pathetic. You actually have to have a board of administrators to decide whether to remove an article from a damn website..this isnt the supreme court no matter how much you want it to be. Its just stupid that you have to have a debate whether to 'keep' or 'delete' something...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.83.6.10 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We're not all administrators, in fact most of us aren't. The reason we have to agree on whether to delete things is so that someone doesn't go around deleting all the important articles like Philosophy and Science and Fish and that sort of thing – Qxz 06:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well those types of thins should be protected. You guys have the power to put something to protect a type of article of being protected. Everyone else should have their type of articles though. And if at any point it offends somebody, maybe it should be deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.83.6.10 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want an article here at Wikipedia, it needs to follow the guidelines for Wikipedia. This article, as has been demonstrated here, fails to do this. To be blunt, ranting about it and demanding what you think you are entitled to is not going to change our minds - providing a neutral article with verifiable notability claims will, and following the guidelines about music would be a big plus. If you can't do this, my !vote stands. If you feel otherwise and it gets removed, take it to deletion review. This is a procedure that everyone using Wikipedia must follow, and there are no exceptions to this policy. --Dennisthe2 19:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia (at this time). Mcdope_2x, please dont take this personally - all articles on Wikipedia are subject to guidelines which warrant (or not) their inclusion. You may also like to look over WP:AUTO & WP:COI re: adding articles to which you are some extent involved. Wikipedia's not for advertising or promotion - it's an encyclopedia. The author also left a comment re: the articles deletion on my talk page which may be relevant to the deletion debate. MidgleyDJ 07:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MC Dope? More like MC Lame. He is a moron who has no idea how the world works. Let's silence this guys mic. --MikeHunt35 15:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making personal attacks. eaolson 15:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails to meet notability guidelines, WP:COI, self-promotion. The album is not even released yet, so for now there is no assertion of notability. Terence Ong 17:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO.-- danntm ^T _C 20:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, right now, i am sort of agreeing with all of you. But dont you guys think you apply too many rules here? You have like the most absurd rules out there.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.6.10 (talk • contribs)
- Simple answer: no. More complex answer: we're pretty much trying to maintain a standard here, and while those rules are a bit on the stringent side on the surface, said rules give that standard a basis - so in short, there's a method to the madness. --Dennisthe2 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. If we didn't have these kinds of rules, we'd have 12 million articles, 10.5 million of them spammy articles on companies, articles reading "so-and-so is sooooo gay lol" and tens of thousands of high school garage bands. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thats true. But you guys can have that right to delete anything offensive, like i said before. If theres anything claiming that type of stuff on their page, it has the right to be deleted. And for the garage bands thing, that would be good for the website. It could show which ones are in what area of the city, country, etc. And some people have heard of small ones that are just performing at fairs, and maybe they ant to know more about the band. And some people cant afford to make their own websites, and basically if this is a free encyclopedia, they would at least put up their page right here while trying to makeing their own and they would eventually delete this one. Just give everyone a chance. And if somebody keeps overdoing their rights, they lose the privelage of making anything at all or everyone loses it instead and it goes back to the way it was in the beginning. What have you guys got to lose? I know that before maybe you guys had that feeling to promote a little something when you started this yourself. And since you couldnt, instead you just stuck with the rules. Like everyone says, rules are made to be broken. Whats the danger in doing that right now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.6.10 (talk • contribs)
- I certainly acknowledge that we have a clause about ignoring all rules, and certainly you're right - rules are definitely made to be broken. But this is one of those cases that would violate the spirit of that link. To respond point by point to you, though: Wikipedia is not censored, so offensive material will be found. Garage bands and the like must still adhere to WP:MUSIC, and therein WP:LOCAL comes into play too. Making a website is easy - HTML is not hard, and there are sites that let you publish for free; Wikipedia is not such a site, it is not a means for a band to get their name out. What we have to lose is the integrity that we continually strive to maintain, and by allowing advertisements of this fashion, we lose that integrity. --Dennisthe2 20:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or yet u can come to be a bigger known website...an encyclopedia that contains pratically everything ever... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.6.10 (talk • contribs)
- I'm not sure that this would be Wikipedia's goal. --Dennisthe2 03:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Never hurts to expand something u never thought of in the first place...its like life: you always add another goal to it.
Delete for non-notability per WP:BIO. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:MUSIC, failing WP:V, failing WP:COI. The Rambling Man 13:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Board[edit]

Appears to be about the concept of creating a picture collage to achieve your dreams. Procedural nom; count me as neutral. Banyan Tree 02:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsubstantiated, no references cited, NNPOV, not suitable for an encyclopedia. Euphonic 03:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO.--Tainter 03:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO #4 and probably also WP:NOT#SOAP. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 08:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Seems to be read like an informercial. MER-C 10:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C. Sdedeo (tips) 21:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a how-to with serious tone problems and no assertion to notability... if the creator can offer some objective sources to show this is widely practiced, it will still need to be almost completely rewritten. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:14, 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 delete. Bucketsofg 00:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Strunk[edit]

I'm trying really hard to WP:AGF on this article, but the only reference is the myspace.com and the myspace.com uses this article as a reference. I can only find minor, minor references to this artist online . . . some sources suggest that he might indeed be working with Timbaland, but they aren't necessarily reliable sources. Amazon.com lists one single for sale, but no album. The kicker for me was that the article for the supposed album {The Long Road Ahead) claims that "The Album Is Certified Gold At The End Of It's First week ending January 23, Selling 120,000 units in the USA" and I couldn't find any chart mentions at all for Nicholas Strunk on billboard.com (note that his myspace.com reference lists MULTIPLE chartings for various songs). janejellyroll 03:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Given this, I'd say it's probably a hoax, and thus should be deleted. Natalie 03:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I plugged his name into google w/out quotations marks and a bunch of hits came back. He seems to have gotten at least one single out. So I don't know... Natalie 03:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went through the first three pages of Google hits (with and without quotation marks) before I nominated the article for deletion. I certainly don't think this is a complete hoax. I believe that the subject does have at least one single. Notice, however, that the Google hits contain zero or virtually zero media mentions. Everything is either a lyrics site (and many of those are open-submission, aren't they) or some sort of message board posting. And billboard.com returned nothing when I searched for the subject's name. At the very least, the claims of notability are inflated. Also, one account has made all the edits for both the subject and the supposed album, which is very odd for an artist who is supposedly certified gold. With the absence of sources, I'd say that this fails WP:V. janejellyroll 03:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be provided. At the moment there is far too much wrong with this article, e.g. the claimed five albums from an artist described as a 'newcomer from the uk' according to a number of sites. Nuttah68 08:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Newcomer from the UK? The article identifies him as being from Holland, MI. Further evidence that something is seriously wrong with the article. janejellyroll 09:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to serious WP:V concerns. He claims to be on the label NS Records (which already seems suspicious because his initials are NS), but the link in the info box goes to 19 Entertainment. The article can be recreated when and if verifiable information regarding his notability becomes available. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 09:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence from reliable sources that WP:MUSIC is met is produced. MER-C 10:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced and cited by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. Has anyone noticed that this article has already been deleted four times? Each and every one of those times someone has had to waste time digging through the mountain of fake postings this individual has put up on the internet, claiming to be a best selling singer (always singing somebody else's song, however). I know, because I did that search trying to verify one of the previous incarnations of this article. Enough time has been wasted on this individual's delusions of granduer. Pass the salt. -- Antepenultimate 19:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (perhaps speedy?) -- per the guy before the guy before the end. Sdedeo (tips) 21:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claims to notability are dubious as a result of a lack of reliable sources. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt with rock salt. Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Long Road Ahead; almost everything about this article and the related AfD are simply myspace-fancruft. None of the claims stand up to any reality check whatsoever. Also, it's nice to know that this article is the individual/band's official web site! SkierRMH, 03:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as above users have already stated, this article has been deleted several times already. Fails WP:MUSIC--Jersey Devil 03:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteand Hire a centurion to salt it old-school. ThuranX 04:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and salt. Robertissimo 08:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete with salt. Seems real. May one day be notable. Not yet. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per pretty much all of the above arguments. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a side order of salt and vinegar dressing. WMMartin 13:56, 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 Speedy Delete. ChrisO (talk · contribs) deleted it with deletion summary: "Speedy deletion - non-notable". James086 ^Talk 13:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Evarts[edit]

When I first wrote this, I thought that being a 6-year-old with a published game was notable, but I doubt it now. Sleeping Queens may also be a candidate for deletion, having little more significance than the common garden variety of inexpensive childrens' games. Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 03:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You were the only contributer (other than an automated edit) so you can tag it for speedy deletion with {{db-g7}}. The same applies for Sleeping Queens. James086Talk 03:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G7, per policy and original author request. So tagged. Thanks for your understanding. --Dennisthe2 05:02, 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. ChrisO (talk · contribs) deleted with deletion summary: "Speedy deletion - advertising". James086 ^Talk 13:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viscardi designs[edit]

This seems to be a non-notable corporation and an advertisement, never mind that it shoudl be at Viscardi Designs, not Viscardi designs. The only editor is User:Viscardi, presumably someone related to the company. Shorelander 03:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speed delete vanity bio sans claim or evidence of notability. I'd do it myself if I weren't so lazy. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - corporate vanity. So tagged. MER-C 07:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. Bucketsofg 01:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ganddal[edit]

Should be deleted this is a small district (even of norwegian standards) of Sandnes, and as such would be better off mentioned briefly there. None of the notability claims are really notable:

Ganddalsdagen is only celebrated locally in this community, and not in any other parts of Sandnes or the region
Ganddalitt of the Year is a non-notable award in every sense, has no function or notability outside this community, and none of the people mentioned are notable by any of Wikipedias standards, and as such does not contribute to making the district notable;
Having lots of stores and a train station is in no way an indicator of the notability of a place;
Stokkelandsvannet is in no way notable, neither for it's size (approx 4 km all the way around), it's levels of pollution or for any flora or fauna living there.
Although the schools might be of some notability, they should in case have their own articles, and does not make the district itself notable. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 03:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a precedent that named villages are notable, regardless of size. I agree that gazetted place names are notable enough, not to street level of course, but towns and villages certainly. It's notable enough for the Norwegian Wikipedia. --Canley 06:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) if it's a real place, which your comments seem to indicate it is, then Keep. Real villages are notable enough for WP, irrespective of their size. Sure, the article needs rewriting to tke out some of the dross and provide a few facts, but that is not a reason for deletion. Grutness...wha? 06:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as real places are generally inherently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove the cruft, i.e. everything beyond the first sentence. Punkmorten 15:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all real places are notable in WP. Therefore, any village will be considered notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Cleanup the whole article, and remove all the cruft. Terence Ong 17:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feeble Keep or preferably Merge to Sandnes per Precedents#Cities. Tiny Hamlet/suburb in small municipality (no mayor) stuggles with notability, but if it's enough, it's enough. —MURGH ^disc. 03:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a real town. Cities towns and villages are inherently notable regardless of size. This is like the AfD for Lost, Scotland. --Oakshade 06:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a real municipality district with clear set boundaries. The article does need some serious clean up, but is valid at present. (Incidentally, reasonably good articles on railway stations are generally kept.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:15, 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. Bucketsofg 01:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tatsuo Nagumo[edit]

Redundant to main Urotsukidoji article. Snarfies 03:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:FICT. -- Ned Scott 05:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 10:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Nothing more to say. James086 ^Talk 13:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Urotsukidoji. Why did this have to go through Afd? Merging or Speedy would have been fine. --Squilibob 23:53, 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. Bucketsofg 01:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solarbeam[edit]

Non-notable move in a class of Pokemon videogames. Does not assert notability, and definitely doesn't need an entire entry. Wikipedia is not GameFaq Haemo 03:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subtrivial fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not an indsicriminate collection of information. I bet there are thousands of "moves" in the Pokemon series and unless they get press coverage or some other type of verifiability they don't deserve articles. James086Talk 08:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure game guide material. MER-C 10:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also appears to be original research. If it is the signature move of a specific Pokémon, then it may deserve a mention on their article. J Milburn 14:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Important Aritcle --MikeHunt35 15:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, game guide (unencyclopedic). Punkmorten 15:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, game guide, WP:OR, fancruft. Terence Ong 17:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say put all Pokemon moves into one big list, but failing that, Delete. -- Grev 02:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a member of the PCP, just let me say KILL IT; ITS WORTHLESS! -- The Hyb rid 07:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 12:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1508 A/S[edit]

No assertion of notability, also fails WP:COI. Sable232 03:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not visibly notable, search for 1508 is inconclusive. Significant references showing notability would change my vote. Jeepday 05:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - unremarkable corporation. So tagged. MER-C 10:50, 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 delete. Bucketsofg 01:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faneuil[edit]

Does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:COMPANY; not public, fewer than 1000 Google results for "Faneuil Group," and only a single inbound link within WP.- choster 03:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it looks like it's only hope of passing WP:COMPANY#Criteria_for_companies_and_corporations is number 1. # The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. my search found a good number of published works but most that I looked at seemed to be restatements of the home page message [6] which would cause it to fail. Jeepday 05:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Faneuil Hall, which is what most people looking for Faneuil are probably interested in. -Smerdis of Tlön 18:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tlon -- no independent coverage beyond reprints of PR. Sdedeo (tips) 21:40, 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 delete. Bucketsofg 01:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AJ-SDX900[edit]

A model of camcorder isn't notable. It seems like an advertisement. Sable232 03:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps it could have been merged into Panasonic Cinema series but there isn't an article. I don't think a single model is notable unless it has something unique or it was the first, this camera has no such thing. James086Talk 08:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Really nothing left to say. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 09:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 12:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as verging-on-advertising (but clearly not spam); would be useful if someone comes up with Panasonic products. SkierRMH,01:30, 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. Bucketsofg 01:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Citizenship[edit]

Doesn't seem to be notable at all. I can't even make sense of what it's trying to say. Sable232 03:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My POV: it's meaningless education-speak. Nevertheless, there appear to be numerous articles written on this: here, here, here, here and here. And that was just from the first page of a Google search. Meets the primary notability criterion, so keep. JChap2007 05:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a normal combination of words, so there will be plenty of hits. The article doesn't establish that "Academic Citizenship" has been used as a special phrase with unique meaning. To put it another way: "X citizenship is a special case of the more general condition of being a citizen. Specifically, X citizenship refers to the rights and responsibilities of someone who is a member of an X community, owing allegiance to that community and being entitled to protection from it." Fill in the blank. There's something here, but it belongs in a larger article such as academia (and it needs to be sourced.) Sdedeo (tips) 21:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified concept, without any sources to indicate that this is an established concept.-- danntm ^T _C 22:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The simple fact is that this article is inadequately referenced, irrespective of the other points mentioned above. WMMartin 14:01, 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. Bucketsofg 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pagaian Cosmology[edit]

PRODded. There was a complaint against the deletion placed on the article's Talk page, thus making it a contested PROD. This is a procedural nomination. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable new age neologism. low G hits, mostly for the book, which appears to be a small press or self published effortArtw 04:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain PaGaian Cosmology is practised by a number of groups in Australia. Other groups in the UK, US, Australia use the book and Cosmology therein for ritual practice of this ecospirtuality. The book is entirely based on Livingstone's PhD thesis. It has been reviewed in the following publications

EINGANA The Journal of the Victorian Association for Environmental Education, Vol 29 Number 1, April 2006. (Review by Ruth Rosenhek, environmental justice activist)
Women-Church: An Australian Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, issue 38, Autumn 2006, p. 42-43. (by Lynne Hume, Associate Professor in the School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics at the University of Queensland)
Journeys newsletter, Winter 2006 Volume 14, No. 1 (by Elizabeth Cain, Jungian Psychotherapist and Spiritual Counsellor) and Pagan journal The Crossroads, Issue 3, Litha 2005
Glenys and her work are well respected among members of the goddess spirituality network within Australia.User:Wordsarewonderful|(talk)--waw 04:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD etiquette:If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, clearly base your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once, like everyone else. Signed Jeepday 14:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the author, Glenys Livingstone, and I am sorry if I have done something wrong in the procedure as I gather I have by the warning above, but by what was said here about "your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once," I understood that it was a ballot - and particularly so on this page. Please explain. I thought then that the discussion was really happening on talk pages elsewhere - which is where I have posted my comments thus far, and waiting dutifully to come to this page only once and "vote" as we were apparently being told to do. So can you please clarify what is correct? I thought it was encouraged to alert people who might care about the outcome of ths AFD to come here and support it, and also to edit the topic itself, as I have encouraged them to do. Like me most I know need encouragement to come to this auspicious site and edit or say anything ... in case it is wrong or feeling like they don't have "clout" and don't bother.Pagaian 22:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Glenys, perhaps I can clear up some of these issues for you. When most people hear the word "vote", what they think it means is "oh, each person comes by, casts a 'ballot' for one of the choices, and then an answer is calculated solely from the totals of the ballots." A deletion discussion is definitely not a vote in that sense, because the answer is not calculated solely from the totals of the ballots. The totals of the ballots will be a factor in the decision made by the admin who closes the discussion -- but other factors include how well those who support a particular fate for the article support their argument with reference to deletion policy, and how much reason we have to think that the opinion of someone who supports a particular fate for the article is an educated opinion based on a real understanding of Wikipedia's goals and its standards. I couldn't begin to count the deletion discussions, for example, where a horde of people showed up to assure us "X is good! X is great! X is wonderful!" which had absolutely no effect in their favor because it showed that they didn't understand the real crux of the issue was not "is X good?" but "is X already notable, or only expecting to become notable? is there enough reliable information from trustworthy sources to write about X or are we only getting a few opinions, all from parties with personal stakes in how X is presented?" That is why, if someone who we've never seen on Wikipedia before comes in and makes a good argument, not only valid but sound, about how the article on X fits Wikipedia's criteria and should be kept, it will have an effect on the outcome, whereas if someone who never showed interest in Wikipedia before this deletion discussion shows up and says nothing but "I think this article should be kept" it's not going to have much effect at all. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Glenys Livingstone again. Should I direct people to where they may find my response so they can comment? or is that just for Wiki editors ? and Question again, when I click on my signature at the end of these posts, it takes me to a place that says there is no user page by the name pagaian. I don't understand how people can easily find my talk page then - which does actually exist here [7].Pagaian 23:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the first question, no, you should not and this may be the reason for the warning above, although I'm willing to assume you did not know you were doing anything wrong and that it is a simple mistake. Whether an article should be kept or note is generally based on certain longstanding policies and guidelines, and especially the notability guidelines. It does not really matter how much "clout" you have or how many people you can bring to a debate. It's the arguments that count. Editors can make multiple comments, but should only put forth one delete or keep. Also, if you have a conflict-of-interest in the subject matter (as you very definitely do here) it may annoy some editors if you are seen as actively campaigning for the article and cause them to view the article as vanispamicruftisement. (Now there's a neologism!) JChap2007 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You can create a userpage by clicking on your username, entering text in the box and hitting save. JChap2007 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked for references and everything I found was on the topic was tied directly to the author of the single book on the subject. Jeepday 05:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain I object to the deletion of the article on ‘PaGaian Cosmology’ because it meets Wiki’s three cardinal content policies. It has been written from a neutral point of view, representing its views fairly and without bias, it has been researched, reviewed and published by a substantial number of reliable secondary sources and does not contain any unpublished material. The word PaGaian is well defined within the article as a unique synthesis of two well known words ie ‘pagan’ and ‘Gaia’, which in my opinion rules out any need to define it as a ‘neologism’. The book is based on 30 years of research and development involving many participating groups and is an outcome of the author’s doctoral thesis. The book PaGaian Cosmology – Re-inventing Earth-based Goddess Religion published by iUniverse, Inc in 2005 'together with numerous independent reviews, is made freely available via a creative commons licence at [8] an open source website that is increasingly attracting notice with a total of 11404 hits and 4261visits within the past five months. Malpagaia 12:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD etiquette: Please vote only once. If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to vote more than once, those votes will not be counted. Special:Contributions/Malpagaia signed Jeepday 14:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original reasoning: no evidence of notability; lacks outside, verifiable sources. --User:Fang Aili 15:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the term is "defined in the article" as a "unique synthesis" then it definitely would be considered a neologism for present purposes. However, if the book has been reviewed in multiple, independent, reliable sources (and I would like to see those sources given the obvious WP:COI problem here), then the book is notable and should have an article, even if the term should not. I think I will contact Dr. Livingstone on her talk page. JChap2007 16:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Wikispam. N0n1in34r 21:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spamvertisement for an unimportant new age idea. --JWSchmidt 01:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Retain" A clear definition that gives voice to a growing spiritual practice that will be of increasing relevance and interest globally. ____Sandy kondos) Skondos (talk · contribs · logs) 04:07, January 29, 2007 (UTC)
- The above comment was moved here from the edit summary: [9]. ~ trialsanderrors 18:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No-notable nonsensical and un-referenced. NBeale 22:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain . I would like to comment that those who vote for or against really should pay attention to the previous conversation. Most notably the two prior voters who voted against keeping the term. Their comments are uninformed, emotionally charged and should not be officially counted unless they can come up with proof of their accusations. As for my experieces, I was concerned when I noticed that this term was up for deletion (It is a term that I use to describe my spirituality) and decided to do my own independent research on line to see if Glenys Livingstone was a notable personality and if her work has actually been peer reviewed and referenced by other authors. I found significant evidence that Glenys and her PaGaian work is widely recognized in Australia and that she is a notable personality in that country in the Neo-Pagan community. Her work has been reviewed by several peer journals (see comment above). I would like to be able to post specific areas that Glenys and/or her work on PaGaianism is noted on line. I'm not sure where to do this. Please advise. .rosewelsh January 30, 2007 UPDATED: I've just verified that Glenys has been quoted in Matthew Fox's book The Coming of the Cosmic Christ on page 12. The quote was from her Master's thesis. She was also invited by Starhawk a notable pagan author from the US, to help her organize an event in the Sydney area. Furthermore, most of the information about Glenys can be found by Googling her exact name and spending about an hour researching the links provided. User:rosewelsh|rosewelsh]] 2:20pm MST 1/30/07

Retain . First, about me. As you can see, I've been a member on wikipedia for a while (I don't remember how long - more than a few months, less than 2 years). I haven't posted much at all, but do read wikipedia and donate money to wikimedia. I check on the veracity of wiki articles partly because I'm a scientist myself. Pagaian Cosmology is a new, important, and notable term. It's not New Age - New Age relies heavily on pseudoscience and supernatural ideas like reincarnation, crystal power, astrology etc. Quite the opposite, Pagaian Cosmology explicity has a naturalistic worldview consistent with science. As a scientist myself, I've noticed a terrible dearth of spiritual approaches that are based on a verifiable, scientific worldview. I think approaches like this hold immense promise for the future, and as such are very notable. The New Age movements don't stay consistent with science, nor do the many rapidly growing Pagan movements. Calling Pagaian Cosmology "New Age" shows a lack of understanding of it's basic ideas. As far as my untrained eyes can tell, the article is neutral, well researched, traceable, and fits wiki criteria. Even if it didn't, it seems to me that the best response would be to fix any perceived problems instead of deleting it. While I don't use Pagaian Cosmology myself, it's clear to me that it is notable, important, timely, and enhances wikipedia as a resource on relevant terms in today's world. Equinox2 21:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've hit the nail on the head when you mention your "untrained eyes". You say you've "been a member on wikipedia for a while" but [edits] made on a single day over twenty-five months ago is really not much at all -- and the fact that you talk about how "approaches like [Pagaian Cosmology] hold immense promise for the future" when that has absolutely no relevance to an AfD doesn't give us a lot of reason to think that you've been accumulating an accurate idea of what "wiki criteria" are. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. To label Pagaian cosmology as unnotable new age is seriously to miss the point of this thoroughly well researched and documented approach to ecospirituality which is grounded in the ancient Earth based Pagan traditions and augmented with a thoughtful retelling of Goddess based metaphor and narrative. Does Wikipedia exist to promote knowledge and inquiry that complements and supplements that available in more orthodox reference works or is it intent on censoring, editing and deleting that which its editors and contributors do not immediately recognise or understand? The naturalistic, ecospirituality movement is a growing force in the world, an idea that has found its time, and, in my own personal view, is both noteworthy and notable for the way in which it has influenced culture, politics, business and society in the last twenty years or so and for the manner in which it continues to influence thinking people across the globe today.

212.139.227.74 22:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Blue Moon[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Skrilla[edit]

Nom - fails WP:MUSIC. Popular "Skrillionaticz" - returns zero g-hits. Lots of claims for notability, but all fail WP:V. This looks like a bit of creative vandalism, but notability claims means this goes to AfD. Rklawton 04:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not able to find any assertion of notability. links don't provide much in that way either. unless some newsowrthy articles on the arrest can be found then delete.--Tainter 04:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- notability issue 4.18GB 08:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 12:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC and Wikipedia is not a police blotter.-- danntm ^T _C 23:48, 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 Merged, moved, redirected, and speedy kept. There were actually two articles on this topic, neither at the correct name. This one (possessive, plural) was a one-line substub. The other, at Curling ulcer (non-possessive, singular), was a better stub that still needed referencing. I rewrote and cited the longer article, moved it to the correct name for the condition -- Curling's ulcer (possessive, singular) -- and reduced this article to a redirect. Non-admin closure, but there were no dissenting votes, the nomination requested improvement (AFD is not cleanup), and all of this was just general-user maintanence activity anyway. Serpent's Choice 12:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curling's ulcers[edit]

Nothing links here, no information here. Mdwyer 04:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubify. It's been here for a month, but maybe somebody can improve it? --Dennisthe2 05:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep genuine condition but really needs someone who knows the subject to expand beyond what is little more than a dic def at the moment. Nuttah68 09:05, 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. ChrisO (talk · contribs) deleted with deletion summary: "Speedy deletion - non-notable". James086 ^Talk 13:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystics, Shattered Galaxy Gaming Regiment[edit]

Non-notable. This is a group of players in an online game. No non-blog google hits (Unsourceable). Freekee 04:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another non-notable gaming clan. <yawn> JChap2007 05:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - unremarkable. So tagged. MER-C 11:51, 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. --Core desat 03:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woad Warrior[edit]

Confusing hybrid of fantasy/fiction and bits of military history from a variety of cultures. Name inappropriate for historical content, historical content would be better merged into various articles about warfare in those cultures. Also, a google search doesn't turn up usages of the sort indicated in article. While article has some actual material on warriors in European cultures, I think it's Original Research to lump these together under this "woad warrior" neologism. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From the article, 'What is certain is that none of the historical warriors were called "Woads" or "Woad Warriors."' So it's not even a neologism. Apparently an attempt to provide some context for various video game characters. JChap2007 05:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - You know, I'm not sure the name has even been used in gaming or fantasy fiction... I think it may be limited to that King Arthur movie, a bumper sticker, and a comment or two in reviews of Braveheart (more on this on the talk page of article). ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it might be the Ages of Empire series or some other similar RTS game that it comes from. MLA 12:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gives historical evidence but needs a clean up and clarifaction. Kyriakos 06:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article that seems to have no real subject, jumps about all over the place and the informative sections are already covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. Nuttah68 09:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, Woad Warrior's are mentioned in the movie King Arthur. In the movie, the Woads are the native people living north fo Hadrian's Wall that paint themselves blue before they go to battle. I think that in the movie the Woads represent the Picts who were the native people north of Hadrian's wall. Kyriakos 09:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this article is about the role-playing/video game characters, it lacks any content or sources related to that context. If it's about tribal warriors, it uses a name that isn't accurate for its content and content that ought to be at Celt or one of its related pages. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is uninformative, the title is misleading, and all of the other reasons given here. If the article is intended to discuss the video game characters (mentioned above), then it needs to clearly do so and not imply any sort of historicity. If it is intended to discuss historical (or even mythological) figures, it needs to supply better sources (sources which i suspect do not exist). Whateley23 00:42, 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 Speedy Delete. ChrisO (talk · contribs) deleted with deletion summary: "Speedy deletion - non-notable, topic dealt with in Karl Rove". James086 ^Talk 13:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Rove[edit]

Karl Rove's father was gay. However, he hasn't been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources, so all we can say about him is (i) he was Karl Rove's father and (ii) he was gay. Relationship to a notable person does not confer notability per WP:BIO. With respect to adoptive relationships, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahara Jolie-Pitt. JChap2007 05:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7. So tagged. --Sable232 05:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge being the father of someone notable does not establish notability. Any relevant info should be merged to Karl Rove article.--Jersey Devil 07:13, 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 and/or merge. Bucketsofg 21:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyenzhangling Monastery[edit]

I found this on PROD. There is a distinct lack of verifiable information about this monastery online, but I'm not a subject matter expert here and there certainly is a chance this is a notable place in the context of Tibetan Buddhist. I'm bringing this to AfD to garner a consensus.--Isotope23 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the one that put it on PROD. This was my explanation: "No sources. Searching google reveals that almost all hits are either Wikipedia mirrors or sites selling a poster. Unclear whether the subject is the same thing as Pelgye Ling; possible misspelling." I should point out that that the sequence "py" rarely occurs in Tibetan phonetic spelling (and never in Chinese).—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 19:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Nat. Could be a misspelling, but how do we know what was intended? Also, there are no links to this article that might provide a context for determining what it might hava been meant to refer to... A Ramachandran 02:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm trying to hunt it down based on the fact that it's in a place called "Zhonggang". May end up being a wild goose-chase, but here's what I have so far: Zhonggang is on the Friendship Highway about 45 km from the Sino-Nepal border [10]. The route of the Sino-Nepal Friendship Highway [11] means that it must be somewhere in Xigazê Prefecture, probably in Tingri County (zh:定日縣) or maybe Nyalam County (zh:聶拉木縣; where Milarepa's cave is located, I think, and also the location of Pelgye Ling). The article on Milarepa himself is decently well-sourced, I'll try looking through books on him. cab 05:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, that was what I was hoping for... I didn't see any real online sources in English but the fact that several sites sell pictures of it suggest it may be notable to someone. Maybe it's just a Tibetan tourist trap... but like I said, I'm not knowledgable enough about this that I was comfortable deleting it unilaterally.--Isotope23 13:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand Lack of online English sources is most definitely not proof of irrelevance for a location in a non-English speaking location. Someone needs to hunt for print sources. -- Strangelv 15:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC) ...or Merge if someone can successfully work out what to merge it with. -- Strangelv 18:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than proof of irrelevance, what I'm looking for here is proof of existence.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there's not as much of a lack as I'd assumed from reading this discussion.

Zhonggang tibet -wikipedia:	431
Zhonggang tibet -wikipedia monastery:	108
Zhonggang tibet -wikipedia Pyenzhangling:	108

Not too shabby for a topic this disconnected from the English-speaking world.

-- Strangelv 17:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, "Searching google reveals that almost all hits are either Wikipedia mirrors or sites selling a poster". Looking at the first page of results for your third search there, the hits are all the latter.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one offering it as a tourist destination? http://studienreisen.de/studienreise_1852.html I'm also unsure about the presumption that a subject of photographic posters for sale from multiple vendors would entail a fictitious location. -- Strangelv 18:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that there more than zero sites other than Wikipedia mirrors and postermongers that mention this name. There are simply very, very few, and they are not particularly reliable sources. As for multiple vendors selling the poster, it is simply the name of the poster. Evidently, the photographer thought that was the name of the thing he was photographing.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:29, 26 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, trialsanderrors 05:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Milarepa until something more authorative can be said. Looks like the place exists: "Drive to Zhangmu: (...) We will visit a nearby monastery, Pyenzhangling, where Milarepa, a famous Tibetan mystic and poet, spent many years as a hermit in the cave", but we're really discussing a one-liner here. ~ trialsanderrors 06:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It does seem to be the case that there is a thing near "Zhonggang" (itself a quite obscure location at best) which one postermaker, several travel agents, and one Wikipedia editor believe is named "Pyenzhangling". Personally, my guess is that this thing is actually Pelgye Ling; it might be interesting to speculate on where the misspelling first arose. However, the situation remains that, of the sources we have found which verify its existence none qualifies as a reliable source. What are we going to merge? There is certainly not a single piece of information in this article which should appear in Milarepa.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 17:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If we have a case of ambiguous transliteration it would help to have a clear idea of what it is also transliterated as. As for Pelgye Ling, I can't find a link with both it and Zhonggang outside of this discussion. Does anyone have an alternate transliteration for Zhonggang? -- Strangelv 18:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the existence of the monastery is not in doubt, and I get a bunch of good links both to (Nyalam) Pelgye Ling and Pelgyeling, then it's acceptable to include it and keep the redirect in place as a feasible misspelling. The questions here are really: 1. Is Pyengzhangling a different monastery from Pelgye Ling? So far we found no evidence for it. 2. Is the monastery, under whichever name, notable enough for a standalone article? My hunch right now is no, since the only notability is has is derived from the proximity to Milarepa's Cave. And 3. What's the most common name we should use in the article? Evidence points towards Pelgye Ling. ~ trialsanderrors 19:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's sort of an interesting philosophical question: if there is a monastery that a few people think is called Pyenzhangling, but it is not actually called that, does "Pyenzhangling" exist? In this instance, whether it does exist or not, we have no reliable source of information about it. The reason I would hesitate to describe this situation simply as ambiguous transliteration is that "Pyenzhangling" is not a very plausible Tibetan or Chinese word, since nothing resembling the sequence "py" occurs in the modern standard forms of either. It could be some kind of regional variant Tibetan, but that's purely speculative. As for Zhonggang, it appears to be a Chinese word, so there wouldn't be another spelling of the Chinese name, but it might also be known under a similar or completely different Tibetan name.
    - Everything we've seen about this Pyenzhangling so far links it to Milarepa's Cave, so let's just make it a redirect to Milarepa's Cave and be done with it.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per User:Trialsanderrors Looks like a language barrier to reference. The conversation above shows interest in the topic. Jeepday 14:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're referring to. What makes it look like a language barrier? Where is there a hint that some other sources are available in other languages? And how does this conversation "show interest in the topic"? It seems like an unnecessary and frustrating waste of time to me. I'm sorry to be brusque, but I haven't gotten the impression that any of the participants knows anything about the subject so far.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep yes, a language barrier --should never have been listed in the first place. DGG 04:29, 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 categorize, everything seems to have been added to Category:Criticisms already, a particularly dedicated editor might do a prefix search for every article starting with "Criticism" to make sure the category is complete. W.marsh 20:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles on criticism in Wikipedia[edit]

I just discovered an entry in the article namespace named "List of criticisms articles." Every entry in the article namespace must qualify as a self-standing encyclopedic entry, and thus satisfy article naming conventions. So I moved "List of criticisms articles" to "List of articles on criticism in Wikipedia" a few minutes ago.

Note in the Wikipedia namespace there is a section entitled Wikipedia:Criticism.

Was I correct in moving the entry, or should I have followed the procedure for speedy deletion? In my years of making editorial and administrative decisions on Wikipedia, I'm not usually so stumped. So I'm going here for feedback, even though my position so far is neutral. 172 | Talk 05:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The moved name makes the article a self reference. This list is missing a number of WP articles, such as Criticism of the BBC, but if the AfD is merely to determine a better name for the article, wouldn't the article talk page be a more appropriate place? Gimmetrow 06:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not listing it here to get suggestions on a new title, but to find out whether or not the article should be deleted. 172 | Talk 09:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What, then, is your argument for deletion? Gimmetrow 13:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why do I have to have a position? On one hand, the content is currently more relevant to the project namespace than the main namespace. On the other hand, there are many articles related to Wikipedia. [12] Maybe the original author (User:J.J.) intended to start an article complimenting coverage in the Wikipedia entry on organization of the encyclopedia? I don't know. I lean delete/merge; but I won't lose sleep if other users here want to act differently. 172 | Talk 07:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/move to project space, where it should find a good home. Too self-referential. MER-C 06:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorify with Category:Criticisms. I don't see what purpose this list serves that categories cannot. Pomte 07:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (but would not oppose Categorize) The article does not define its boundaries so it becomes meaningless. Jeepday 14:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorise article under criticism category. That will solve everything. Terence Ong 18:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if its good enough for a category.....Jcuk 23:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the project space. It is too self-referential for the mainspace, but the sections in the page provide an added valid that will be lost if it is categorized.-- danntm ^T _C 00:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This list essentially already exists in project space as Wikipedia:List of POV forks. I wouldn't be opposed to merging the content there. Gimmetrow 00:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was listed in the "places and transportation" AfD category. Changing to "indiscernable and unclassifiable". Also listing on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists. Gimmetrow 00:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete categorify, no need for a list as we don't need to encourage these articles with redlinks. (this is usual purpose of list duplicating a cat, it has the as yet unwritten articles) note also, 1) Wikipedia:List of POV forks is a project namespace list of allegations of pov forking 2) difference between Category:Criticism & Category:Criticisms 3) AFD not for naming discussions, move can be discussed made after afd completed if it survives (please don't do it now, will be confusing) ⇒ bsnowball 08:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge but do NOT delete please, this overview is interesting enough LHOON 11:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Move to project space. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny lasalandra[edit]

In the process of nominating this for AfD, I learned something special - NPWatcher does not nominate pages you browse to, only ones selected in the new pages window. Laziness never triumphs, I suppose. Anyway - to the point. Removed PROD. "Combat Rock Promotion" results in a number of geocities sites, a few bios on nn websites, an official website which is, despite the redirect, actually hosted on an Earthlink site, and so forth. No RS, no claim to notability for the person or company. --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 05:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless properly sourced and cited by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doest not meet WP:BIO Madmedea 22:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quite apparent WP:COI nothing from BIO nor "alternative tests", gets half as many google hits as me! —MURGH ^disc. 03:27, 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 Userfied. NawlinWiki 13:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William pomfret[edit]

This one's actually speediable for its lack of context, but I'm bringing it here in the hope that someone might be able to do something with it. someone's obviously put a fair bit of work into this, so perghaps it means something to someone. If so, say so - or it goes. Grutness...wha? 06:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the username of the article's creator is User:Willyp2008 (talk·contribs), there may be a WP:COI issue or the accidental creation of a userpage in the main namespace. Perhaps userfying is the appropriate course of action for now? --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 09:15, 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. --Core desat 03:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hojamal Ho[edit]

Strong Delete. To me it seems like a non-sence article. Google search does generate a few example of this term being used in very selected forums as a part of casual vocabulary - but it does not appear to be anything more than a swear-word introduce by a group of school friends. Further more the context may be offensive for some people. The terms - "ponda", "ganda", "ponge" and "ponga" are all taboo Bengali slangs for buttock. - Arman Aziz 06:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainloy interesting but non notable --⁪froth^T 07:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability, no verifiable sources listed, and, literally, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 09:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per reasons stated already Devious Viper 10:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFT, nonsense. Terence Ong 17:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. However the nominator should also be reminded that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored, so offensiveness is not a valid point to bring up in AfD. cab 23:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks cab. Please note - use of taboo words was not "the reason" for proposing to delete the article, I just tried to point out that in addition to being non-sense the article also possibly violates Wikipedia:Profanity. -Arman Aziz 03:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate references. WMMartin 14:02, 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. --Core desat 03:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amped (website)[edit]

Bumped from the COI noticeboard. Creator is "apparently the current Content Director of the website." Questionable encyclopedic notability. MER-C 06:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN, plus violates WP:SPAM --Mhking 06:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C. Montco 06:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poor Alexa numbers and I couldn't find any non-trivial works about it, if someone does find some just notify me and I'll change my vote. Quadzilla99 07:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM, WP:COI, and general non-notability. SkierRMH, 01:41, 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. --Core desat 03:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda Saint James[edit]

This nomination was incomplete. This is a procedural listing, I have no opinion. Sable232 07:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, even the imdb listing is pretty unimpressive. janejellyroll 08:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails to argue in form that subject is notable under WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil 16:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). Ronbo76 21:28, 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. ChrisO (talk · contribs) deleted with deletion summary: "Speedy deletion - non-notable". James086 ^Talk 13:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On-Site Technology[edit]

Advert. -- RHaworth 07:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unremarkable corporation. So tagged. MER-C 08:48, 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, therefore keep. Bucketsofg 21:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.800.Vending[edit]

This article is of a corporation that is not notable. Only primary sources (FTC pages, Better Business Bureau, and the company's website itself) have been used as sources to construct this article. Nothing of consequence ever seems to have been written about this company by third parties. This constitutes original research. Further, the primary editors of this article seem to be the principals, and various people upset at the fact that the principals have edited the article. This article was put up for deletion in 2005, with no consensus here. Disclaimer: I have no personal stake in this matter. Quatloo 07:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I were one of the owners, I wouldn't want this article on Wikipedia, so I don't see a WP:COI or WP:SPAM problem right now. That being said, I think the company makes a product notable within its industry, but that's not what the article is really about right now, and the company does not seem to meet WP:CORP. I also agree that it seems like there is WP:OR going on in the article. Given all these problems, and the relative stagnation of the article since the last AfD, I say delete. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 09:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There has been considerable press about this company and the surrounding litigation. This reason alone is sufficient to make the company notable under WP:CORP. The article itself should be rewritten to be more encyclopedic, but I doubt that'll happen seeing as it has become a battlefield for interested parties. Owen× ☎ 15:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not all fraud is notable. All results on Google News Archive are ads. Fails WP:CORP, and WP:COI seals the deal here. Seems like a way to present their side of the story when hardly anybody even cares.--Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep fraud with a substantial press is notable. If npov is needed, supply it.DGG 04:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there is no "press" for it, much less "substantial press." Quatloo 10:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep This article is both of interest to the public and in the public interest. To delete it would smake of corporate censorship. Zomghax 15:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin's remark: this was the fourth edit of this editor and was discounted.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddiebi[edit]

Stumbled upon this page when doing new page patrol. It's completely in Spanish and I've tagged it for translation, but from my (admittedly poor) grasp of Spanish it appears to be talking about a Spanish hip-hop musician who allegedly sold 100,000 copies of one of his records in Mexico. Google search finds nothing from reliable sources to verify the claims or that there is a Spanish hip hop artist named "Eddie Bi" or "Eduardo Castillo". NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now also nominating Eddiebi (Eduardo Castillo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a carbon copy of the contents of the Eddiebi article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Armed with Google and my high-school Spanish, I went search for confirmation of notability for this artist, and found nothing that even confirmed this artist's existence. Someone with better Spanish might have better luck... or maybe not. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under db-notenglish. My reasoning is very simple: if this fellow were notable, he would probably have an article in the Spanish version of Wikipedia. Of course, that's not so much a reason as a supporting argument. We don't have to translate everything that comes to us in "notenglish". YechielMan 05:37, 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 and redirect to speedo. --Core desat 03:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banana hammock[edit]

Trivial junk should just be redirected to Speedo. Nothing that can't be explained in one sentence on the Speedo article (it already is mentioned there briefly and explained fine anyways).

To Wiktionary with it . . . -- Butseriouslyfolks 08:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect it already is explained in 1 sentence in the Speedo article. James086Talk 08:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per User:James086 I concur the topic is covered in the speedo article. Jeepday 14:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as per nom Madmedea 22:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect per nom... knew what it was before clickin' the link and expected that article! SkierRMH, 01:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as trivia sufficiently well explained at Speedo. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was a longstanding proposal (be me) to merge this with Speedo (suit style). After a full discussion on talk:Speedo (suit style)#Merge "banana hammock" into Speedo? the weak consensus was to retain it under the current name. -Will Beback · † · 03:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect it is explained in the Speedo article. This specific article is unencyclopedic. Chupper 02:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another male genitals article. Hank Ramsey 02:58, 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. Sandstein 19:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Teachers of Persian[edit]

Fails WP:ORG. No evidence of notability in the 85 non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 08:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looking over the ghits (and references), I can't find anything on the significance of the organization. Multiple academic websites have it listed in various types of indexes(foreign culture studies, Persian language learning, etc.) but none of them make note of important achievements it has made[13]. Even the organization's website doesn't note what achievements it has accomplished. It might be notable someday, but today it isn't. —Mitaphane _?|! 00:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep We should be very careful in deleting articles about non-English language subjects on the basis of ghits, and careful of deleting academic subjects on the basis of ghits, and all the more so here. The members of this group are not all that likely to get involved in discussions on the internet. In a small niche, we expect small organizations, but each language is notable none the less. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 04:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I agree, that's why I throughly looked through the ghits to find some information about the group that makes note of its significance. I could not one piece of information that asserts any significance of the organization. Even the organization's website doesn't really state any sort of accomplishments it has achieved. Just because an organization exists at NYU doesn't mean it gets its own wikipedia article. —Mitaphane _?|! 22:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this really is a notable organization based at New York University, shouldn't a search of that university's main webspace produce some mention of it? In the absence of better sources, notability doesn't seem to be established. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:32, 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. Bucketsofg 00:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arson Anthem[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. MER-C 08:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, this band is just notable. First of all, they are linked with RoadRunner Records, as shown here. It contains ex-members of Down, Pantera, Superjoint Ritual and Eyehategod, all of whom are notable. Pantera is VERY notable. We have a nice published, third party, reliable, non trivial source here, and so I think it should be kept, just. J Milburn 13:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep under WP:MUSIC, criteria 6, for including Phil Anselmo and Hank Williams III. Surprised there's not more media refs for a band involving those two, though; I'm fairly sure it'll come along soon. (What's out there right now, on forums and blogs, does indicate it exists, however.) Tony Fox (arf!) 22:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:48, 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. Bucketsofg 00:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FreeMediaOnline.org[edit]

Website with no assertion of notability. Found some news articles that refer to FreeMediaOnline.org [14], but nothing specifically about it. Deleted under prod and then recreated. I'm on the fence about this one; if somebody can come up with better notability I'll withdraw the nom. RedRollerskate 16:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Half a drop of Delete in three oceans' worth of merges keeps~~ Keep The article reads like a brochure and it's its author's only contribution but it appears to be a legitimate, benevolent organisation. ~~Perhaps merging it with Newsweek would be a viable alternative?~~ Flakeloaf 16:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment relisted 1/21/07 to get more votes. RedRollerskate 18:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I notice they are no longer active, having been bought out by Newsweek. (Unless there's something controversial I dont see) If they were active I'd have said otherwise.DGG 04:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-write If anything, defunctness substantially increases the importance of a site or subject being listed here. -- Strangelv 16:13, 26 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, trialsanderrors 08:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can not see what Strangelv means, at all. Something no longer exists, and so is notable? As no reliable, third party, published, non-trivial sources are provided or can be found, deleting this as non-notable is the best thing to do. J Milburn 12:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was mainly addressing DDG's statement that its now purely historical status was a reason for deletion. As for notability, a quick Google search for '"freemediaonline.org" -wikipedia' finds that this site is frequently cited in the 1,110 hits I see. -- Strangelv 16:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The organization is very much alive and has an active web site. References to it have recently appeared in BBC, International Herald Tribune, and New York Times articles. FreeMediaOnline.org articles are widely republished on the web. Analysis: Kremlin seen cracking down on US-funded radio stations in Russia BBC Monitoring Media, July 12, 2006; FreeMediaOnline.org founder Ted Lipien: "The soft power of information and news is grossly under-appreciated." International Herald Tribune: Voice of America's new leader faces changing times, November 26, 2006; Ted Lipien, who retired in April as a marketing director for Europe and Asia, created FreeMediaOnline.org, a Web site and foundation to support independent journalism. He is lobbying to maintain Voice of America programs in Russia, which are scheduled for elimination under the budget cut plans. “They have focused on the Middle East and taken money away from programming for other regions,” he said. “Once your audience goes down, it creates a vicious circle.” A New Leader at a Voice Long Familiar to Listeners, The New York Times, November 27, 2006. 76.21.127.25 21:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to FreeMediaOnline.org being bought out by Newsweek was totally false and probably designed to cause confusion. This is a nonprofit, public benefit organization designed to promote media freedom. It is totally independent, not for sale and cannot be bought. Its news web site is active and updated daily. Its reports are picked up by independent media organizations and bloggers around the world. See IHT for information about FreeMediaOnline.org activities[15]; also examples of republishing of its articles: [16]; [17]; [18] Ted22 18:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The bases for considering the deletion of this very notable organization have been disproven in this discussion. -- Strangelv 18:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is strongly POV, but founder Lipien's (VOA) history and "free speech elsewhere/or propaganda" nature of the groups activities makes this organization notable. Article needs criticism section and wikify. I added a link to FreePress.net as a source that documents at some length Lipien's history and the founding of this site. Site is clearly up and running as all other current references point to the cite. This can doubtlessly be cured. Edivorce 20:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
addendum: I just noticed that article from FreePress.net is actually reprinted from New York Times (November 24, 2006 by Doreen Carvajal.) That should help. Edivorce 20:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
further addendum: The article in the NYT immediately above, the article Strangelv cites above with a slightly different date, and the note (5) cite in the article from the International Herald Tribune all seem to be the same article. I don't want to seem to appear to be over representing sources.Edivorce 22:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry March Band[edit]

A street marching band that doesn't really meet WP:BAND. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have found some third party sources- here, a good one here, a review, here, here, here, here and there will be more. There were millions of Google hits, obviously, not all are reliable, third party, published, non-trivial sources. If you can't find two good mentions in the links I have provided, then I will have to go and find more sources. Addmittedly, some of the sites were a little odd, and may not count as reliable. J Milburn 12:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. it's the band in the final scene of the movie Shortbus, AND it is renown internationally (it's been here in Italy last summer). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilbaldons (talk • contribs) 00:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:56, 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 Hastings, delete others. Bucketsofg 17:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kensington Avenue[edit]

Also including:

Cariboo Road (Burnaby)‎
Willingdon Avenue
Sperling Avenue
Hastings Street (Vancouver)

A series of roads in Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. None offer any notability or reason for inclusion beyond they exist and get busy Nuttah68 08:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not too sure about some of these roads but Hastings Street (Vancouver) and Willingdon Avenue are two notable city streets to the Greater Vancouver region. I believe Hastings Street was one of Vancouver's first major roads and is the identifying street to Skid Row, the first Skid Row ever. Hard to say the street that founded the name is not notable. Mkdw ^talk 10:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Hastings Street If some of the other articles show signs of actual notability, I might change my mind, but I agree that simply being a busy road is not good enough. --Brianyoumans 14:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm gonna have to think about this, but my immediate reaction as with Brianyoumans, is that Hastings Street is a big keep. Sperling I can see, and although Willingdon's a much more major street there's not much to report; Kensington also, other than the Burnaby Lake Rec Complex and its freeway exit (as with Willingdon). The tricky one is Cariboo Road (Burnaby) - it has a history behind it, and like Douglas Road was one of the original after the area's survey was carried out; both are obscure now, but at one time were all there was. Hastings, though, has to stay for all kinds of reasons, whether it's the DTES or the West Hastings banking district, and everything that lies between; as well as what lies along it as it runs out to end in Burnaby (just past Sperling, and nearly right in front of my porch, as a matter of fact...).Skookum1 18:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all If they are all that important, they would have been the primary subject of nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. I do not agree that all streets are inherently notable, or that things people like do not need multiple articles about them to prove notability. If several good references are added where the subject if the street per se, and not just a mention of a store on the street or a car accident on the street, I might change my mind. Edison 19:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentWell, with Hastings Street the problem is that the article is still just a stub. It's one of the main axes of the metropolis and will have all kinds of non-trivial coverage once someone can spend time on the article and "flesh it out". The others are much more marginal, although as noted there's history behind Cariboo Road (which needs to be added/written, granted, but it's not a simple arterial like Willingdon or Kensington/Sperling; that Hastings also happens to Hwy 7A, in the same way that Kingsway is 99A, is a further factor.Skookum1 19:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hastings is certainly expandable and encyclopedic; along with Granville and Robson, it's one of the relatively few streets in Vancouver that a person who lives at the other end of the country and has never even visited Vancouver can be reasonably expected to have heard of. The others are marginal at best. My own instinct would be to keep Hastings and allow people to work on it, but delete the others. Bearcat 20:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, keep Hastings per Bearcat. GreenJoe 20:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Hastings (recognizing that it needs a good deal of expansion). Victoriagirl 21:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hastings as being encyclopedic and expandable, delete all others. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. These roads are all major roads, each with plenty of history. --Eastmain 22:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hastings, Delete the rest. Bobanny 02:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all These aren't just side-streets but all major greater Vancouver roads. --Oakshade 03:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Aren't streets notable per se? See also Category:Roads by country. Westenra 03:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that these are grouped together, as I don't think they all share the same set of circumstances. My opinion is:
- Keep Hastings Street as core of Vancouver's downtown eastside and synonymous with it and its well-known social problems;
- Weak Keep Cariboo Road (Burnaby)‎ per Skookum1;
- Delete Kensington Avenue, Willingdon Avenue and Sperling Avenue as they are simply main roads and nothing more (and streets are not notable per se - just because there's a category doesn't mean all streets are so). Agent 86 04:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Hastings, per Bearcat and others. If there's a notable story behind Cariboo Road it can be easily recreated with the story. I'd love to hear it ;) Kla'quot 05:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Eastmain 22:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with a possible exception for Hastings. An influx of quasi notable streets are sure to follow. --Stormbay 22:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hastings is possibly the most important street in Vancouver's history. By building a road to Hastings township, the CPR's Gastown/Granville/False Creek (modern "downtown") Vancouver severed the area, essentially modern East Vancouver, from the older New Westminster, from which it was built as an extension where the New West coach met the Burrard Inlet ferry. I would definitely keep the Hastings article. I'd probably delete the rest. --JGGardiner 00:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- quibbles on historical geography of Hastings Street I'll save for outside this discussions, but Hastings does have to be a "keep"; it would be like deleting Yonge Street from Toronto, or Ste. Catherine's from Montreal....I still have strong reservations about deleting Cariboo Road (Burnaby), because of existence of Cariboo Road, about-to-be Old Cariboo Road, Cariboo Highway, and Old Cariboo Highway. Ppl might look up Cariboo Road, meaning the Burnaby one, and not find anything; could just be a subparag on the others, though; not as major an early road as Douglas Road or Westminster Road or North Road - or Hastings Road, for that matter - but from the same era (though Hastings Rd was more like Powell-McGill than modern Hastings Street).Skookum1 18:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC) PS the difference with Lillooet Road (North Vancouver), in case anyone brings it up, is that it's actually built on the road bed of the Lillooet Cattle Trail; the Cariboo Road in Bby didn't connect with the actual Cariboo Roads, either the one from Yale or the one from Lillooet.Skookum1 18:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I agree with Brianyoumans that simply being a busy road is not good enough criteria. Donteatyellowsnow
- Comment Donteatyellowsnow (who didn't date his sig, also) is an SPA who's been involved in a hostile/bad faith edit at Hollywood North, which he just "lost" so has been attacking various unrelated articles edited by others in the AFD discussion; during the course of which he apparently also attempted to "vote" using an IP address SPA. Donteatyellowsnow's "contribution" to the AFD discussion here is IMO largely petulant and destructive; from railing against Vancouver's and BC's mere existence in the Hollywood North AFD, he's now presuming to pontificate on street articles here, and even on a BC mention in Ghost towns, which was my addition and apparently found by "stalking" me through my Edit Contributions. Of such people the world is made...more's the pity.Skookum1 20:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Whatever behaviour (or misbehaviour) is being undertaken by Donteatyellowsnow elsewhere, those circumstances aren't enough to discount his comment here. I say this not because I agree or disagree with his comment here, it's just that it should be taken at face value only because the comment does at least offer a reason for his !vote. If there is an issue about his behaviour, a Request for Comment may be appropriate, but until then, and without stronger or more clear evidence (and I have looked at his contributions), we'll have to err on the side of WP:AGF in this discussion. Agent 86 21:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hastings, for all reasons above. I'm indifferent about the rest at present.--Keefer4 04:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For the streets on this list that are also provincial highways, could the articles be moved to (or linked to) the appropriate provincial highway article, such as British Columbia provincial highway 7? See Category:British Columbia provincial highways and List of British Columbia provincial highways. --Eastmain 05:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Hastings now linked by category. Still advocating Keep for the street article.--Keefer4 07:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Not notable -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and repeat, no non-trivial secondary sources cited, therefore all fail WP:N. Seraphimblade 15:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwenyth Hood[edit]

I tried to find sources to improve this article, but all Google revealed was a few sites that sold her books and a handful of festival appearances. Subject isn't notable for her academic work, as far as I can tell (her school homepage reveals that the bulk of her classes are Composition 101-type things) and her books don't appear to have made much of an impression either. Fails WP:N. janejellyroll 08:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. It looks to me like there may be sources out there, so I am open to changing my opinion should they be provided. J Milburn 12:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google = Results 21 - 24 of about 31 for "Gwenyth E. Hood". The search results support the two short sentences about the author. The rest of the article is about one of the books. I believe it fails WP:BIO Signed Jeepday 15:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move Move the info into a page about her main book, "The Coming of the Demons". Guthrie 18:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, therefore keep. Bucketsofg 17:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Decision[edit]

No evidence from reliable sources that the subject meets WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. MER-C 08:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Vote, Just a Question Mer-C, have you googled this band at this point? I see some information there, they are described on Answers.com and a few websites mention at least two full-length releases. I'm wondering if you consider these reliable sources, as you are more experienced in this matter. I'll read your reliable sources link in the meantime. Thanks, --Tractorkingsfan 09:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answers.com is merely a Wikipedia mirror. And yes, I did Google them and didn't find any evidence of the band meeting WP:MUSIC. MER-C 09:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know why it was put up for deletion, the fact that they have 3 full releases can be seen simply by clicking on their official site link from the article, I sourced the fact that ther song "hunger" has been mistaken for metallica, see the talk page for the article Saint Anger where will you see one user has commented questiong where the song is from, or look on here where it appears people think its a secret metallica/megadeth collaberation. The fact that the band is a Christian metal band only increases their notability as there are not a whole lot of them. The are also on Metal Archives and all the sites like that. --E tac 09:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the information about their releases on the band's own website, while probably true, does not in itself satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for verifiable information from reliable sources. The source cited must be independent; anyone can conceivably publish any information about themselves. As for Metal Archives, I believe I agree with you, but I'm holding for Mer-C's response to my initial question. --Tractorkingsfan 09:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self published sources and directory entries aren't reliable. You still have yet to provide evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. MER-C 09:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um well what else is their on the internet? How the hell can something be on the internet and not considered a directory since everything on the internet is added by people???? --E tac 09:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that good enough? all 3 albums for sale, this is ridiculous that i have to prove to you that they actually exist

Comment Nobody is claiming that that the band or albums don't exist. What is at question is whether or not the guidelines at WP:MUSIC are being met. Just because something is real doesn't mean it gets an article. janejellyroll 09:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources indicating that WP:MUSIC has been met. We can argue around in circles about "what else is their on the internet," but Wikipedia has clear guidelines about what constitutes notability. janejellyroll 09:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After careful consideration, I must agree with the nominator. They exist, sure, but the issue is the notability criteria listed in WP:Music. They have released three albums, but none of those on a major label or recognized large indie label; Godfather records is described as a label they founded themselves. As far as directories, these are considered to be works that provide only trivial coverage: release dates, titles, and so forth. If the albums were released on a major label, or they had won a major award, or really any of the other criteria, that would be one thing, but the absence of any major coverage by a non-trivial published work trumps all other concerns in the meantime. --Tractorkingsfan 09:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought wikipedia is NOT A DEMOCRACY WP:NOT.....

What do you mean?--Tractorkingsfan 10:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why is this being settled by a vote??? I honestly don't see how a bands whos songs have been mistaken for the biggest most succsesful heavy metal band in the word fails to meet notability... --E tac 10:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, now you're arguing they deserve an encyclopedia article based on a resemblance to somebody who deserves one? And while we are voting in a sense, we really aren't; we're trying to establish consensus based on the most compelling argument, which at this point seems to be "delete" on the grounds that there are no reliable sources indicating this band meets our notability criteria. See WP:DDV--Tractorkingsfan 10:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh I didnt say keep them just because they sound like them, but the fact there mp3s were being disguised on filesharing programs as their songs and people were believing it, just like james labries solo album was mistaken for the new dream theater and that ayreon song with bruce dickinson was labled as new iron maiden. I am sure both those instances are probably mentioned somewhere on wikipedia. I didn't even say that was the only reason. They have 3 albums, also when adding bands to a list, most lists require the band to have a page, so for example the list of christian metal bands page would not be allowed to have eternal decision on it since they do not have a page, even though they are a very notable band for that genre. --E tac 10:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think it is pathetic how notabilty is just a fancy way to say popularity, where can i argue against this policy? --E tac 10:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think a policy should be changed you can discuss it on the talk page of that policy. In this case Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). James086Talk 10:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The policy is not a fancy way of saying 'popularity', at all. This band does not have multiple, verifiable sources. If they are notable within the Christian Metal genre, then why has nobody ever written about them? This isn't a vote, if thirty people suddenly said 'keep', then the article would not be kept. This is a discussion. We discuss the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and try to come to a conclusion as to whether the article deserves to be kept. No decent reason has been given as to why this should be kept. J Milburn 12:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain: I am now going to abstain, for I feel I cannot make an objective descision on what is now a borderline case with E tac being so abusive. J Milburn 12:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per J Milburn, there aren't sources or proof of notability. James086 ^Talk 12:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Changed to Keep with references the article asserts (and proves) notability. James086 ^Talk 07:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND, arguably speediable but probably better to settle it here. NawlinWiki 13:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple verifiable sources? they are all over the internet at sites that they do not run....I am confused as to what they need to have written about them. Here is an articlewritten about them on yahoo music, is that not verifiable? It says their first record saw release in 16 countries and achieved considerable acclaim. There are plenty band articles in the black metal genre that have no more or even less verifiability than this simply because like christian metal it is a more underground scene and yet noone contests those, this is why wikipedias policy is a joke. If a band isn't on MTV selling millions of records it is not notable...give me a break.--E tac 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: E tac, what you are saying is a joke. The music I like isn't exactly commercial- check out Voltaire for instance. He is my favourite artist, and no, he is certainly not on MTV and selling millions of records, but look, he is very much notable, and I am able to write a well sourced article on him. There is a difference between obscure and unusual, and non notable. Voltaire is obscure and unusual, my friends' band (which performs in the village hall, our school hall and the local clubs) is non-notable. J Milburn 22:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sourced it from his official site, the record labels official site, and the bands official myspace...hardly reputable sources from what I have learned from the discussion going on here. And seriusly comparing them to a bunch of high schoolers in a garage band...they have 3 full length releases that have seen release in 16 different countries. --E tac 09:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well as three independent interviews and an independent biography. Anyways, if you had actually checked the links, you would see that, despite the fact that they were hosted on the Projekt Records website, a lot of the time I was referencing the comments in the reviews that had been placed below the information. Projekt Records post hard, fast information (which is fine to source) and then they take independent reviews, from palces like allmusic.com and numerous magazines, and place them below. Admittedly, they will no doubt take only the best reviews, but I am still quoting independent reviews, whether or not they have been placed on the site. J Milburn 11:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I sourced 1 independent interview, and an independent biography, I could probably find more interviews but the information doesn't currently require it. So why did you vote delete? Just because you never heard of the band? --E tac 12:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: E tac, I find you very offensive. Maybe now you do have claim for this article to be kept, but I am going to abstain from voting, because I do not feel I can make an objective decision on a borderline case when I have you being so abusive- perhaps there is nothing wrong with what you are saying, perhaps this is one of those cases where something irritates me for no fair reason. If it is, I apologise. J Milburn 12:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:MUSIC; I don't see any reliable sources outside of self-submittable bio sites and forums in the 673 Google hits that I get searching '"Eternal Decision" band'. The record label doesn't seem to have a website, so I can't really call it notable. Always willing to reconsider if sources come forward. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eternal Decision has a brief bio and but no reviews at allmusic. There is no mention of them at Christian Music Central

CMC central doesn't list Mortification either but they are one of the most well notable christian metal bands.

or Contemporary Christian Music Magazine. WP:MUSIC mentions allmusic as a reliable source, but I'm not sure that one mention makes them notable. Full disclosure: I recently had a disagreement with one of the supporters of this article, and found this AfD through his talk page. I'm not voting for this reason. --Djrobgordon 03:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this trend for perfectly notable bands (from any reasonable, rational point of view) to be deleted or nominated for deletion is growing absolutely ridiculous. Barbara Osgood 00:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have, in my opinion, very reasonable criteria for inclusion of bands on WP:Music. Anyone who proves that this band satisfies any one of those criteria will carry the day here very easily and the article will not be deleted. However, both advocates of the retaining of this article seem only able to scoff at the very notion of this article being deleted, without providing solid evidence as to why that is. (Don't take that as an attack, E tac, I know you're trying). Sometimes a deletion debate carries an article to the next step in terms of quality, by forcing editors to provide verifiable sources for things like notability or risk losing the article. Simply calling the idea of deleting the article ridiculous though, doesn't really help much. --Tractorkingsfan 02:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would disagree with that, it simply could have been tagged for needing citations, then after awhile if noone did that then it could be nominated for deletion? Isn't that a more civil way of handling it?--E tac 07:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. In this case, though, I think the claim according to the nominator -- and I don't think this claim has been proven false as of yet, hence my vote -- is that no acceptable sources exist, and that therefore the article's central claim of notability cannot be validated. So putting the unreferenced tag on the article wouldn't have solved anything. The article is up for deletion on the grounds that there are no reliable sources to reference. At least that's my understanding. --Tractorkingsfan 08:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have a biography on AMG which wikipedia says is a reliable source--E tac 09:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response From WP:Music, a band is notable if:

"It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble." One entry in Allmusic, which Wikipedia does certify as a reliable guide or source, does not constitute multiple non-trivial published works. Now, if that entry certified that the band hit any of the other criteria, such as two albums on a major or large independent label, or a charted hit in any country, or had won a major music award, or had a record certified gold or higher in any country, then, once again, that would be another matter. Furthermore, the biographical entry you cite is so blatantly laudatory that it reads exactly like a press release, which is clearly disallowed by the direct quotation above. So far, the fact still remains clear that this band has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, and the one work you have cited does not confirm any of the notability criteria being satisfied. --Tractorkingsfan 09:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course like this article Heavy Trash here you have created... --E tac 09:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion is about Eternal Decision, not another article. "Well, Wikipedia has other articles that don't meet the standard . . ." is not a valid argument for keeping this particular article. janejellyroll 09:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um well he is the creator of it and is arguing like hell against this one and I'd like to know why, maybe he should nominate is own less notable band article for deletion . Also I added more sourced info to the article if anyone bothered to even look at it and I will continue looking for such. Perhaps he do the same because I'd say his article is notable enough and I'd support him if an AfD case were brought up against it, at least I would have had he not been acting like the total hypocrite he is here.--E tac 09:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Again, from WP:Music, a band is notable if it:

"contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." Like, say, Jon Spencer of Jon Spencer Blues Explosion. The difference between the two articles you cite is that, in the case of Heavy Trash, the Allmusic entry confirms notability according to the criteria established for bands on Wikipedia. In this case, the Allmusic source is enough, because notability is confirmed. On the other hand, the allmusic entry on Eternal Decision confirms none of the criteria. So the absence of multiple works makes it obviously deletable. A careful reading of my comment above should have made this clear. However, it seems you feel the need to be sarcastic and personal about this situation, which I don't appreciate. If you want to put the other article up for deletion, go ahead, if it doesn't belong here, it doesn't belong here, I'm not going to cry about it and try to attack everyone who wants it deleted. --Tractorkingsfan 09:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And calling me a hypocrite is bullshit dude. Excuse my language everybody. I think one article is notable, and the other is not; simple as that. Don't call me names. --Tractorkingsfan 09:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that somebody who makes a reasoned case for one article being deleted should face the potential of being called to account for every article they've ever created. This debate is about Eternal Decision. If you think Heavy Trash doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, you can bring that up elsewhere. You're accusing a user of acting in bad faith and there is no evidence of that. In any case, criticizing other articles doesn't have anything to do with this particular AfD. janejellyroll 09:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well my point is this AfD should never have been started in the first place.--E tac 09:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why, because you have heard of this band? You are yet to prove that they are notable, but you are still willing to accuse everyone else of being unfair when they say that they aren't. J Milburn 17:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well when people such as yourself are creators of articles with even less sourced notability are the ones going all out to attack this page, I think I have every right to claim this article is being treated unfairly.--E tac 21:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What on EARTH are you basing that upon? J Milburn 22:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained it here and attempted to on your talk page but trying to reason with you is like talking to a wall.--E tac 22:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is one of the most amazing things I have ever read. J Milburn 22:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even care anymore, delete the damn article.--E tac 22:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band's existence on the internet consists of media promotion. The same press release is seen over and over again. They are listed on various websites - usually with the comment that there is no further information. This looks like a band and their fans using the internet to promote their name - nothing wrong with that, but the guidelines on music notability are worded to exclude such bands from being on Wikipedia. After some considerable time researching this band on the internet, I have yet to see any comment on the band that could be identified as having been written by someone other than the band promoting themselves. There is nothing significant at stake here. At the moment it appears this band is fairly clearly of little interest to the average music reader, so there would be no loss if the article were deleted; however, when the band manage to secure a name for themselves a Wiki article can be written at that time. SilkTork 23:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is my vote I guess for reasons I have stated above and on the article itself. No they might not be of interest ot the "average music reader" if there is such a thing, but for somone who is interested in their style of metal and more specifically Christian Metal they are noteable and are worth reading about. Noone seems to get that though, and just say my sources are a joke, but it is beyond the point of me really caring anymore. So I will refrain from discussing the article on this page and let the people who know what they are talking about sort it out. I hope you all have a nice day and I apologize to those who I apparently have offended. --E tac 23:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Must say, you've got my full support here. (I've never heard of this band, either.) It's almost impossible to argue against this in the face of clear "criteria", but instinctively I feel there's something wrong with this whole issue. Barbara Osgood 12:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The AMG reference and independent interview seem enought to meet WP:Music to me. If the author does not mind, I'd like to go in and help clean up the references. Cricket02 08:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote. In my experience in using AMG as a refernece, the very fact that this band has a written bio on them with AMG, is worth mentioning. Also, here are 3 solid independent album reviews, [19], [20], and a questionable one [21]. While I agree most of the links used for references on the page need to go, I believe there is enough independent verifiable information to keep, and I would be willing to help clean it up. Cricket02 08:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To All. I went in and deleted irrelevant links and cleaned up and added others to comply with WP:Music, WP:RS, and WP:V. Please re-review your decisions based on these, what I believe to be, independent non-trivial verifiable sources. [22] Thanks. Cricket02 09:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article again after your edits and I still don't think WP:MUSIC has been met. I believe that the bios on CDBaby are submitted by the artists themselves. It's a great site for buying music, but I'd take all information found there with a grain of salt. janejellyroll 00:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more note: I can't find anything to verify the "Pure Rock Report", only on CDBaby bio which of course is not a place to actually confirm this assertion, so that reference should probably ultimately be removed. I am also unclear if the album reviews are professional, doesn't look like it. Still again, the AMG reference and independent interview seem enough to me. Cricket02 09:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The interview is unreliable, it is hosted on freeservers. I could have an 'interview' on there in a matter of hours. The CD baby pages appears to be user-submitted, certainly, towards the bottom of the page, it asks for user-submitted reviews. The other two are possibly valid sources, but they look rather short. Possibly counted as trivial mentions, or as directory entries. J Milburn 16:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Taking a look at the album reviews, TheWhippingPost doesn't look to be reliable, as it is full of spelling mistakes and poor grammar. The other one looks to be reliable, but, again, is nastily short. I just don't think that these should be kept, but I am not going to vote, as I am probably biased in the matter. J Milburn 16:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have only just noticed that The Whipping Post is hosted on Tripod, and so, again, is discounted as a reliable source. J Milburn 16:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: All points taken. I didn't notice the interview was on a web hoster as well. I'm learning. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe this album review [23] at Tollbooth.org is valid. Here is a link about them http://www.tollbooth.org/us.html , says they are an on-line magazine with over 70 staff writers. Cricket02 18:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yeah, that certainly looks valid to me, but my only concern is its length. I don't believe there are sure fire rules for situations like this, and that is why we have these debates. I personally still don't think that it is quite enough. This band just does not seem notable enough- they seem like they are on the verge of being notable, have every intentiom of becoming notable, and are doing all that they can to do so. Maybe in a few months, but not yet, in my opinion. J Milburn 18:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Admittedly, I do see a problem with not being able to reliably source the notability assertions of the "Pure Rock Report" and "16 different countries". I do know that you can easily google information in other languages regarding an artist's releases in other countries, but I haven't the time to delve that far. I still support keep but if this article is deleted, I would encourage the author to bring it back when able to better prove notability, it is an interesting genre. Cricket02 19:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: "It was in 1997 that Eternal Decision's first album hit the record stores in the U.S. and 16 other countries, achieving considerable acclaim and providing the band with even more notice" from a neutral source (AMG) seems pretty notable to me. Tim Long 00:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The sources seem to be within the guidelines from what I can tell. The band is certainly notable to anyone who listens to the genre, I've heard a lot of their music before, so they're not entire obscure or irrelevant; they really are relevant in the Christian metal scene. The information is valid, and the sources that the information is coming from are also valid and reliable. I don't see any reason why this band should be considered irrelevant in regards to some of the other bands here on Wikipedia. A band doesn't need ten million record sales on a huge label to have an impact on a music genre. They've got the longetivity, the impact on a genre, the international release, the multiple albums, and everything else that you could possibly want a band to have in order to be notable. AdmiralTreyDavid 03:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At this point, it looks to me like they've found enough sources to meet the notability guidelines.--Dycedarg ж 05:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete despite good work on the sourcing, I don't think they meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria for encyclopedic notability. Quite close though. Eluchil404 07:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while some sources were found, only one is even potentially non-trivial (number 4), and that is a website of unknown reliability. Fails WP:N currently, maybe come back in a year or two. Seraphimblade 15:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think, at this time, the people who are voting keep are not reviewing the sources nearly as much as the people voting delete. Don't just count the sources- judge them. J Milburn 16:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it is worth noting that I am continually removing the spam links to freeservers and tripod hosted websites- The Whipping Post and Art for the Ears are NOT reliable in any way. J Milburn 17:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Grdina[edit]

Non notable, possible vanity article

Delete. Non-notable and some parts violate WP:V and are promotional. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 10:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't satify WP:BIO, regardless of the promotional tone. CiaranG 10:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, non notable. J Milburn 12:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also fails NPOV. Jeepday 15:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Terence Ong 18:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Co-starring" on Unfabulous does not mean appearing in two episodes. ShadowHalo 04:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original "prod" nominator. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:26, 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. I'll userfy it on the user's request. Sandstein 19:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith McLaughlin[edit]

Vanity article Jvhertum 09:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Seems like an appropriate userpage, but not sufficiently notable for a mainspace article. Will leave message on author's talk page suggesting so. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 10:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if the author wants it, otherwise, delete as non notable, unless reliable, independent published, non trivial sources can be found. J Milburn 12:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if no reliable sources are added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:21, 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. --Core desat 03:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Poker Movie[edit]

A page on a supposed future film set to come out in 2006. Google is inconclusive that it exists, and the bare bones imdb link is utterly meaningless. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete- Unsourced chrystal ballism, or unsourced article neding to be updated on a non-notabel subject. J Milburn 12:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a film that didn't get off the ground. Anway, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Despite this being outdated, I doubt it could be updated with reliable sources. James086 ^Talk 13:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The film exists but there are no new sources that have emerged since I created the article. If more surface the article can be recreated. Otto4711 18:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per crystal ball policy. Wryspy 19:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; does have an IMDb listing, which gives minimal info - let this come back if the movie actually ever is released! SkierRMH, 02:43, 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 per WP:WEB and the original concerns of the nominator not being addressed. --Core desat 03:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closetspace[edit]

Nominating in a package deal along with A Wish for Wings. Both are non-notable webcomics by the same author. Articles have existed for over three years (!) without ever being sourced. SubSeven 10:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weal delete as per my comment on the Wish for Wings debate. J Milburn 12:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several situations where the notability rules are inappropriate and are causing large amounts of valuable information to be deleted. Bands and webcomics are the ones I am most familiar with. There are also repeated allegations by some that this author is being singled out over a disagreement over her past contributions to Texas highways. -- Strangelv 15:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I know for a fact that this comic is pretty big in TG circles - so I'm fairly certain that there is sourcing for this somewhere. I don't have the time to look for it, though. Incidentally, I also suggest that this might be related to the highway fiasco, given the suspicious timing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.44.202 (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete. I don't want them here, you don't want them here. Get them the hell off Wikipedia so I can be done with this place. Jenn Dolari 07:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Notable and encyclopedic - Alison ^✍ 14:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If she doesn't want it here, I don't want it here. Krisorey 15:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at Author's Request. Hey, like Jenn said, this less mention of her, the better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.152.12.78 (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete at Author's Request. Once again, the cliques and Wikimobs are grabbing their torches and trying to burn down the webcomics section. This is one webcomic you won't be able to burn down again. --JBladen 18:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No matter that author agrees to deletion, in a fit of pique no doubt, at the deletion of her personal article. Jenn is no less noteworthy than many, and CS and WFW deserve being present... or WP would not be of encyclopedic comprehensiveness. plus, WTF do you want sourcing for that kind of stuff? What do you expect "quotable sources" to have to tell about webcomics and their authors? Or is wikipedia reserved to stuff that is already massively covered elsewhere so actually there is no real reason to consult it because you can easily look elsewhere? --Svartalf 18:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:WEB is the applicable guideline. SubSeven 20:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find WP:WEB to be an excellent example of mass-market industrial age thinking that has no place on something as Internet oriented and community driven as Wikipedia (or for that matter, the 21st Century). -- Strangelv 18:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterated: Delete at Author's Request - Let's not have this page as yet another foothold for grudges. Deletion of Ms. Dolari's page would remove an important link from this page. Also, Ms. Dolari is weary of elitism and would prefer this article be gone. As a reader, I agree; a wiki cannot be all-inclusive, as that would require a level of self-management not possible in a human organization. If it is not being properly managed, I can see why she'd want to leave. Doc Mackie 20:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable bitterness over inappropriate actions is not a good reason for more inappropriate actions. I for one do not share Dolari's wish to drive a stake into the heart of Wikipedia, especially with no shortage of people who are working so diligently at doing just that already, deliberately or otherwise. Wikipedia HAS demonstrated an ability to manage an impressive amount of inclusiveness. If you want an RIAA, MPAA, et c. centric list of notability, you have no shortage of alternate sources. Trying to turn Wikipedia into just another one is akin to torching the Library of Alexandria. -- Strangelv 18:47, 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, same reasoning as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closetspace. --Core desat 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Wish for Wings[edit]

Nominating in a package deal along with Closetspace. Both are non-notable webcomics by the same author. Articles have existed for over three years (!) without ever being sourced. SubSeven 10:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There certainly seem to be mentions of these all over the place, and so they could well be notable, but the article asserts no notability and I could not find any reliable, independent published sources. I am open to changing my vote if sources are found. J Milburn 12:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several situations where the notability rules are inappropriate and are causing large amounts of valuable information to be deleted. Bands and webcomics are the ones I am most familiar with. There are also repeated allegations by some that this author is being singled out over a disagreement over her past contributions to Texas highways. -- Strangelv 15:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I don't want them here, you don't want them here. Get them the hell off Wikipedia so I can be done with this place. Jenn Dolari 07:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Notable and encyclopedic - Alison ^✍ 14:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If she doesn't want it here, I don't want it here. Krisorey 15:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at Author's Request. Hey, like Jenn said, this less mention of her, the better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.12.78 (talk • contribs)
Speedy Delete at Author's Request. Once again, the cliques and Wikimobs are grabbing their torches and trying to burn down the webcomics section. This is one webcomic you won't be able to burn down again. --JBladen 18:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Notable and encyclopedic. If this deserves to be pruned, man, wiki will need to get back to a size where it could be sold on a single dvd. An encyclopedy like wikipedia has to be comprehensive. If I can't find stuff like this here, where will I find it? --Svartalf 19:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Presumably, you'd find it in a web directory, which Wikipedia is not. Please read WP:WEB for the notability criteria. SubSeven 20:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find WP:WEB to be an excellent example of mass-market industrial age thinking that has no place on something as Internet oriented and community driven as Wikipedia (or for that matter, the 21st Century). -- Strangelv 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at Author's Request - Let's not have this page as yet another foothold for grudges. Deletion of Ms. Dolari's page would remove an important link from this page. Also, Ms. Dolari is weary of elitism and would prefer this article be gone. As a reader, I agree; a wiki cannot be all-inclusive, as that would require a level of self-management not possible in a human organization. If it is not being properly managed, I can see why she'd want to leave. Doc Mackie 20:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In my opinion the user SubSeven is biased against these Dolari-related wikis for some reason. He or she has already nominated this page for deletion once. The community decided it was relevant and to keep it. It is inappropriate for the same user to renominate for deletion. If the community really does feel these webcomics aren't noteworthy then someone less biased should nominate for deletion. Regarding notability criteria, these webcomics have been recognized by several cons including TrinocCon which have invited the writer to be on panels as a result of the notability of these webcomics. Clearly then their articles have a place here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Structured spirits (talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

http://www.trinoc-con.org/guest.php -- Trinoc 2006 featured guest list. I'm having trouble finding lists for previous years where Dolari is included, but I do know she's been featured at more than one. -- Strangelv 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous guest list are gone (heck most of the website is gone). Here's the 2004 Webcomics Panel picture - http://www.trinoc-con.org/gallery/2004comicsPanels/Image17?full=1 . The fat chick, top row, on the right. If you go to ALBUM: PEOPLE you'll see me on panels, and subtitled as such. Jenn Dolari 20:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Say what??? No, I have not nominated this article twice. I was not even on Wikipedia in 2004 when it was first nominated. SubSeven 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous deletion was done by User: RickK, not User: SubSeven. Jenn Dolari 20:37, 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 per consensus and by copyvio pointed out by Squilibob. --Core desat 03:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Naruto Birthdays[edit]

Fansite information?--Burning Flame 05:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Anyone interested in these birthdays can see the information already in individual character articles, doubtful to be notable in the series itself. Pomte 06:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pomte's comments. Separate article not needed, no notable information in article. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 08:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystics, Shattered Galaxy Gaming Regiment. MER-C 11:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious fancruft. MER-C 11:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blatantly fancruft. I have no idea why anyone would care enough about this to create the article. J Milburn 12:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. --Farix (Talk) 12:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally say merge into the characters' infoboxes but I'm hesitant to do so as the only source given is a fansite. But as a standalone list, it shouldn't exist. --Farix (Talk) 12:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fancruft. Yonatanh 13:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy if no one wants to wait. -- Ned Scott 15:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wryspy 19:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I would say speedy per WP:SNOW. --Dennisthe2 23:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an arbitrary collection of crufy information, violating WP:FICT.-- danntm ^T _C 05:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be copied, word for word, from [24] --Squilibob 23:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and we may as well call this as per WP:SNOW. Non-notable information (as it hasn't actually been used in the series, as far as I remember) and is pretty much the definition of an indescriminate collection of information. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The information is also included on the character pages as well, referenced from the infobooks. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:20, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 19:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield Up[edit]

very simple WP:CRYSTAL, the only one that i'm not sure of is the "24 Minutes" one as it seems sourced. Yonatanh 12:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding the following as they're pretty much the same (Simpsons episodes that haven't aired yet):

Revenge is a Dish Best Served Three Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Little Big Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Homerazzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rome-old and Juli-eh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Husbands and Knives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stop, Or My Dog Will Shoot! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Boys of Bummer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
24 Minutes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keep all - they'll be expanded in the upcoming weeks. Lugnuts 15:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - check this for more info: The_Simpsons_(season_18) Lugnuts 15:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 'em, RIADBSTT airs tomorrow and Springfield up airs February 18. Dannybriggs93 16:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've just realised I started those stubs nearly 3 months ago and it's taken that long to be nominated?! D'oh! Lugnuts 17:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - RIADBSTT airs tomorrow, SU soon and plenty of info in 24 minutes. The articles will be recreated eventually, so why bother? -- Scorpion 18:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, RIADBSTT airs tomorrow (as others have said), info will grow for all, no sence deleting them. Gran2 19:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the regular Simpsons contributors. Why do you allow yourselves to be vulnarable to such a nomination. Do as WP:LOST and don't "allow" article creating before an episode is definitively announced. Much safer, and prevents these kinds of discussions. Might also save in page moves etc. I agree there is little point in removing them now, because they are garuenteed to return. But why not just be patient. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: All of these episode titles have been confirmed in the copyright database. And, I used to nominate pages for SD, but either admins wouldn't do it, or people would just recreate them the next day. People always rush to be the VERY FIRST to create an episode page. Either way, it's not WP:CRYSTAL because being in the copyright database is about as close as you can get to being official. -- Scorpion 01:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - regarding WP:CRYSTAL, there are quite a few exceptions to this (i.e. the 2009 Ashes series); and this is just a logical expansion of The_Simpsons_(season_18), as these are all named, numbered: One is sourced (24) and one will be filled in within 24 hours!SkierRMH, 02:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - the basic details of these episodes have all been verified, and the rest will be filled in following the actual broadcasts. Redeagle688 04:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Them - they will have the rest of the information added as soon as it is released, so just wait a few weeks MrDaw 21:47, 28 Jan 2007
Keep and at least update Revenge is a Dish Best Served Three Times. It just aired. --Jnelson09 01:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above, and for the simple fact that this epsiode retconned a major episode of the simpsons from years ago. Homer shot Mr. Burns! Revenge is a Dish Best Served Three Times. It just aired. --pvegeta 01:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, this is an episode that has already aired, and the others have been confirmed. AFAIK, that is not the purpose of WP:CRYSTAL.Bjones 01:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, for the reasons highlighted above - these episodes will air soon and will likely be improved and sourced properly after then. --Mark ^{(Talk | Contribs | Email)} 19:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Svilpa[edit]

Nonnotable unsigned musician. Contested speedy (see article talk page), so bringing here. NawlinWiki 13:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Although the bit about playing, amongst other types of music, "80s shit" is compelling. Dismas|^(talk) 13:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Only when prods are removed should you upgrade to AfD. Anyway, I see nothing compelling here notability-wise, nor does it look like this guy meets WP:MUSIC, so speedy it. --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 18:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 00:28, 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. --Core desat 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bailie[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability of WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 13:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree; he may become notable in time as the leader of Mission Africa, but just being the "leader designate" isn't good enough, to my mind. --Brianyoumans 13:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 00:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is this in the "Places and transportation" catagory? --Oakshade 03:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I changed it to Biographical. -Nv8200p talk 14:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — doesn't merit inclusion per our criteria _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:15, 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 16:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Erikson[edit]

NN name. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Dismas|^(talk) 13:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As stated in nom, fails WP:PORNBIO. P TO 20:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 14:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music Emissions[edit]

Nonnotable music review website. Alexa ranking below 143,000. Contested speedy. NawlinWiki 13:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Walton monarchist89 19:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know what you need in order to keep this listing. Music Emissions is not "nonnotable". It is, in fact, quite notable with 42000 visitors last month. What do you consider, "nonnotable"? -- Dscanland 04:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added many links of reposted reviews that bands use in their bios and press pages. Please consider this as being notable. Most of these "underground" bands thrive on reviews from sites such as Music Emissions to try and sell themselves to larger labels and such. -- Dscanland 20:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That bands themselves use the reviews as a way to promote themselves means bupkis. Just ask David Manning of The Ridgefield Press. --Calton | Talk 00:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not advertizing. 75.18.220.182 08:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article's content says very little about the actual site and a lot about how great their method is. Moreover, the opening is copypasted from here[25]. Tiakalla 04:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam about the distinctly non-notable. --Calton | Talk 05:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the contrary on the copy-and-paste thing. That was taken from the Music Emissions Wikipedia page that that person created. We weren't aware there were so many guidelines to being included in the greatest online encyclopedia. Now we are aware and trying to comply.

As for "advertizing", I don't think there is really much of a difference between Music Emissions write up and Purevolume's. Let me know if we are going at it the wrong way. We can work at rewriting the article to be included. Thanks, Dscanland 22:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI, WP:WEB, and WP:INN (for your Purevolume reference above) are good places to start. --Calton | Talk 00:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I stand corrected on the copypaste. The tone is much more suited to an article than an encyclopedia though. Tiakalla 07:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.l. becker company[edit]

Delete, promotional-sounding article on what seems an unremarkable company/business, most likely not in accordance with WP:CORP criteria. Was previously prodded but the template was removed (twice), so bringing to AfD for determination. cjllw | TALK 13:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked Google and did not find anything to let it pass WP:CORP, references to pass WP:CORP would change my vote. Jeepday 15:22, 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 by Chairboy as A7. -- JLaTondre 17:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Bliss[edit]

NN person who fails both WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Dismas|^(talk) 13:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7. No assertion of notability. So tagged. James086 ^Talk 13:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus Guettarda 19:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lerner[edit]

Non-notable author in US intellectual property law. Fails WP:BIO. Two books and one interview are probably not enough. Edcolins 13:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, besides WP:BIO there are other aspects to be considered Alf photoman 00:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please can you explain which are the other aspects to be considered. Maybe we should update WP:BIO to reflect this? --Edcolins 14:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep the publications listed are enough, if they are widely used. a little more evidence is needed, but not reason to think it will not meet N.DGG 04:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, he is a notable author in his field and many references are included in the article and the talk page. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The references provided also include multiple independent reviews of his book which is the clear criteria in WP:BIO. This was shown to Edcolins on the talk page of the article nearly 2 weeks ago. I'm not sure why he awakened now with his claim that this is not enough. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the talk page, I have not said the references were enough to me. I have just asked for more references. I am not convinced yet this person is notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. In the business field where the media coverage is usually important (to attract potential clients), the criterion for notability may need to be higher IMHO. --Edcolins 22:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one more source on the talk page, His book is quoted twice in testimony given by Pat Choate to the The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission [26] --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also just added a link to the Russian version of the book at http://www.dialektika.com/books/5-8459-0636-9.html . As I'm sure you are aware, not every book gets translated into another language. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly it was translated into Russian because the co-author (Poltorak) is from Russia? It doesn't mean anyone is reading it there. The amazon.com sales rank for the english version is 272,182.

This page has esentially no content other than what can be found on the bio pages on the websites of the subject's companies (GPC and GPCI, which both appear to be 2-3 person companies). Apparently these companies have also recently had Wikipedia articles created solely by PinchasC; they appear to also be generally sourced from the corporate websites, and fall into the realm of using wikipedia for advertising. Emcee 22:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not meeting WP:BIO.

PinchasC should have identified himself on this AfD page as the creator and primary author of this article.
PinchasC claims that there are multiple independent reviews of his book. There are not. The "reviews" on the publisher's page (Wiley and Sons) are basically promotional blurbs, likely from associates of the authors, as you would see on the back of the book jacket. In fact, at least one of these is on the back of the book jacket. I am an IP professional and I own this book, and it is not a seminal work in the field. The other "review" (the pdf from SSTLR) is not so much a review as a chapter-by-chapter topic summary. There is no analysis or criticism in this document. I have not seen what I would consider to be a single independent review of the book, in the spirit of what is intended by WP:BIO. E.g., a critical review of at least a few paragraphs in length from a reputable newspaper or periodical.

Emcee 19:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO does not say that a newspaper has to have given the review. The reviews given are by many people and they are considered to be independent reviews. If you have further analysis or criticism, you can add it to the document, however lack of it is not a reason to delete. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that it did. WP:BIO is a guideline; to follow the spirit of the guideline we have to determine for ourselves what is meant by an "independent review." I don't consider a (probably solicited) promotional blurb found on the publisher's website to be an independent review. I don't consider a chapter summary with no analytical content to be a review. I consider a critical review of at least a few paragraphs in length from a reputable newspaper or periodical to be a reasonable minimum standard for what is meant by an "independent review," and I think most other WP editors would probably agree. This article has failed to provide that, so I re-assert my vote to Delete.Emcee 04:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess we disagree, whether the publisher publishing a review makes it non independent or not. I would respectfully disagree and say that even if a publisher publishes the review, if the review was by someone other than the publisher, than it is an independent review. So I re-assert my vote to Strong Keep. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that WP:RS and WP:IS also disagree with your POV. The liner notes of a music album are typically written by someone other than the musician or producer, but that would rarely be considered an independent review of the album's contents -- the publisher and artist solicit someone whom they know will give a favorable description for the consumer. Likewise, these promotional blurbs published on the back of the book jacket are not "independent reviews".

To put this article in a bit of perspective: PinchasC is currently the creator and ONLY editor, other than EdColins (who nominated for deletion), not counting a style bot and one random editor who removed "Mr." before the subject's name.Emcee 10:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you wrote above, you own this book and only one of these are printed on the book. So I guess that would kind of prove yourr point wrong. Nowhere in WP:RS or WP:IS does it say what you are saying, and my point from above stands that although the publisher put these reviews on their site, the reviews were by someone other than the publisher and therefore independent. Additionally, this that I am the only editor of the article is not a criteria for deletion, and I'm not sure your point of bringing this up in all your comments. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I own the paperback version of this book; all three promotional blurbs on its book jacket are shown here. The link that you furnished has the promotional blurbs for the e-book, shown here. Since it's an electronic book, I would consider these blurbs on the publisher's website for the ebook to be on its electronic book jacket. It's published by the same publisher for the same reasons as a book jacket, regardless.

The reason why I bring up your relationship to this article as the creator and only editor is:

Good Wikietiquette for an AfD discussion requires that you disclose whether you are the primary author and whether you have other vested interest in the article.
I believe there may be some ownership issues in play, and I think it's useful to those commenting or voting on the AfD to be aware of it. Along those lines, the rationale for the notability requirement says, "In order to have a neutral article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors."

It comes down to this: promotional blurbs are not reviews, and a publisher's site is not an independent or reliable source for unbiased book reviews. WP:RS and WP:IS are indeed relevant, as is WP:N, especially where it says: "The "independence" qualification excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works affiliated with the subject, its creators, or others with a vested interest or bias."

The farther this goes, the more convinced I am that this subject is not notable. If there were existing independent reviews, they would have been produced by now, rather than having to defend such weak support. You would be hard-pressed to find any book today that does not come with the support of its publisher and a few short promotional blurbs; having these does not make the work an important one, nor does it make its subject notable. Emcee 11:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews under the reviews section are not printed on the book, only the ones in the description section. I hope you understand this distinction. You have not shown how these review would not conform with WP:N, you are just quoting sentences without showing relevance. Proving that an article or person is notable does not violate WP:OWN, I suggest you re-read this guideline together with the other guidelines that you seem to be interpreting to fit your viewpoint. I forgot to mention that I was the creator and primary editor of this article, but you did point it out so that took care of that. Continuing to use that as an argument for deletion shows a gross misunderstanding of the policies and guidelines. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't in fact understand the distinction -- especially since the quote by Lawrence Udell is under both tabs, of "description" and "reviews". Can you explain what differentiates these "review" blurbs from the "description" blurbs? In length and content they appear very much the same.

I think I've described quite enough for you on the relevant policies; if you choose to continue to deny their spirit and relevance, go right ahead. Emcee 19:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the independent reference I brought above today, where the book was quoted in testimony by Pat Choate to the The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission and the Russian translation. Regarding the other references, we can agree to disagree. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those brief citations by Choate and the Russian translation (presumably by the Russian co-author) do not add much to Lerner's notability. I suppose you can't explain the difference between the "description" book jacket blurbs and the "review" blurbs either. Emcee 22:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable as per Edcolins ---Harris 14:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a notable enough author. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Lerner is well-known in the industry, both for his books and for the famous In re Zahn case, which he successfuly argued before CAFC. Notable enough. --patent guru 22:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a totally ordinary lawyer with a couple articles in print and a book. Like all of them Mateo LeFou 22:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to cite reliable secondary sources, necessary to pass WP:N. Seraphimblade 15:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skamantzouras[edit]

vanity page. I live in the town mentioned in the article, and this is DEFINITELY a vanity article. Druworos 13:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible hoax, certainly non-notable, crystal ballism. J Milburn 14:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Google = Results 1 - 1 of 1 for "Skamantzoyras" and that one is this article. Jeepday 15:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I know a fair bi on Greek military history and have never heard as well as per above. Kyriakos 20:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-sourced, 1ghit probable hoax. SkierRMH, 01:56, 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. W.marsh 16:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PMbyAS[edit]

Non-notable vanity pages. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/APbyAS Karnesky 13:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References in english are nearly identical in content. There is a language barrier on this Italian web-based based company. The article may be appropriate for Italiano L’enciclopedia libera but it does not have an article there (I checked). Jeepday 15:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK I don't agree the "vanity" opinion, but maybe the "language barrier" is a right for Afd Avesan 10:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose that it would be more diplomatic to bringup WP:COI & mention that the sole contributor to the ??byAS articles has admitted that it is his own project. --Karnesky 15:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't understand. I declared explicitely that ??byAS are my own projects since 22 January 2007 (UTC). -- Avesan 17:06, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kandi Barbour[edit]

NN person who does not meet WP:PORNBIO. Dismas|^(talk) 13:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extremely notable in her field in the early 1980s. This is one example where WP:PORNBIO exhibits an Internet-era bias, as this individual is unlikely to have much by way of Internet content because she predated the Net by some 20 years. 23skidoo 01:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems fairly significant in her field for the 1970s and 1980s. 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 16:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D-Ground, Faisalabad[edit]

Subject of article does ot meet guidelines for notability per WP:LOCAL Nv8200p talk 13:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The external links given do not reference the shopping area they only reference the city. I think the article has potential as a stub or merge if it could be referenced. Jeepday 15:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per Jeepday; keep if reliable sources can be added relating to the shopping center itself. Walton monarchist89 19:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 08:30, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HTC TyTN[edit]

Advertisement for a non-notable appliance Nv8200p talk 13:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article does need some work, and has been improved already, but it's far from being either an advertisement or non-notable. 'HTC TyTN' returns 1.6 million Google hits, and that's just one name that this product sells under. It's easily as noteable as any other mobile phone or portable device. Wibbble 18:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. This reads pretty neutrally, existing device, fairly notable. Where's the adcopy? --Dennisthe2 23:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found it a useful reference about my device, since Wikipedia was the first place I checked. --Phealy 17:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep device is clearly notable (I added some third party sources to the talk page) and article is not so spammy as to be unsalvageable. Eluchil404 07:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, bad faith nomination by banned user: see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DogJesterExtra. Part Deux 21:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Bravo[edit]

non notable professional wrestler Histogramunited 13:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No verifiable, third party, non trivial, reliable references provided, and I can find none. J Milburn 14:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notableDogJesterExtra 16:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that creator is under investigation for being a WP:SOCK account of User:JB196 and if proven, the AFD will be Speedily deleted as a Keep (with no prejudice against renomination) See section on WP:AN/I for more details. SirFozzie 20:03, 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. --Core desat 03:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Catholic School[edit]

Subject of article does not meet notability requiremenst of WP:LOCAL Nv8200p talk 13:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SCHOOL requires the multiple nontrivial external sources, which are not in the article, and which I'm not finding, either. Creator is welcome to produce sources to change my mind. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:SCHOOL, WP:V. Terence Ong 17:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:SCHOOL is not actually a current policy (as it was not adopted). Although I agree that school articles ought to show evidence of notability, most schools do have their own articles at present, and it would seem unfair to deny an article to this one. And there's a substantial body of Wikipedians who argue that schools are inherently notable (although I'm not among them). Walton monarchist89 19:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools_for_deletion_archive, a number of school articles have been deleted due to failure of WP:N. Also, I have prodded a number of school articles whose deletions went through uncontested. If this school article is deleted, it won't be alone at all. (By the way, I doubt very much that most schools have their own articles.) Pan Dan 20:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is no sign of non-trivial external coverage which we could use to write a Wikipedia article. Checked Google news archives and even local papers in Lexis-Nexis. This is not a surprise though, because most schools wouldn't pass WP:N. Pan Dan 20:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, should be moved to Trinity Catholic School (Lewiston) and the redirect either deleted or made into a disambiguation page, as there appear to be others. Pan Dan 20:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments to that effect. Non-notable. Soltak | Talk 23:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As usual, no evidence of notability. Just for once, give me a reason to keep a school article, please. It's not enough that the school exists and teaches students - all schools do that: just, please, show me a case where the school is actually doing something that distinguishes it from its peers ! ( Rant over. ) WMMartin 14:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pan Dan. -- Butseriouslyfolks 20:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability, no sources, and if WP:SCHOOL were policy, it wouldn't meet it. Dismas|^(talk) 14:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Sexxx[edit]

NN person, fails both WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO Dismas|^(talk) 14:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to WP:PORNBIO, it takes more to establish notability than appearance in films, and I can't find evidence of any of the requirements in this person. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PORN BIO. non-notable.--Tainter 16:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable appeared only in a few pictures, and short career. Arnoutf 20:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1 and A3. Consider using trying speedy deletion next time in such cases. Sandstein 14:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guno[edit]

I can't find any evidence via Google that this language is notable. A bit iffy 14:14, 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. — CharlotteWebb 19:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Faulkner[edit]

She's non notable (all she does is host 30 second news updates for a few hours on some random network). I say delete as soon as possible. Delete --MikeHunt35 15:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not a TV person but I suspect that receiving six Emmy Awards including the 2005 Emmy for Best Newscaster and Best News Special will make the subject of the article pass WP:BIO. (I added a Primarysoures tag to the article) Signed Jeepday 15:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Horible nomination for deletion; poorly written and misleading - Mike Hunt ("my cunt" joke) seems like a hoax. Harris is clearly noticed as she appears frequently on the Fox News Channel. There seems to be an onging confusion betweeen Notability and Importance. I think that it is very important that the public be able to gain insight into those who report the news as these people can influence opinion if only in subtle ways. --Kevin Murray 16:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How dare you, Mike Hunt is my actual name, I was born and named well before that word meant anything, I am sick of people assuming my actual name is some sort of joke. And this is not a horrible nomination, as I said, the only thing this anchor ever does is host 30 second news updates for a few hours a day (and FOX recently cut the number of news breaks in half too, meaning she is seen less!)- she warrants a line or two on the FOX news page, not her own article! I am NOT a sockpuppet either. I have being editing wikipedia for a while now, under my IP address, and have watched AFD with interested, and when I stumbled upon this article by the genious 'random article' feature' i felt this wasn't a needed artcile. Once again, this is not a hoax, and please take this nomination seriously.--MikeHunt35 17:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I salute your parents' fine sense of humor. Not convinced -- too many hoaxes out there. Without a user page and any discussion history the nominator still looks bogus --Kevin Murray 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor am I. By the way, the word in question dates from the 14th century (possibly earlier). Victoriagirl 04:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - nomination is subjective and does not refer to WP policy; receiving major awards does count as notability per WP:BIO. However more sources are needed to demonstrate independent third-party coverage (perhaps a link to a news report on the Emmy awards, or something). Walton monarchist89 19:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment - Kevin Murray, I feel you should assume good faith in relation to the nominator - there's no proof that Mike Hunt isn't his real name or that he's a sockpuppet/SPA. Please assume that the nomination is genuine. (Although I still disagree with the nomination.) Walton monarchist89 19:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in assuming good faith, but not being naive. This editor seems to be single purpose related to Fox News, but calls it "some random network"
I absolutely do not belive that inexperienced contributors should be involved in AfD or other deletion decisions. Until you've contributed, I don't respect the right to dispute the contributions of others.

--Kevin Murray 20:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment - While I agree that new users should generally not be involved in AfDs, WP:BITE also applies here. -- Kesh 22:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we don't want to bite the newcomers, but on the other hand, a growl is less than a bite. --Kevin Murray 23:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is a regular person seen on the Fox News Channel and appears throughout the evening on Fox News Live headline updates, which have only seen cuts during the daytime news programming, not the evening commentative programming. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 22:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Six Emmys? Wow. Keep, that meets WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article needs some serious work (proper citations rather than lumped at the bottom, some rewriting to be more enyclopedic in tone), there does seem to be enough here to assert notability and satisfy WP:BLP. Unless it is shown that the references are faulty, there's no reason to delete this one. -- Kesh 22:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep six Emmies not notable? common!! Alf photoman 00:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether one loves it or hates it, I'd hardly call the Fox News Channel "some random network". The Emmy awards and references in the article certainly meet WP:BIO criteria. Agent 86 00:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all obvious reasons. Victoriagirl 02:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The awards establish notability and the references seem reliable. 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. --Core desat 03:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports flops[edit]

I am renominating this article for deletion. It 1) Is lengthly and unorganized. 2) Doesn't cite most of its sources. 3) Is POV. 4) Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. 5)The main reason to keep it was for the Flops collection, which has seemed to have dissolved. This would be great for a message board or for a sports magazine, but sadly Wikipedia is neither of these. --D-Day 16:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There isn't (and, due to the nature of the beast, likely never will be) any hard and fast way to state who did or didn't flop. That leaves this list open to POV arguments and edit wars. Is Dick Trickle a flop because he just took a long time to get his shit together? The article names a dozen Edmonton Oilers first round draft picks, without qualifying that even first rounders are only prospects with less than a 50-50 chance at a prolonged NHL career. And for that matter, is Pat Falloon a flop just because he wasn't Eric Lindros-esque? (7+ seasons of playing pro sports at the world's top level seems successful to me.) Caknuck 16:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as with other "list of flop" AfDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automobiles that were commercial failures. Only vaguely defined and indiscriminate. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 16:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and per WP:NOR, as the description "flop" is the unverifiable opinion of the article's author. Walton monarchist89 17:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, unverifiable, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A pile of nonsense and not worth saving it. Terence Ong 17:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Criteria for inclusion are absolutely not helpful in determining who should be included in this. Completely subjective matter of personal opinion. Agent 86 00:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, Too much opinion here and not enough factual basis or criteria for deciding who should and should not be a flop. AEMoreira042281 02:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as far too subjective, POV, original thought, and an arbitrary scope.-- danntm ^T _C 05:19, 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. A Train ^{take the} 19:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ECWF[edit]

Website with only 214 hits on its hit counter making it hardly notable. The author of the article removed my prod so it's up for AfD. oakster TALK 16:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. No evidence of notability. Walton monarchist89 17:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each show, as mentioned in the talk page, gets in excess of 70 views. Not everyone may come to the index page, so the counter may not be a true indicator of the hits. Koberulz 17:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB and lack of notability. Real indy feds don't stick around long here, so a fed created by editing bits of video game play around definitely doesn't seem to have notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EWCF seems to have stuck around for a while, and I don't see how ECWF is any different.Koberulz 03:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony wasn't talking about the longevitity of the website. He was talking about how long real indy feds last on Wikipedia before they get deleted. Searching ECWF on Google finds the website on page 6 on 981 results (with this article more nearer the top than that). The Dailymotion videos as you claim only get "in excess 70, at times well over 100 views". Articles based on notable webcast videos are usually at those on the hundred-thousands. The website or the videos are simply not that notable. -- oakster TALK 16:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither was I. I was referring to the EWCF Wikipedia article. Koberulz 04:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Non-notable e-fed. RobJ1981 17:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train ^{take the} 19:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chez Jules[edit]

NN local restaurant. JLaTondre 16:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - reads like advertising. No assertion of notability. Walton monarchist89 17:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder. MER-C 01:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with Crème brûlée, non-notable local resturant. SkierRMH, 02:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't agree that my article is non-notable, I feel it is a well known enough establishment, certainly in my area, to warrant inclusion as a sufficiently notable subject for an entry. I have added a couple of links to justify this assertion. The article is also not advertising (despite my username). I have addded some further comments to the discussuion page of the article itself Jules1975 16:35, 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 19:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Guy Carr[edit]

Nomination: Back in October of last year, I prodded this article on the grounds of lack of notability. The prod was disputed with the edit summary "remove {PROD}: conspiracy nut or not, notable". The resulting discussion stated that Carr's notability was due his impact on other conspiracy theorists, and conspiracy theory in general. I commented (see Talk:William Guy Carr#Why is this person notable?) that while this might be a valid reason to keep the article, the article did not, in fact, discuss this aspect of his life ... it barely mentions his impact on conspiracy theories (the article cites only one conspiracy theorist influenced by Carr, and that in passing). I asked that this information be added to the article. I recieved no reply, nor was the article edited to include this information. Now, after waiting several months, I re-submit the article for deletion based on several grounds: Notability (Dispite the reasons for opposing the prod, no evidence has been presented that he has had any great impact on onther conspiracy theories), WP:FRINGE (his claims are definitely on the loonier side and do not meet the criteria for inclusion), as well as WP:RS and WP:V (the only references are to Carr's own books; other statements are completely unsourced). Blueboar 17:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete there is some reference to effect on conspiracy theorists inside the article, but that should have been sourced much better in the last few months Arnoutf 20:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I de-PRODded because my Gsearch turned up points like these:

Pawns in the Game has a reasonably good sales rank and number of reviews at Amazon, and it is impressive in itself that the book is still in print after more than 50 years, especially since there is no shortage of fresher conspiracy books to choose from.[27]
References to his influence on Ted Gunderson like this one: "Ted Gunderson told me that he too, was totally unaware of the NWO agenda-even though he worked for the FBI for 28 years(retired in 1979)- until someone gave him the book Pawns in the Game by William Guy Carr."[28]

Note: I don't think this one counts under WP:RS. Blueboar 01:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carr is cited in Eustace Mullins' Secrets of the Federal Reserve.[29]

All this led me to believe that he has indeed left a lasting mark in the conspiracy theory world, and meets the notability threshold. --Groggy Dice T | C 23:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, lacking sources and citations don't make me usually vote keep. The subject of the article is definitely notable for his (believed) conspiracy theories that get quoted over and over again. The article fails to show that, and lacks neutral references. Alf photoman 00:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The absence of any independently verifiable sources which indicate the importance of the theories and attribute them to the author undermines the majority of content in the article. Tracing the history of the article those who assert notability have been unwilling, or unable, to provide substantiation for this notability. There has been plenty of opporunity to demonstrate it and there has been plenty of opportunity to avoid the need for AfD.ALR 15:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After reading the article, it seems the only notability is his WWIII claim; he was alive during the actual two wars and served, so those statements are undeniably accurate. However, the WWIII claim sounds just like Nostradamus or any of a hundred other predictors of doom (Revelations, even), and therefore, there's no assertion of notability. A lot of people don't know things until they read books; that alone does notr assert notability. MSJapan 17:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, well, Nostradamus and the Book of Revelation and several of these other "predictors of doom" also have articles. --Groggy Dice T | C 08:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Evidence of the mainstream recognition of Carr's importance:

Google Books shows that Carr is mentioned in several books, such as Daniel Pipes' Conspiracy.[30]
He is included in Political Research Associates' overview of the history of conspiracy theories.[31]
Paul de Armond of Public Good includes him in tracing the roots of Christian Patriotism.[32]

Also, take a closer look at his non-conspiracy book on his submarine experiences in World War I, By Guess and By God. It is prefaced by his superior, Admiral SS Hall who commanded the British Submarine Service, and published in 1930 by Hutchinson & Co. (a "real" publisher). This site[33] describes it as "a real bestseller of this period" (yeah, yeah, WP:RS), and this used bookseller[34] notes that his copy is a "15th impression," which if I'm understanding it right means that the book went through at least fifteen printings. You can see in the Google Book[35] results, what seem to be mainstream reviews by The Bookman, The Dublin Review, and perhaps even Virginia Woolf. --Groggy Dice T | C 08:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment - Add the material to the article please. Blueboar 13:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow up, I've now found copies for sale from the sixteenth printing.[36][37]. Also, WorldCat shows that the book was translated into French.[38] His conspiracy works have been translated into Arabic[39][40] and Japanese[41], showing that his audience has reached beyond merely the local fringe. The last two editions are also pretty recent, showing that foreign interest in these theories persists. I think it should be clear at this point that he meets notability. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you add it to the article. It does us no good here. FYI... I have no problem withdrawing this AfD nomination if the article actually is edited to include discussion of his notability and impact on conspiracy theory. This should have been done months ago.Blueboar 18:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd question who the reprints are by, the Amazon link up above is to a 28 year old version printed by a niche, almost private, press. One non conspiracy theory book does not constitute notability.ALR 18:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the copies of BGBG are not reprints, but subsequent printings by the original publisher. Nor was Hutchinson some dinky basement press (e.g., they were the UK publisher for The Autobiography of Malcolm X), before they were swallowed up by Random House in 1989. In the US, an edition was published by Doubleday. And while I'd contend that one book can establish notability if it sells well enough, in fact that was not his only book. He wrote more naval books, also published by Hutchinson. His Checkmate in the North was published by Macmillan. Only later in his writing career did he become a full-time conspiracist.

I've also added a quote from a University of Kentucky Press author describing Carr as "the most influential source of the American Illuminati demonology," providing the mainstream validation of his importance that has been clamored for. With Berlet and Pipes and the others I cited above, one had to infer that they believed Carr was "influential" from the fact that they were writing about him; Ellis calls him so explicitly. Some may still not be satisfied, but frankly, I think it's already been demonstrated that he is more notable than many entries. To me, it seems like the skepticism about his notability boils down to the following logic: "His theories are plainly too loony for any person in their right mind to believe. The vast majority of people are in their right mind. Therefore, it's impossible that enough people take him seriously to make him notable." However, the human capacity to believe has allowed many "loony" beliefs to find millions of adherents (sometimes even a society's majority). Carr authored a meme that has lasted fifty years, and looks more prescient than ever to his believers with what is going on in Iraq; how many of the internet memes and the bands that survive AfD by having two measly albums on a middling indie label can say the same? --Groggy Dice T | C 01:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added two links to the article, about two pieces I've found on how Iraq fits into World War Three, by Henry Makow (designer of the Scruples game)[42] and Abid Ullah Jan[43]. The latter also illustrates how Carr's audience has spread beyond Anglo-Saxons. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher at the link above is not Hutchinson but Legion for the Survival of Freedom, that is hardly a reputable publisher and I rather agree with Blueboar about WP:FRINGE.ALR 16:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have misunderstood me. While I'm sure Pawns has also gone through many reprintings, I was referring to By Guess and By God going through (at least) sixteen printings. By Guess is the hare, that sold widely at the time but is now obscure; Pawns is the tortoise, that had a smaller initial readership, but has seen continued interest for half a century. --Groggy Dice T | C 00:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn - I am still not quite satisfied... the references that were added are both not reliable under WP:RS (personal websites). The site owners are fringe conspiracy theorists themselves... WP:FRINGE asks for mainstream references to show that the theories are at least notable in the world beyond the Fringe. However, as my main problem with this article is that NO effort was being made to add references, and as there is finally at least an attempt to do so, it is only fair to withdraw the nomination and give people a chance to improve the article. I may bring it up for a second nomination later, but let's give it a chance for now. Blueboar 02:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I think I showed fairly enough that this page should not be deleted. Eristik 02:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David H. Li[edit]

Sufficiently notable? I think it's close, but I don't think enough. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, I don't see any sources cited, so unverifiable. When I was searching Google, I saw a number of hits about his books. I doubt whether he is really very notable. If reliable sources are cited, his notability can be properly established then please leave a note on my talk page. Terence Ong 17:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Article has been rewritten with references--Kevin Murray 22:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As now written and referenced it meets WP guidelines: (1) has won an award for his writting, and (2) multiple reviews of his writting by non-trivial sources. --Kevin Murray 22:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, independent sources cited, after rewrite and now notability is properly established for the article. I do like to see some expansion in the article though. Terence Ong 03:40, 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. W.marsh 16:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Circus[edit]

No sign of passing the ancillary criteria of WP:MUSIC, much less the primary notability criterion. 1 album on Amazon.com, not on a major label. No sign of non-trivial external coverage from which to write a neutral reliable article. De-prodded without comment. Pan Dan 17:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "The Priest" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to this nomination. I'd redirected it to Stone Circus but the redirect was undone. Pan Dan 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely NN. janejellyroll 20:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom and Skullhead? wtf? -- Butseriouslyfolks 20:07, 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. After another week of non-discussion... it still has no links to any third-party coverage. Sandstein 19:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Empire (second nomination)[edit]

The game claims to be one of the oldest games around, and was kept in the last AfD based on a lot of arguments revolving around "this number is big" and bizzarely enough, an Alexa rank of 378k somehow benifitted it. Anyway, I could not find any reliable sources- pretty much everything was user-submitted. Issues with verifiability and WP:WEB. I've tried the following Google searches: [44], [45], Wafulz 04:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEP, no sources in article to believe its notable. Sins of a Solar Empire is sometimes just called solar empire and seems to be giving it undue attention.--155.144.251.120 05:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a failure of WP:WEB, no secondary sources provided or apparent from a glance at the above google results. Interested parties have had since early August to scrape together some sources - either they aren't there or open source projects have a magical policy/guideline shield (I don't think so). Previous AFD had few participants, though one of whom was a developer of this software (unless I'm reading it wrong) - WP:COI. If secondary sources are provided then I'd be very happy to change my stance, but that seems unlikely.

Regardless of the software's age, WP remains a tertiary source and requires secondary sources so it isn't just repeating what is already available from the primary source. If the MMOG/Indie game communities are that bothered about featuring on WP then they need to band together and form reliable review sites like Game Tunnel, which can give the software some critical review and in turn give us something to write about. The ball is in their court. QuagmireDog 12:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness I must point out that though two developers were involved in the last AFD, only one voted and both were extremely above-board. Whilst this is obviously not ideal in AFD or article maintainence, I don't want to give the impression that there was anything shady going on because I don't believe that was the case or the intention. QuagmireDog 16:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sheer number of forks would not exist if this was insignificant. -- Strangelv 16:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could an admin re-list this AFD for further discussion? What it 'is' is one thing, it certainly isn't a single-screen flash game, I think this needs further discussion. QuagmireDog 16:41, 26 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, Cbrown1023 17:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Core desat 03:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lion King IV[edit]

There are just 90 Google hits for "lion king iv" and 722 for "lion king 4; nearly all of them are from fan discussion forums or fanfic sites. The idea of a fourth Lion King sequel is unverifiable speculation. szyslak (t, c) 17:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some further investigation. The article claims that Kiara's daughter and Kopa's son fall in love. As fans of the Lion King sequels and comic books know, Kiara and Kopa are brother and sister. Basically, the premise behind this article is that Disney's making a movie about cousins marrying. Really, would Disney even consider producing such a movie? This article's more than "unverifiable speculation". It's a silly, childish hoax. I've tagged it as such. szyslak (t, c) 10:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incest is common in animals -24.92.43.153 13:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's not common in Disney movies. szyslak (t, c) 17:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that was put in by some random person. The plot will be about Vitani & Simba, whom are not even remotely related. -24.92.43.153 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous comment referred to an earlier version. If you're so convinced of the truthfulness of this article, please provide a reliable source confirming it. But there is none, because it's complete nonsense. szyslak (t, c) 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REVERT AND CLEAN-UP-Re-name the article The Lion King 4 and start a major clean-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalejenkins (talk • contribs)

By "revert" do you mean "keep"? Since this article was just created, there is nothing to "revert" to. Also, do you know of any reliable sources that confirm Disney is producing a film called "The Lion King IV/4"? Because I haven't found any. szyslak (t, c) 19:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being unverifiable speculation. Nothing in reliable sources confirms that this film exists. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 20:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal-ball Arnoutf 20:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified crystal balling. -- IslaySolomon | talk 21:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, and zip about this at the Disney website.SkierRMH, 02:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. The Kids Aren't Alright 02:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOT#CBALL.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 12:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page was created to peddle a fan's version of the film and deliberately fool people. [46] It's complete and utter rubbish. Blue Phoenix 17:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references. The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

College dropout[edit]

per List of high school dropouts NorthernThunder 16:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this list qualifies as a "valuable information source" per WP:LIST, although obviously that opinion is subjective. Lots of celebrities and leading figures have dropped out of college/university early; this is often an important factor in their later lives. And at the same time, the list shouldn't be too long to be manageable (as long as it's restricted to notable persons only, per WP policy). Walton monarchist89 19:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete seems listcruft. The social phenomenon of College dropout would be an interesting topic though. Arnoutf 20:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm with Arnoutf. Madmedea 23:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is this article improperly named (it should be List of College Dropouts it is also completely irrelevant listcruft. Soltak | Talk 23:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although there is a sociology of education article that can and should be written under this title, the current content is far from it, being an indiscriminate list that may also be vaguely unwise for WP:BLP reasons. Deleting this will not inhibit the other topic's creation, and there is no GFDL obligation to maintain unrelated material under the same title. Serpent's Choice 12:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think Walton monarchist said it well. It's a useful and manageable list, though it suffers from the typical problems for lists without clear and fast limits. YechielMan 05:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though if we keep this article I shall be neither surprised nor particularly disappointed. At present the article looks too much like a list, and could presumably be Categorified, but perhaps the listing by later profession just scrapes over the usefulness barrier. WMMartin 14:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but make it recreatable. An article that isn't a list about college dropouts would be good. Either way, needs to be renamed to "University dropouts" -137.222.10.67 11:55, 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. Sandstein 19:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Cone[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 but notability is asserted. Not compellingly, though. Looks like he writes a blog and sometimes manages to get the odd article published (I said looks like, not is). No external sources. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The WP Bio standard is for a person to be "noticed" specifically not famous, important, or newsworthy. Ghits are a reasonable standard for asserting that someone is being noticed. I see very high g-hits. I randomly checked the hits to see wheter they were about him, by him or related to someone else. I'm reasonably convinced that he is being noticed and thus a legitimate topic for WP. --Kevin Murray 18:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the primary notability criterion is that he has been the primary focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 18 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, Herostratus 20:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless reliable independent coverage can be found. Walton monarchist89 19:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like an average guy with an average job. Nothing out of the ordinary. Once I get married, get a job, and have two kids, then I can have my own article? Please. →Ed Gl 23:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly referenced and sourced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems to be leaning toward delete, thats fine with me. this guy is pretty well known in Greensboro, NC, local political stuff as well as being a member of a prominent family (owners of Cone Mills, an important employer, or used to be anyway). i wrote this article cause i read his blog and figured it would be enough to keep him on here. as i am not willing to do the research to prove that he is notable enough to stay a delete is fine with me (though i obviously think hes notable, at least in this limited, regional sense, article does look pretty boring now that i read it though). Jieagles 07:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok ive done what im going to do, i basically put his most notable accomplishment, the one that provides nearly all the aforementioned g-hits at the beginning so it reads a little less like what EdGl was mocking and tossed in some sources. Jieagles 17:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do realize I was being harsh when I didn't have to be. I apologize. →Ed Gl 18:31, 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. Also, WP:NOT a technical manual. Sandstein 19:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Satay[edit]

Non-notable description of the coding technique. It is quite easy to create on your own, and in fact it is mostly a standards-compliant clean up of the original Flash code, as generated by Adobe/Macromedia Flash IDE. Futurix 19:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The so-called "flash satay" is just the absolutely standard way of using the "object" tag. VoluntarySlave 03:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:13, 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. — CharlotteWebb 06:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Jakob van Oosterzee[edit]

Apparently an article from the 1911 Encyclopedia. May be notable, being a pastor of a university. Doesn't seem very verifyable[47] on the Web. Montchav 19:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article describes the subject as a published poet, which makes him fairly notable, and if the text is indeed from EB then that alone constitutes adequate verifiability. EB tends to be more reliable than the web. Walton monarchist89 19:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep notability may have disappeared since EB 11th nevertheless no urgent need to delete and verifiable. Arnoutf 20:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, google shows a small number of significant references that his theology writings were influential, including in the US. --Dhartung | Talk 23:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , it may be difficult to sort out the notability of someone dead for over 100 years, but the fact that the man is still cited today should give us a little tip... the article should be worked on though Alf photoman 00:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This is an excellent example of why a web search engine test isn't always best test for encyclopedic value. Agent 86 01:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - and with no reservation.Victoriagirl 04:21, 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. --Core desat 04:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Benevolent Dictators for Life[edit]

This page was originally created as a breakout of the Benevolent Dictator for Life (BDFL) article. It has since been decided that a BDFL article is unneccesary, as there is only one BDFL in the world: Guido van Rossum. There is also the SABDFL Mark Shuttleworth, but I don't think these two people alone can be spun out into an article. The previous BDFL article was mostly original research on the presumption that many people call themselves "BDFL". In reality, many open source leaders call themselves just "benevolent dictators", not "benevolent dictators for life".

The list of Benevolent Dictators for Life is a list with only one valid entry in it. I was originally of the opinion that this list should be renamed to "List of open source project leaders", however I now think it would be a difficult job in reliably defining such a list that would be useful. Hence my request simply to delete this page as a no-longer necessary adjunct to the defunct BDFL article. --62.31.67.29 13:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as there is no working BFDL article otherwise I would suggest merge into that. Arnoutf 20:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, particularly now that Benevolent Dictator for Life is a redirect. Agent 86 01:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the...? Good heavens, this is sourceless claptrap! Delete! YechielMan 05:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This may be the article most clearly able to be deleted that I have ever seen in afd. What happened to prod? 74.73.176.167 02:55, 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 no consensus to delete. Note that the article was largely rewritten after the AfD began, adding many references. Merging can still be considered, of course. W.marsh 20:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSTing[edit]

Completely nonverifiable and lacking in sources. Makes no claim to notability, and probably non-notable. Chardish 04:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've done a substantial reduction and rewrite that includes many sources. Two (from The Satellite News, the official MST3K website endorsed by Best Brains) should be considered reliable, but the rest are somewhat shaky. I've asked editors of the article to try to dig up more solid references. The two TSN sources should at least allow a few sentences of this article to be merged into Mystery Science Theater 3000 if we decide not to keep it as a separate article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I respect your desire to clean up the article, the Satellite News articles are primary sources, which, although not objectionable, should be used to supplement third-party sources, not substitute for them. From WP:V: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And I'm afraid the other sources don't work, either: self-published websites are almost never considered reliable. I have found absolutely nothing from a reliable, third-party source that supports the notability or factual accuracy of this article. See also: WP:RS, WP:NOR. - Chardish 20:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although my instinct was to vote delete per WP:NEO, there is now a substantial list of sources showing that the term is in fairly wide use. Walton monarchist89 19:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mystery Science Theater 3000 as suggested in the article itself. Arnoutf 19:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and clean up. The concept was itself brought on by Mystery Science Theater 3000 and is thusly named, so the concept is established - but the concept in the article seems to allude to that it's only found in fanfiction. I should point out that it kind of reaches beyond this - all you have to do is see the sequel to White Fang (film) and you have a perfect case of what you can do in your own home. =) --Dennisthe2 20:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. MSTing is an important genre of parody in science-fiction fandom. --Zeborah 20:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not subjective. If you can't find reliable, third-party sources (not random websites) on the subject of MSTing, it's not notable, and it needs to go. - Chardish 20:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the current books on science fiction and fanfiction at my library are currently out on loan. In the meantime, while I recognise and agree that no single webpage is a reliable source, it does seem to me that the 27,000 google hits in the aggregate do add up to something fairly reliable. I find definitions of MSTing in the official FAQs of at least two non-MST3K newsgroups ([48] for a Star Trek one, and [49] for a Doctor Who one); in addition, I find definitions of it in three languages other than English: [50] in German, [51] in French, and [52] in Swedish. This last, moreover, is on the website of what seems to be a regular science-fiction/fantasy literature magazine. The article on said magazine in the Swedish Wikipedia is barely a stub (my translation of its full text: "Mitrania is a journal for Swedish fantasy, science-fiction and horror.") but it would appear to be a source. --Zeborah 07:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would this Swedish link be enough to satisfy the reference concerns?--Rayc 06:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also located another source, published on an established webzine:

"Sequential Tart's Guide to Anime, Manga, and Miscellanous Japanese Terms: A Glossary". Sequential Tart - A Comics Industry Web Zine. Retrieved 2007-01-30.

I've done a fairly substantial rewrite/rearrangement of the text, references and external links in the article, and have included citations to the Sequential Tart and Mitrania pages. I certainly hope it's enough. "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources." (WP:V) Claims about scientific subjects certainly need scientific references; but on the other side of the "appropriate" coin, I think widespread agreeing definitions on the web should be enough to support an unexceptional claim about a web-based phenomenon. --Zeborah 09:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~and rename~~ or Merge. I was the one who contested the prod. There are hundreds of authors and thousands of pieces of work that fall under category of MSTings. That being said, my initial search produced no sources outside of the actual community of MSTers that talked about the practice. The works are verifiable by going and looking at them, though the terminology is sometimes inconsistent and the only claim to notability is the number of pieces of work. I do remember some off the hand remark about the term in a scholar publication, but can't seem to find it (As well as it wouldn't make much difference). My suggestion is to either merge the practice into the MST3K article or rename it along the lines of "Effects of MST3K...", keeping a redirect from MSTing as we are the top result for that term on google.--Rayc 22:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements changed my opinion to full keep, didn't think anyone could find a good ref for this one, but they did.--Rayc 01:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main MST3K article and redirect. Needs reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Mystery Science Theater 3000. Not notable enough on its own, but well-known among the fandom. -- Kesh 23:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, unless we get better sources. Chardish is incorrect in saying The Satellite News is a primary source. It's a secondary source, compiling, synthesizing, and analyzing MST3K information from the primary sources of the show itself, published conversations with the principles, and other material. But Chardish is accurate about the unreliability of the other current sources. Unless better sources turn up, what we'll be left with are a few sentences based on TSN information which might reasonably be merged into Mystery Science Theater 3000#MST3K on the Internet (where they would unfortunately be the only sourced information in that section thus far). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has lately been dumping and gutting many valuable articles at the whims of one or two subjective editors, and I see no reason why this one should be a casualty to this disturbing trend. Rebochan 22:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you have a Wikipedia policy that supports keeping this article? WP:ILIKEIT is not convincing. -- Kesh 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment -- The notability has been established by references, and can continue to be so. I have noticed that the nominator likes to subjectively deflect references though. Is WP:IDONTLIKEIT now a valid policy as well? Rebochan 16:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The references given are fansites, not reliable sources. Notability does not exist within a fandom, it exists when those outside the fandom take note. Also, one of the references is to a Wiki, which is absolutely not a reliable source. -- Kesh 21:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I presume you meant to link to this page, as the significance of Really Simple Syndication to this debate is not entirely self-evident. To your first point: those outside the MST3K fandom have certainly taken note; the current article includes references from Star Trek fandom, anime fandom, fanfic-in-general fandom (Ms Nitpicker), and sf fandom as a whole (two of them, on sites with editorial overview for frick's sake). You can't argue that MSTing is not notable until it's known outside of sf fandom unless you also argue that apophony is not notable until it's known outside of linguistics. To your second point: the reference to the wiki is to source the claim that wikis and YouTube have been used to create MSTings. Sure enough, that wiki (including its discussion, history and links, of course) shows that wiki and YouTube technology have been used to create MSTings. The history of this page is clearer, perhaps, but I prefer a link to the page with broader scope as it requires less interpretation. These pages are certainly a primary source, but the Reliable Sources policy says that primary sources are allowed; it also says that non-scholarly sources are allowed; and saying you can't use a wiki as a primary source to verify the existence of something which exists on that wiki is like asking someone where your keys are and refusing to accept the fact that they're pointing right at them as verification that the keys are in fact there. Nevertheless, if it is really felt that this particular reference is not sufficient for this particular claim then simply delete the sentence. The article as a whole, however, is perfectly well referenced. This is not an extraordinary claim and so does not require extraordinary measures to verify. --Zeborah 06:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: We have one solid test of notability - the subject of the article needs to be the subject of multiple reliable third-party sources. If reliable third-party sources have not taken it upon themselves to study and research the niceties of fandom, then such information does not have a place on Wikipedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not the place for information that cannot be found in reliable sources. Fanzines border on reliable. Fansites, blogs, newsgroups, and other wikis are anything but. ~~The Satellite News is a primary source, as it is written by the producers of MST3K~~. So we have one single borderline-reliable source in this article. That's not enough to establish notability. - Chardish 07:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Both Sequential Tart and Mitrania are edited webzines, so we have at least two secondary sources. --Zeborah 09:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Chardish, you are absolutely wrong about The Satellite News. It is not written (or even vetted) by anyone from Best Brains, the producers of MST3K. The only connection BBI has is to endorse it as an official source. It is essentially the same thing as any TV show's official website, except it's actually independent of the show and its producers. I agree that we may have no compelling set of multiple independent sources for this article, but please don't push the argument to extremes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Apologies on the Satellite News - I didn't realize that it wasn't produced by Best Brains. (A cursory glance couldn't find anything on the website saying that it isn't, but I'm taking it on good faith that you know what you're talking about.) My belief came from the fact that the "MST3K Info Club" - the same group that registered the Satellite News domain (mst3kinfo.com) - was advertised on hundreds of episodes of MST3K, during the show itself. Regardless of the writers of the content, the criteria for notability require third-party reliable sources, and I doubt that anything officially endorsed by BBI could be considered "third-party." - Chardish 20:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. MiSTing is becoming more and more widely known among the MST3k fan community as a way to keep the concept alive, and it is an extremely accessible form of parody. JD3K 20:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It may be spreading within the fandom, but that doesn't satisfy notability. -- Kesh 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If one day MSTing will become popular enough to justify reliable sources being written about it, it will merit an article then and only then. We should not keep an non-notable article that may one day attain notability. - Chardish 07:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I have just listed 9 fully cited books at Talk:MSTing#Possible sources that mention or discuss in detail the general phenomenon of MSTing, although none use that word. (I feel sure more can be found; I just ran out of time to search for now.) All of them give credit to MST3K as the archetypical (if not necessarily original) purveyor of irreverent "ironic commentary" in modern (American) culture, and many specifically talk about vox populi use of this technique. The article may not currently reflect information from these sources, but this gives serious support to the idea that this phenomenon is well-known, even if the term itself isn't. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If they don't reference the term, then it's clear the term does not meet notability. If the citations can show the phenomenon has notability, then at least the article needs renamed. -- Kesh 23:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We already have one reliable source that defines the term. We have no other specific term for the phenomenon. I'm open to suggestions for alternative names, if we come across more sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is why I suggested a rename, since the practice has been known as rifting, riffing, MSTing, meta-MSTing, meta-meta-meta-MSTing (yes, really), MiSTing, MST, Mary Sue torture, Etc. It isn't always confined to fan fiction as well. The practice is an extension of the concepts found in MST3K, fan fiction being the most notable side effect.--Rayc 05:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do we have any reliable sources for any of those terms? I suspect we don't for any except possibly "riffing", which has the much broader meaning of "improvising on a given theme". (See wikt:riff.) I see the possibility of including some of the material in this article in a broader Riff article, which currently only speaks to the musical connotation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        My memory, google, an a host of other non-reliable sources. The renaming I was talking about was repurposing the scope of the article as a content fork of MST3K in some way, since the people writing the main MST3K don't seem to want to have it dumped back into their article. I'm writing this from my university's library and have found it has at least two of the books you listed. One is checked out, I'm off to find the other one.--Rayc 23:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and a possible rename if a more appropriate name can be found. The concept -seems- to be notable (per JeffQ), but the name might not be. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ncn High Pavement[edit]

- Jack (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but Stubify - the "students" section is clear nonsense that would be speediable, but assuming the school itself actually exists, then it probably merits an article (since the failure of WP:SCHOOL there's no policy on inclusion of schools, but most schools have their own articles at present). Reduce to stub, however, until accurate and sourced information can be provided. Walton monarchist89 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete student section is nonsense, the rest seems to refer to a section of a school that in itself is hardly notable. Arnoutf 19:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Most of this article is either libelous or nonsense. If it is desirable to have an article about this school at all, it would be better to have this deleted from the edit history and have someone start over from scratch. --Metropolitan90 22:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 3/4 of this is simple nonsense, besides that,its a non-notable group in a non-notable school. SkierRMH, 02:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequately referenced. And drivel. WMMartin 14:12, 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, retaining talk page since it contains a VFD discussion. --Core desat 04:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Tirado[edit]

The article survived a VFD in 2004, as outlined on the article's discussion page. The template for 2nd nomination does not appear to work, perhaps because that was before AFD replaced VFD. He is described as a popular singer in New York City in the 1980's but I can't find any articles about him in the New York Times from that or any any period. He is described as a friend of two notable musicians, but that does not satisfy WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. To have an article, he should have been the primary subject of articles multiple independent reliable sources. He should have issued popular records, or had other claims to fame than being described as a good and popular singer without good sources to show that was so. Seems to lack proof of enough having once had notability enough for an article Edison 23:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. I note that both responses to the citation needed tags I applied on 2 November 2006 fail to satisfy. The first, intended to back up the claim that Tirado was known as "Phil Spector's pet" contains no such information. Furthermore, the writing contained in the link was penned by Tirado himself. The second reference, which should support the statement that Tirado opened for the Main Ingredient at Sweetwater's with a performance that critics considered "witty and fascinating" contains nothing about Sweetwater's, the Main Ingredient, or any specific Tirado performance - and includes no critical comment .Victoriagirl 00:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Victoriagirl; article even admits that he is not currently a professional musician. Also no evidence of having released records, or of independent third-party coverage. Walton monarchist89 19:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no good sources for the claim to notability. Sdedeo (tips) 21:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some more references than the “list of famous Puertoricans” and citations are added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 00:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am Roberto Tirado and although I am considered for deletion at Wikipedia, I am not in any way disappointed or upset at the consensus for deletion. Although it appears that there are criteria to be met for maintenance of an article in Wikipedia, there are actually much more contributions that have not been written about me here. In addition, I am a published authored and songwriter, among other talents. There have been numerous newspaper articles in the Spanish media written about me, of which I conserve copies, and a new biography about singer Lucecita Benitez will also contain a section about me. All things considered, I remain available for any questions or comments at [email protected]. Thank you!

Comment Spanish language newspapers or magazines could be good sources to show in a verifiable way that someone is notable. And Wikipedia's policy is that notability does not go away; if Roberto Tirado was a notable musician 20 years ago, and if there were several articles in "reliable sources" WP:RS where Mr. Tirado was a primary subject, and they were substantial and not just, say, a mention that he was appearting somewhere, but a review, that could clearly support keeping the article. I did check the New York Times, but I have no idea what might have appeared in the Spanish language papers. Edison 23:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I agree that Spanish language media should be considered - and encourage those with the knowledge to pass on references - I do find it curious that Mr Tirado, "a popular singer/musician" and "hot item in the latin night club circuit" escaped the notice of The New York Times. I'm afraid I can't give too much weight to Mr Tirado as a published author since his book, The Chosen Journey, was published by Trafford Publishing, a vanity press in Victoria, British Columbia. I can find no listing for any biography of Lucecita Benitez (new or otherwise) at the Library of Congress, abebooks, or amazon.com. While I think the article could be strengthened by the inclusion of information on Mr Tirtado's album, I note that a goodle search for "Lando records" (the label mentioned in the article) + "Tirado" garners one ghit - that being this very article. The album in question is not held by the Library of Congress. Victoriagirl 00:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times is NOT the defintive source for Latino or Hispanic artists, actors, etc. Rarely does this NY newspaper write reviews on Latino or Hispanic artists unless it's a funeral such as Celia Cruz' or perhaps Jennifer Lopez' latest films. Once more, I have no problem with deletion of my post. Yes, Trafford Publishing IS a vanity press, but Amazon does sell my book and although Victoriagirl does make excellent search, my two recordings were published under Richport Music Company, of which is registered with the State of New York as a legitimate business. One English language newspaper that I have appeared in was the Daily News on Friday, March 5, 1993, when an ad appeared for my Sweetwater's cafe concert in the Entertainment section. Otherwise, the following newspapers and magazines have written articles and notes about me: NOTICIAS DEL MUNDO, FARANDULA, ESTRELLAS, EL EXPRESO HISPANO, EL VOCERO. Obviously, I keep copies of most of the articles written about me. In fact, I have been contacted by various people to make a comeback, most notably by Ray Rodriguez and his Latin Jazz Band, of whom is freely available on the net. Nonetheless, I appreciate Wikipedia's writers and volunteers' efforts to verify the veracity of its contents. Roberto Tirado

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train ^{take the} 19:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social rights in Islam[edit]

Anything relevant in this article has already been presented in other articles like Five Pillars of Islam. What is presented is not sourced and therefore is unverifiable. Sefringle 06:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 09:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Per nom, contains no sources and is unverifiable. This article's title and content do not match. The title implies a discussion of social rights, whereas the article only describes responsibilities. An article bearing a title with such broad implications (affecting a faith group of more than 1 billion people across 1,400 years of history) should be researched and well sourced from the outset. This article is a pin cushion for vandals and detracts from the quality and credibility of Wikipedia. -- Aylahs ^(talk) 15:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like a POV fork. Also unsourced (as stated above). Walton monarchist89 19:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep IMHO this is an important issue that warrants an article. The current article is a stub, and I agree what there is is not very promising, but I would give it a chance to develop in a more promising direction Arnoutf 19:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While the subject is interesting, and an article could be written about it, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't just hold out hope someone will fix the article eventually. If it's a notable subject, someone can write a brand new (and properly sourced) article in the future, then add it to Wikipedia. -- Kesh 23:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not like when we kill the articles when they are premature. The topic is valid and there are many other article on the same lines for example Prisoners rights in Islam, Animal welfare in Islam, Children's rights in Islam, Social rights in Islam and so on. Give few months time and if the article does not improve then we will delete it. (I will support deletion then). --- ALM 19:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well then again, the creater of the article did nominate it for deletion himeslf earlier and has continuously blanked the page. [see here]--Sefringle 22:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The articles that you mentioned are similarly impoverished and serve as examples of why this article should be deleted. Given the scope of their topics and the clear lack of quality, they should also be rewritten or purged from wikipedia. While the topics themselves have merit, the articles lack research and credible sources, and in their current state they are likely to be a source of misinformation. This article is headed down the same path. -- Aylahs ^(talk) 23:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments That why I am saying that give some time to develop it. So that we can work on it. Do not kill those articles right away. Do not bite people around. Do not be hostile towards others. There is material available and we know about it. Give some time to develop those articles. Give another AFD after few months and then we will see. --- ALM 10:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long should we wait? I've seen articles survive an AfD for just that reason, and then stay unchanged for a year. Which is why I cite WP:CRYSTAL in these situations. If the article can be saved, it should be done within the scope of this AfD. The burden is on those who maintain the article to show it is notable and verifiable. If that can't be done by now, the article should be deleted and someone can rewrite it later with more sources. It's best to write an article like this in your User space until it has enough references to survive an AfD, then move it to mainspace. -- Kesh 21:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has the potential. --Aminz 02:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that article needs to be re-written and expand, but article itself has potention, as Aminz said. TruthSpreader^reply 11:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not enough reason to delete this article.Bless sins 16:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation. This article is poorly written and not sourced so it has to go. If there is a better article to be written, then let somebody write it and re-create it. --Richard 07:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor M Medina[edit]

Apparently not notable: a "filmmaker" with no films? Tagged since December 2006. A vanity insertion perhaps? Wetman 05:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly likely a vanity article, fails WP:N. janejellyroll 05:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 05:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete post production assistants may get a credit in the film but that does not make them notable, and actors whose best part was Barkeeper2 in an little known film are way below notability too. That does not mean that shortly down the line we won't have to recreate this article Alf photoman 00:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's also a Victor M. Medina which, according to the talk page, was written by the subject. --Jamoche 23:33, 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Although mainly from tabloids, the present sources - given their number and diversity - appear sufficient to support the current noncontroversial content for the purposes of WP:V. Sandstein 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Phillips[edit]

To be honest, this is speediable, as no claim is made for significance. As, however, someone "prodded" it, and an anon removed the template without making any attempt to improve the article or discuss it at Talk, but claiming that it ought to be discussed, I've brought it here. One of many weather-forecasters, not significant enough for an article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just to make things clear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As some admins seem to assume that new evidence will automatically convince earlier contributors to a discussion, I'll just make clear here that it hasn't changed my view. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Valrith 18:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ - no assertion of notability at all. Walton monarchist89 19:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced and referenced showing accordance to WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 23:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Besides being a country-wide Northern Ireland weather presenter, there's a BBC Northern Ireland profile [53] and she's the subject of multiple news pieces [54] [55][56]. A limited Google News Archive serach (search terms "'Angie Phillips' weather") brings up even more works. [57] Passes the regular WP:BIO guildelines. --Oakshade 08:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Amendment - Yet two more articles found about the subject [58][59], these times from The News Letter and The Daily Mirror. --Oakshade 17:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Google search gave thirteen hits, most of them newspaper trivia pieces. That the BBC site has a profile of one of its employees is irrelevant, of course. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO clearly states that "trivial coverage" refers to such pieces "as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths." The multiple The People articles are well beyond the scope of "trivial". An editor might not like the reason for that coverage, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a basis to delete an article. And having a profile by (on being a presenter on) the BBC, one of the largest and arguably the most prestigous broadcaster in the world, demonstrates further notability. --Oakshade 16:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She's having a third baby... this makes her notable? It suggests to me that the tabloid newspaper in question was having a slow news day. And you miss the point about the BBC; companies often put profiles of their employees on their own Web pages — that isn't a sign of notability.
Note that I'm not trying to do her down; I'm sure that she's an excellent person, good at what is doubtless an interesting job, pleasant to be with, a good mother, and so on. I'd very likely rather spend an evening in her company than in that of most of the people with Wikipedia articles. But can you imagine any other encyclopædia having an article on here? The Britannica? The Chambers? Encarta even? So why should we? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to change the definition of "trivial" in WP:BIO (the inclusion crietria in Wikipeida, not Britannica or Chambers), you can make suggestions on its talk page, but your comments just confirm this subject adhears easily to WP:BIO and its non-trivial coverage clause. And the attack on the The People for having "a slow news day" is irrelevent and adds to the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, this time regarding news-coverage. --Oakshade 16:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I made the previous repsone, I've found this person is the subject of two more published works from The News Letter and The Daily Mirror [60][61]- These are non-baby subject articles. We're at 5 published works now. --Oakshade 17:39, 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.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was requested at DRV that this AfD be relisted to allow more debate after edits made by Oakshade. -- A Train ^{take the} 19:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have changed my earlier vote; the improved sourcing constitutes adequate evidence of coverage by third-party sources. Walton monarchist89 20:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Covered only by the tabloids, mostly in The People, the News of the World's lagging competitor, I'm not sure that the bottom of the barrel of British journalism counts as a reliable source. The articles required a fee to view them but the only one that seemed like it was a true article rather than a brief blurb was the one in The News Letter, but even if you consider that a reliable source, it still doesn't get us to the multiple requirement. JChap2007 03:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if you feel like discounting the mulitple The People articles (WP:BIO does not ban "tabloid" from its "published works" clause), the Daily Mirror, The News Letter and the Fresh Magazine ones easily qualify as "multiple." --Oakshade 04:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, but WP:BIO says the sources must be reliable. Qua re if the worst of the British tabloids qualify. Anyway, the article in The News Letter is the only one that is longer than a mere blurb (a trivial mention), so the multiple requirement still wouldn't be satisfied. JChap2007 04:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not true. The News Letter is more than a "blurb" or "trivial mention" as the free preview shows 262 of 1,759 characters. Plus The Daily Mirror article is also more than a "blurb" with that free preview showing 94 out of 677 characters, and the Fresh Magazine article is even more than both. And The People is still a published work satisfing WP:BIO notability guildlines - "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries except for the following: Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths." Whether it's a tabloid or not, it's still a published work. --Oakshade 04:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Right, the News Letter is the only source of any length for this. 677 characters is under a hundred words. Fresh magazine is put out by the Health Promotion Agency and its brief interview was about her childrens' eating and exercise habits. And you are ignoring the part of WP:BIO that says that the sources must be reliable. JChap2007 13:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You are confirming that the News Letter article is more than "just mention[ing] the person in passing." 100 words is well beyond "mentioning in passing". And the Fresh Magazine is a published work under WP:BIO and doesn't fall under any of the "exceptions". Who publishes the magazine is irrelevant as the "source is independent of the person." As for the reliable sources, that refers to accuracy of content, not notability. If the National Enquirer writes several article about someone, that someone is notable, no matter how light weight the articles are. And there are two new published works from the national charity Woodland Trust that are primarily about her [62][63]. We're up to eight published works about the subject. --Oakshade 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I confirmed it in my first post and in each subsequent post. The problem is we still don't have multiple articles of which she is the subject that are longer than blurbs (and yes, 100 words is just a blurb). The Fresh magazine piece is just one in which she, along with other minor celebrities are asked questions about their children's diets. A typical example is "Do your children like fruit and veg.?" It doesn't provide any information about her. Honestly, how are we supposed to use that as a source to write the article: "Angie Philllips, whose children like fruit and veg., is a weather presenter for the BBC"? The Woodland Trust pieces similarly do not talk about her, but contain quotes from her in support of its mission. JChap2007 19:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the confirmation of the confirmation :). A 100-word peice, whether someone labels it a "blurb" or not, is beyond WP:BIO's "passing mention." Even if you feel like excluding all three of The People articles about her, plus the Fresh Magazine and the Woodland Trust articles, there's still two published works (i.e. "multiple") cited that are primarily about the subject.--Oakshade 21:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 06:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even the delete !vote above states she's had repeated media coverage... so what if its a tabloid? It is not our job to judge whether or not what a source says is true. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sources are supposed to be reliable — but more importantly, many of those sources are saying no more about her than that she had a third baby... If this were an article about someone notable for having three babies(!) then I suppose that those sources would provide verifiability and notability. Any presenter on local radio or television is likely to have been the subject of mini-article in newspapers on slow news days (I've been the subject of a couple — one in the Times, one in the New Statesman, because even academics get this sort of thing — should there be an article on me? Articles on academics are constantly being deleted on grounds on=f non-notability, because it's deemed that what they've done doesn't raise them sufficiently above their peers. Apparently they don't need to have written a successful book, just had an artcile about their child-bearing capabilities in the Sun); are we to have articles on every such person? They're not even micro-celebrities. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there should be an article on you, Mel. :) (unless your real name is different, you didn't come up on a G-news Archives search like Angie Phillips did several times). Articles on academics are also constantly being kept because they pass WP:BIO. But you're missing the point. WP:BIO is passed here. Whether an editor is assuming a news outlet is "having a slow news day" is irrelevent. How do you know that major events weren't occuring on those days anyway? It's 100% speculation and that is in no way a basis for deciding if a subject is notable. And as stated above, even if you feel like discounting 3 of the published works about Angie Phillips you don't like, there's still 2 more non-trivial published works about her that are not just "passing mentions". --Oakshade 10:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do come up (my real name is a dark and deadly secret, known to a very few...). The point is, though, that those articles on me wouldn't demonstrate my notability (and neither or them was a passing mention). Note also that WP:BIO only offers guidelines; editors are free to delete an article that meets the criteria there, and to keep an article that doesn't. (And I wasn't saying that my belief that it must have been a slow news day was grounds for ignoring it, incidentally.) Do you think that she's more notable than all the other presenters, newsreaders, weather-reporters, et al.? If not, should we have an article on each of them? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the primary criteria of WP:BIO is met. If you want to arbitrarily ignore official policy guidelines on specific subjects you don't like, well, editors are free to have their opinion, but that's not in line with WP:NOTE or WP:BIO, with the exception of WP:IGNORE of course. And many news anchor persons and weather reporters/metorologists do have their own articles when they fit the notability criterion. --Oakshade 18:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Nardman1 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the documentation provided by Oakshade, this individual appears to meet and exceed the bar set by our current WP:BIO guideline. (jarbarf) 16:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this would pass WP:BIO, if the sources were reliable... Addhoc 19:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless reliably sourced, although this search appears to indicate notability, the sources are unreliable tabloids... Addhoc 19:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you only referring to The People newspaper? Or also the The News Letter and The Daily Mirror newspapers also cited? --Oakshade 21:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the UK press there is widespread acceptance that publications such as The Times are reliable, while The Sun isn't. Essentially, I would suggest The People and the The Mirror are fairly similar to The Sun and therefore unreliable. Addhoc 22:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just confused. Do you feel that if this person is the subject of an article in The Daily Mirror which has a circulation of over 4 million, that doesn't make the person notable? Or are you concerned with the content of the article about her being reliable? --Oakshade 22:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at WP:N, notability isn't newsworthiness and sources must be reliable. Tabloid journalism doesn't, in my view, qualify. 23:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
But if someone is the subject of multiple non trivial published works, whether it's from a tabloid or not, they qualify as notable under WP:BIO. If a extemely popular tabloid-like newspaper such as The Daily Mirror has an article about her, she's notable per WP:BIO. --Oakshade 23:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the second paragraph of WP:BIO it very clearly states that sources must be reliable. According to WP:RS a reliable secondary source is "the informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources to synthesize a conclusion". For the avoidance of doubt that isn't a description of UK tabloid journalism. Addhoc 23:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade seems to be arguing that being in a tabloid isn't evidence of notability, it creates notability (or else I don't see the relevance of the circulation figure, popularity, etc.).--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's evidence of notability. And that she's the subject of a published work from a newspaper with circulation of over 4 million per day is irrelevant?? Sorry, but it's VERY relevant. That the editors of a newspaper that millions of people read every day chose to run a story about this subject is not only evidence of notability, but strong evidence. --Oakshade 00:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train ^{take the}

Dick Hillis[edit]

Delete WP:BIO Doesn't seem to be a significant author or missionary. TonyTheTiger 18:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the claim that he has authored "several books" would be evidence of notability, but more evidence of third-party coverage is needed. Walton monarchist89 19:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep for now, but this has to evolve in the time to come. Arnoutf 19:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- just one or two vanity press books and no attention to them from independent sources. Sdedeo (tips) 21:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment has anybody checked Steel In His Soul, by Jan Winebrenner, 1996, WinePress Publishing ? Maybe there is something there. I am pretty far away from a good library at this point Alf photoman 00:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WinePress Publishing is a vanity press (i.e., pay them and they'll publish your book.) Sdedeo (tips) 04:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete

Comment - I am new to this - I created this page as a work in progress.... I have just added numerous works (14) that he has written - and I will research more. Also, I intend to add more about his life and ministry. He is was a missionary statesman - and is widely known and quoted throughout the Christian world. DaveDV 20:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave -- what you need to do is provide independent sources establishing notability -- e.g., reviews of his books in major newspapers, or non-trivial news coverage of Dick in general. Sdedeo (tips) 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will look for this - help me to understand why this is necessary since his most significant role was not as an author, but as a missionary, professor, and founder of a world-wide missions organization.DaveDV 04:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWikipedia is a tertiary source. It does not judge which primary sources are important. It reports that secondary sources have cited primary sources as important. With this in mind you have to establish that in one of his roles experts consider him notable. Report that here in WP. TonyTheTiger 20:09, 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. Sandstein 19:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future Lovers/I Feel Love & Music Inferno[edit]

Not only is there no source or confirmation whatsoever that this will be a single, its really poorly written and even the title of the article is formatted horribly. I've found no evidence that this song will be released as a single. - eo 18:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If kept, each song should be given its own article. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:10, 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 16:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TheHOPEsymphony[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Fredrick day 18:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:BAND. Link to the band's Myspace does not constitute evidence of notability, and no evidence of independent coverage is provided. Walton monarchist89 19:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete non notable Arnoutf 19:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:10, 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. --Core desat 04:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Sherwood[edit]

Advert written by user:JcsherwoodSH1854 selling himself as a Sherlock Holmes impersonator. -- RHaworth 18:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; not notable; clear violation of WP:AUTO. Walton monarchist89 19:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleteper Walton monarchist89. Arnoutf 19:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete problems with WP:COI should make us think twice about keeping it... nevertheless, if there is someone neutral to re-write the article properly referenced and cited .... Alf photoman 00:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ignoring the autobiographical style and unverifiability of content for a moment, I really don't see what's going to come close to satisfying WP:BIO here. I find the record inserted at the top of the article somewhat improbable, if not impossible. I'm not particularly familiar with the world of psychics and magicians though, so if further sources are provided I may reconsider. After all, there is nothing more stimulating than a case where everything goes against you. CiaranG 13:13, 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 21:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Brakes[edit]

Deletion/redirection suggested on talk page. Notability tag removed with no comment. Made by single purpose account. Before that it redirected to the unrelated Brakes (band). I thought it should get an AfD before one editor redirected to the unrelated article again. I express no opinion. PrimeHunter 18:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brakes (band). No establishment of notability, but assertion thereof. --Dennisthe2 19:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Among other things: The Brakes [are] featured in H&R Block's new "TaxCut program" advertising campaign. Starting on January 8, television ads featuring the band ... have begun to appear on networks like MTV, VH1, FOX, WB and Comedy Central with recent sightings during favorites like The Daily Show and The Simpsons. Additionally, the band will also be the face of the "TaxCut Program"'s print campaign which includes the back cover of the current issue of Entertainment Weekly, the January 26, 2006 issue of Rolling Stone and upcoming issues of Us Weekly. [64] I'll post this and other acceptable external links I found, in the article, and I ask that the two editors who have expressed their opinions so far take another look at that article. -- John Broughton ^(♫♫) 23:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure why this is being subjected for deletion. I put this up here to try to get more people to know one of my favorite bands, especially since there has been some international controversy over the group's name. i'm extremely new to wikipedia and still just trying to figure out how everything works here. there isn't really a conflict of interest since i'm just someone who likes the band and not anyone who is to gain anything from the article being posted. i tried to put up pictures that i got from the band's website but didn't know how to exactly list them as licensing. i asked the band about posting them and they said it was fine. if someone could help me out with keeping this page up i'd really appreciate it. thanks! --Jesscosca (talk • contribs) 18:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brakes (band). Taking the criteria on WP:MUSIC, they have no charted hit, had no record gone gold, had no albums released on a major label or larger indie, have no notable members, do not represent a major part of a 'scene' or musical movement, have won no major awards or competitions, have been the subject of no major media articles and do not appear to have been on rotation on a major radio network or been the subject of a broadcast on such a network. Furthermore, outside of these criteria they do not appear to be signed to any label at all (feel free to correct me though) and a search on allmusic seems to return results only for a 60's band of the same name, so it doesn't appear as though many people are listening to them. The only criteria they begin to match is number 9 - "has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page)" - but playing on the TV commercial of a personal finance company seems to stretch the concept of notability to its very limit. Newartriot 03:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think John has shown that the band has notability though association with other notable endeavors. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of South Park enemies[edit]

Delete - "Enemies" is POV and a number of the characters listed don't seem to have been "enemies" at all. It appears that all of the characters are listed on one or more of the character lists linked to the main South Park article so there is no need to merge thise content anywhere. Otto4711 19:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - consists of original research, in that all the content is the author's own interpretation of the series. Also has inherent POV issues. Walton monarchist89 19:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term "enemy" depends on the side of the conflict and on the viewer himself, thus it has a point of view. The entire article is based off the writer's own research as well. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and thoroughly revise Althoug the term enemy is indeed POV and there seems to be some original research, IMHO these supporting characters deserve some kind of grouped listing. Arnoutf 19:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To what do you suggest the article be renamed to eliminate POV problems? "Enemy" is POV, "Villain" is POV. "Antagonist" is POV. And whatever it's renamed to, by what standard is it determined who is a !enemy, and to whom?

Delete OR that requires POV. Wryspy 19:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research MLA 21:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessarym and OR/POV. 23skidoo 01:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the term "enemy" isn't defined, the entire list would always be WP:POV. As it stands, I'd pull a couple of them off the list as non-enemies. And these characters are already listed in South Park "occassional", "minor", or "One-off" characters. SkierRMH, 04:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these should be listed under minor characters, I agree with the others here that this is an unnecessary and often incorrect classification, particularly as South Park frequently turns the plot around so that the "enemy" is not an enemy after all. --Canley 23:48, 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. --Core desat 04:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iceburn[edit]

No real evidence of notability per WP:WEB. Possibly comes under WP:NFT as well. Walton monarchist89 19:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probable neologism as well as reasons given above. – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Arnoutf 19:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable use of a non-notable image; original research Leebo⁸⁶ 19:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, WP:OR, and WP:N. (hello.jpg, anyone?)
Delete, probably could have been speedied. Natalie 21:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NEO. Keep the discussion short, it's a speedy candidate. Kai A. Simon 23:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment - on further inspection, the author even admits that the image in question is "semi-popular". Doesn't bode well for its notability. Walton monarchist89 17:40, 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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 20:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sephardic Pizmonim Project[edit]

Non-notable community project. Current assertions of notability in the article are unsourced. DLand ^TALK 17:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 09:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least for now. ghits only produced wikipedia mirrors and a few other non-related sites. not notable enough for now. maybe someday. --Tainter 18:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm certainly favorably disposed to keeping what seems to be a worthwhile cultural project, and I understand the Web may not be the best place to look for notability in this situation, but there need to be sorurces indicating notability to avoid deletion, and there currently aren't any. The one independent link provided, the Brooklyn College News article, is on recent alumni and mentions the project only in passing as part of a brief paragraph on an alumnus. There need to be sources that say something substantial about the project, enough to verify an encyclopedia article and establish notability. --Shirahadasha 19:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Weak delete as we're having real trouble getting it cited. And it's somewhat annoying as I too would be favourable disposed to keep and have been searching for cites in my own time to save this article but so far can't find any as it's not really my field. For some reason I came over this article whilst backtracking an edit to a template which broke the template and saw an unusual pattern of edits by a user David Betesh and an IP address 216.46.79.2 (who are the same IMHO). Their idea of what constitutes "notable" hasn't really changed since this edit [65] back in October last year from now where they added themselves as "Notable Alumni" to the Brooklyn_College article; err wouldn't the date of graduations of the other notables give you a clue ?. I must admit I've added a TEST3 and a LONGTERM4IM on their talk page as stuff gets changed without any talk. I want people to stay as editors so quite willing to remove any warnings if I saw a pattern of edits that drew a line in the sand and started from afresh but yesterdays edit [66] broken the references in that article: does this person even know about watchlists and edit reviews ?. Ttiotsw 20:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**Comment to me - there I was about to change my mind (full tummy edit as per WP:COOL as new stuff has been added which makes it look much better and what do I see...216.46.79.2 AKA the web site owner AKA David Betesh has removed AfD notice and mucked around with the same set of articles in the same way ! I've thus discounted my delete to a weak delete as I can't trust what's been added, though it seems on the surface better. If we can get a CD ASIN or similar ID for that CD they made then that would make it a keep IMHO. I'm just really disappointed about the way the editor has gone about it. He's not making friends here (especially with edits like this [67]). Ttiotsw 20:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep and relist if necessary after a more concentrated effort. Cannot any of the people associated with the project tell where material reporting their work might be located.? Perhaps the NYC Jewish newspapers, etc. ? DGG 22:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now) because at this point it's basically a stub, and needs time to develop, after that it could be evaluated again. (Also, there are relatively few articles relating to Category:Sephardi Jews topics.) It's official website seems to make a good case [68] BUT this is a conditional decision since an important concern here is that this article's creator is User:David Betesh who is also the creator of this organization [69]: "He is also the founder of the "The Sephardic Pizmonim Project" [70] that probably runs counter to WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. IZAK 09:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment One reference from a 3rd part has been added & the author is looking for more. DGG 16:59, 22 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, W.marsh 19:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I realize this has been open for a while already, but I am relisting to attract some fresh eyes. References were added late and I think this needs some further review. Thanks. --W.marsh 19:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. It's a stub, let it grow! --Dennisthe2 19:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure this satisfies WP:N or WP:CORP. There are at least a couple citations, though, that might do that. Citing the organization's website and "sister" project don't count. I think this has the potential to be a relevant article, provided more reliable sources are found. However, as it stands, this is teetering towards deletion. -- Kesh 23:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really don't have a reason to delete, but I feel like sticking up for DLand for nominating a potentially nonnotable musical entity. YechielMan 05:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article makes explicit claims of notability with sources provided. Any article with a delete vote using the pathetic excuse of "I really don't have a reason to delete" deserves to be kept on that basis alone. Alansohn 14:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding sources:I have looked into the references provided by User:David Betesh. First of all, the only relevant text for the article in the book Aleppo: City of Scholars is on page 58, not 58-62. The text is as follows:

"Mr. David Betesh, a great-grandson of Gabriel Shrem, received these tapes [of pizmonim] as a Bar Mitzvah gift from his grandmother, Florence Zeitouni, the daughter of Gabriel Shrem, and resolved to pass on this treasured gift to the entire community. He re-released and upgraded both the published and the unpublished works of his great-grandfather to create an inclusive and wide-ranging recording of pizmonim. The CD set, which is distributed by the Bnai Yosef Synagogue, also includes an explanation of the origin of each maqam, as well as the perashah or occasion during which it should be used and why."

While this reference certainly illustrates the importance of the Sephardic Pizmonim Project, it does not illustrate its notability at all. One short paragraph within a veritable tome of information about the Syrian Jewish community does not constitute notability - not even among Syrians - and definitely not for Wikipedia's standards. As for the article in Community Magazine, all it indicates is that the Project was an idea that sparked interest in 2004 in the editors of Community Magazine, a publication with an exceedingly limited readership demographic. It is not an independent source to boot. The Sephardic Pizmonim Project is a nice and noble endeavor (kudos to David Betesh) but it is simply not notable. --DLand ^TALK 16:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per discussion above, I feel the subject simply does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There is not enough outside sources to discuss the matter, yet. Perhaps when it becomes more notable, an article would be appropriate here. -- Kesh 20:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I was for a delete but have stuck out my delete (see a few entries back above) and given the cite in the book I feel that there is sufficient traction for a weak keep with a stub on it so people can see it's coming along. This is a niche topic (we're not talking manufactured Europop songs after all) and after some searching I feel it would be a loss to Wikipedia to remove this article. We really need a different criteria to judge this type of "cultural artifact" from more modern or more commercial content. Like recordings of the last person to talk in a niche spoken language it is important to humanity but no one is expected to make much money from it. Compare that to a garage band recording - probably same low cashflow but I question the value to humanity (kind of said jokingly but it's the best analogy I could think of right now). I personally think we need to look at how to judge notability of this niche content so we don't set too high a hurdle and lose culturally valuable content. As long as the "author/web site owner/wikipedia editor" tries to stay detached from what is probably quite an emotive and engaging subject for them and thinks critically about how what they add will be viewed by others who have only a tangential concern about the topic (e.g. like me). Ttiotsw 12:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Nimmo[edit]

Hoax/joke/non-notable. Deprodded without comment. Pan Dan 19:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only Google results for Joshua Nimmo are for his Wikipedia article, the polo article (to which he was added by the creator of the Joshua Nimmo article) and Wikipedia mirrors. Leebo⁸⁶ 19:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very likely a hoax Arnoutf 19:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like the not-so-reliable sources have been removed, no other sources available. --Dennisthe2 19:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly referenced and sourced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 00:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Saif[edit]

Seems like a personal page for publicity. Should maintain faculty page, rather populating wikipedia. Suchmuch 05:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It fails WP:BIO. Nothing special about this person and have not achieved anything. Doing Phd at young age is not significant and neither is doing post doc from MIT. --- ALM 20:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the first Pakistani to achieve a Computer-Science PhD at Cambridge (even at a young age) is not sufficient for notability, the rest of his academic achievements are even less noticealbe. Arnoutf 20:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 21:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above.Proabivouac 21:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources and references does not improve the quality of the article Alf photoman 00:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 08:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article's subject fails notability, there is very little concrete information about his accomplishments and contributions, and specifically no sources are presented that verify any of the information. -- Aylahs ^(talk) 14:37, 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 16:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godless (band)[edit]

Just FYI, it has been through the AfD process once before, the outcome being no consensus. The arguments put forth then for deletion are still those used here: although it might very well be the second ever metal band from Puerto Rico, it is not notable. Yes, it is included in the vast archives of Rockdetector, and yes, it is included in the Encyclopaedia Metallum. That does not make it notable. It simply fails WP:MUSIC, according to me. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Cornell Rockey 14:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only sources are trivial. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Eluchil404 08:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's rationale:

This case is principally about whether "Socionomics" is – currently – a sufficiently notable scientific concept (or term) to be included in Wikipedia. As this issue has been discussed here in great detail and with extensive references to policies and guidelines, and as this is not a matter of applying core policies that override any possible consensus, the numerical consensus is determinative. With eight to four editors in favour of deletion, the consensus to delete is also clear. I'm discounting the opinion of the account with seven edits, but not that of User:Rgfolsom even though he is apparently in a conflict of interest here.

The content is available on request for mergers, subject to consensus of editors at the target article. I don't think this deletion will prove to be an impediment to the current ArbCom case, as all arbitrators are admins and will be able to access (or make accessible if required) the deleted history.

Socionomics[edit]

Vanicruftspam of a somewhat "cloaked" sort. The article is correct in stating that "socionomics" is a term coined by the (barely notable) crank stockmarket "analyist" Robert Prechter. What may mislead discussion here is that Prechter has been pretty assiduous in inventing apparently independent attention to the idea.

New Scientist is cited as a source for comment on Prechter's coinage, but that article is actually not on "socionomics" but rather the kooky (but possibly notable) Elliott wave principle which Prechter seems to be piggybacking on.
The next independent source cited for mention of "socionomics" only mentions the book in the bibliography and nowhere uses the term in the text (i.e., the article's claim that the article "describes [socionomics] in detail" is false.
As with all good vanikookery, "socionomics" has a website/foundation (founded, of course, by Prechter) where "papers" are posted -- there aren't that many (looks like six total?), and the journal is not peer-reviewed. (There is also a different "Tuscon Center" [71], described as an "an internet educational organization" that carries five additional PDFs generously described as "papers".
There is the claim that American Political Science Association has somehow endorsed the theory of socionomics -- this is false. Actually, it appears only that Prechter (along with dozens of others) contributed an unspecified question to a "pilot survey" (and it wasn't the APSA, it was the American National Election Studies project.)
Once you get beyond these very specious claims -- which in the end amount to (generously) two or three peer reviewed papers (the Journal of Behavioral Finance published one paper by Precheter, and let's be generous and say he has two more somewhere in the wings) in a field that produces thousands on thousands of such papers a year -- there's not much left to say about the theory. The rather nonsensical material detailing the nature of "socionomics" is unsourced.
An apparent claim to notability comes in the "criticism" section where it appears independent researchers have considered it significant enough to criticize. Not the case -- the two quotes that might be said to be directed at socionomics come from a documentary comissioned by the foundation itsef (i.e., the two independent scientists didn't write a paper or anything -- just said a few words for the camera.) A paper supposedly directed against socionomics actually debunks the Elliott wave principle.

So, OK, there you have it. I don't have a beef with socionomics the theory (personally consider it just another crank theory.) The question is whether or not it is a notable crank theory like Time Cube or possibly the Elliott wave principle. I believe the points above demonstrate that the apparent institutional and independent attention socionomics receives is fictional and the actual impact comes down to one or two personal websites and possibly one or two peer reviewed papers -- neither of which are sufficient criteria for notability.

Crucially, "IMO" and "YMMV". This deletion debate is in part a debate we're having all over the wiki about the criteria for notability. More discussion and justification can be found at WP:SCI. Thanks for reading, Sdedeo (tips) 20:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Sdedeo (tips) 20:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). –Sdedeo (tips) 20:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It definitely looks like it may be bordering on a WP:VANITY article posted by Robert Folsom, a supporter (no less an employee!) of Prechter with a definite conflict of interest. The nomination seems to cover the relevant points for why deletion is justified, but more than this it looks like the work of Prechter supporters to further promote and advocate for their ideas. Not a good omen in the least. --ScienceApologist 22:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep

First, user:Sdedeo resorts to extremely uncivil language and ad hominem arguments in calling for this article deletion: "crank" "Vanicruftspam" and "kooky" do not suggest a responsible, good faith effort to evaluate the notability of an article in Wikipedia, but instead an editor on a search and destroy mission looking to "give it a shot" in a debate "we're having all over the wiki."

That said, socionomics is notable under WP:SCI -- a proposed guideline -- and meets several of the criteria it sets out.

Under notability, scientific community:

1. General or specialized textbooks with non-trivial mention of socionomics.

Behavioral Trading, p. 26.
Technical Analysis Plain and Simple, pp. 127-128.
Evidence-Based Technical Analysis, p. 151.
The New Laws of the Stock Market Jungle p. 269.
The Irwin Guide to Using the Wall Street Journal, p. 354.

2. Papers covering socionomics.

Kenneth R. Olson, A Literature Review of Social Mood, Journal of Behavioral Finance, Vol. 7, No. 4: pages 193-203, 2006. Abstract here.
John Nofsinger, Social Mood and Financial Economics, Journal of Behavioral Finance, Vol. 6, no. 3, pages 144-160, 2005. Abstract here, PDF document here.
Robert R. Prechter Jr., Unconscious Herding Behavior as the Psychological Basis of Financial Market Trends and Patterns, The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets, Vol. 2, No. 3: pages 120-125, 2001. Abstract here, PDF document here.

3. Institutional support of socionomics:

American National Election Studies Association, a collaboration of Stanford and the University of Michigan, selected the Socionomics Foundation's proposed questions regarding social mood for inclusion in a study funded by the National Science Foundation. The social mood proposal was one of thirty proposals chosen from 1,100 submissions; universities other selectees are from include Columbia, Princeton, Harvard Law School, Brown, NYU, UC Berkley, MIT. The Socionomics Foundation was the one non-university selected.

Conference papers:

The Socionomic Theory of Finance and the Institution of Social Mood:, Wayne D. Parker & Robert R Prechter Jr., presented at the meeting of the Association for Heterodox Economics, London, England, July 14-16, 2006.
Methodological Individualism vs. Methodological Holism: Neoclassicism, Institutionalism and Socionomic Theory, Wayne D. Parker, presented at the joint annual congress of the International Association for Research in Economic Psychology (IAREP) and the Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), Paris, France, July 5-8, 2006.

Under Notability, culture at large

1. Prominent advocacy of socionomics.

Robert Prechter

2. Press coverage of socionomics.

"I Know What You'll Do Next Summer," New Scientist, 31 August 2002, p. 32.
"Storm Warning! How Social Mood Drives Markets," Futures magazine (cover), Nov. 2004.
"Social Mood and the Markets," Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities, June 2003, p. 50.
"Trader's Hall of Fame Award - Robert Prechter," Stocks, Futures & Options Magazine, July 2003, p. 42.

Under Other sources:

Conference proceedings --

John Casti: "Why the Future Happens: Socionomics and the Science of Surprise"

Search engine --

A Google search for "socionomics" brings more than 26,700 results -- and those exclude results from elliottwave.com, socionomics.net, and socionomics.org. Around 2,300 of the Google search results are non-English language, thus socionomics has some international notability.

The evidence above makes it obvious that socionomics is being studied, written about, and discussed independently of Robert Prechter.

The Journal of Behavioral Finance is indeed peer reviewed, and has published respected economists such as Robert Shiller. The quotation from John Nofsinger in the Socionomics article plainly does describe how socionomics works, by detailing how mood drives the business cycle -- that's why he included Prechter's book in the bibliography.

John Casti is an often-quoted author on complex systems; click around at the link for the conference mentioned above and you'll see that Harvard is one of the two sponsors. His article in Science does discuss socionomics in detail, and I'll be glad to post fair-use excerpts here if anyone cares to read it.

Finally, the COI issue has already come up here about me. This immediately prejudices opinions of the evidence I've presented, which is why the COI guideline says, "it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor." I'm willing to discuss the article with anyone else who is.

--Rgfolsom 00:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Rgfolsom -- who is, it should be noted, a paid member of the "Socionomics Institute". I took a quick look at the new sources provided -- many of which I've already dealt with (this response is cut&paste from an RfA he's involved in.) For example, the New Scientist article he suggests covers Socionomics does not, actually do so (it is focused on Elliott Wave Theory and not Prechter's new coinage. The "institutional support" he claims is nothing of the sort, as I already explained. He does well in referencing all of the six self-published papers on socionomics.org, none of which I believe establish notability. I took a look at a few of the new references he sprinkled in -- [72], for example, simply has a bibliographic mention of a book with the word "socionomics" in the title and the word "socionomics" appears nowhere else, and I have to say that doesn't inspire confidence that it's mentioned "non-trivially" in any of the other books he's found. For example, this book [73] doesn't mention the word socionomics in the abstract, which strongly suggests it's not treated in any detail in the book itself. Nothing, in other words, in this slim list, seems to establish that socionomics is anything that vaugely meets WP:SCI (which I encourage Rgfolsom to actually read, as it explicitly says that having one or two peer reviewed papers is no where near a sufficient criterion.) Having a guy who said the word socionomics in a conference somehow related to Harvard University doesn't cut it. Sdedeo (tips) 03:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sdedeo -- Interested parties please note: After my call for editors to respect Wikipedia's policy to "discuss the article, not the editor," user:Sdedeo's very first remark was to discuss me, not the article. This is more ad hominem argument, i.e. one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Curious indeed in a discussion about standards and science.

Sdedeo has also twice disputed my claim about John Casti's article in Science magazine. But, I say again: the (~2300 word) article does cover socionomics in detail; this time I invite other editors to decide for themselves. I posted the relevant quotations from the article (~600 words) on the talk page.

As for the inferences about the books I cited, I politely suggest that quotes are more informative than speculation. I posted the relevant quotations from those books on the talk page. Again, editors can decide for themselves if the mentions of socionomics are "trivial."

And, yes, I did use some of the same evidence here that I've offered in my RfA. In that dispute I face similarly uninformed, ad hominem arguments -- nostalgia from the 1970s about how the efficient market hypothesis is the academic orthodoxy. Back then it was safe to call technical analysis "astrology" (sort of like non-mainstream ideas today are labeled a "crank theory" for "kooks"). But things change. A generation later we've seen traders use technical analysis and become billionaires, not to mention academics who reject the EMH become Nobel Laureates. Things do change.

--Rgfolsom 08:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out conflicts of interest is perfectly within any editor's purview, as is pointing out that an opining editor has made few other edits outside the subject matter. ~ trialsanderrors 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with Robert Prechter or Elliott wave principle. I don't see any evidence that this idea has (yet) attracted sufficient attention in the academic or financial community, or the wider culture, to warrant an article on its own. Also, the article probably fails WP:NEO. Semperf 16:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (See below) The claim to notability in the article is that the term describes a new science: "The resulting breakthrough is so profound that it requires a new name for the science it makes possible." Exceptional claims such as this require exceptional evidence¹, and the evidence offered so far has been extremely meager. Standard tests do not establish that the scientific community agrees about the "breakthrough", nor even much cares. Prechter's book gets zero cites on ISI, his various works on Elliott wave principle maybe a total of 5 (J Behav Fin: 2 cites). The term Socionomics has not been added to any classification systems in Economics², Sociology³, or the social sciences at large.⁴. The 8 hits for socionomics on JSTOR all precede Prechter's supposed invention of the term.⁵ Behavioral finance is a fertile research field, with Prof. Robert Shiller (of Irrational Exuberance fame) a potential future Nobelist. But this article is long on claims and short on evidence, and fails the scientific terms test of WP:SCI, derived directly from WP:NPOV#Undue weight. ~ trialsanderrors 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The relevant issue for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether or not an article meets established policy as described here: WP:DEL. The argument over scientific notability is in fact an argument about whether this topic satisfies a proposed guideline. Such a debate is interesting, but abstract. --MarkA12 20:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. This is User:MarkA12's 7th edit. Semperf 20:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is "out of process"

User:sdedeo (et. al.) applied the WP:SCI notability standard in this AfD, which, at present, is a proposed guideline, and is not mentioned in Wikipedia's deletion policy.
User:sdedeo made no attempt to follow the steps spelled out in WP:AFD, such as first adding a cleanup tag or sharing reservations about the article on its talk page.
Deletion policy states, "XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked" -- user:sdedeo declared, "[I] personally consider it just another crank theory," and thus plainly abused the deletion process.
User:sdedo also breached AfD etiquette ("Do not make derogatory comments about living people") with the comment "crank stockmarket 'analyist' [sic] Robert Prechter," plus similarly uncivil and insulting remarks.
Prima fascie evidence of a pre-existing point of view and potential bad faith.

All "delete" votes thus far come from a small group of editors who post to the WP:SCI talk page. They've been hunting for a "test case" for deletion, and, complete with mocking and put-downs of socionomics as a topic, this group contemplated a "test" on the socionomics article. The editor who nominated socionomics for the AfD said this to the group: "All right, I gave it a shot: see here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Socionomics." This scheme violates the spirit (if not the letter) of AfD etiquette that forbids votestacking.
Three editors from the "delete" group have focused negative attention on the editors who voted to "keep," undermining them via accusations of vanity editing, conflict of interest, single-purpose editing, and even noting the number of edits to Wikipedia. This violates Wikipedia's guideline regarding harassment.
The facts offered here and in the socionomics article are verifiable, presented neutrally, and not originally researched. The editors who voted to "delete" mischaracterized or ignored this evidence, and imposed after-the-fact objections that are irrelevant and frivolous -- such as the absence of socionomics in JSTOR, and how the word "socionomics" violates WP:NEO. This is not consistent with the attitude called for in Wikipedia's deletion policy, namely that "the purpose of a discussion is to bring out a 'sense of the community' and the valid points for or against each view."

I changed my vote to speedy keep.

--Rgfolsom 02:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rg, you and I have made our points -- let's let other people chime in now. Sdedeo (tips) 02:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. I'd say the "crank" was maybe out of line, as about the rest, having a prior opinion on a topic does not amount to bad faith unless you're closing the discussion. Also, it's pretty clear from the WT:SCI that that was the first time we noticed the topic and clearly, being atuned to science discussions around here we're usually able to recognize a duck when it walks and quacks like one. That doesn't mean the sources shouldn't get due attention and a certain effort should be put into determining the reach of the new term. A proposed guideline simply means editors can invoke it, as long as it is based on policies, but it is not binding. And btw, WP:CSK certainly doesn't apply. ~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trialsanderrors (talk • contribs) 04:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Under the WP:SCI guideline this seems about the only way to do it. I've given my views on how socionomics is a non-science many times before. I'm not sure of the etiquette, but the deletion should probably wait until the RfA is done (another week?).

I am not, in general, a deletionist - if there were a way that this article could be included and the reader alerted that this is an entirely new, untested, and perhaps untestable theory that does not come out of the scientific or academic world, I would not vote for delete. But given that the academic world ignores socionomics, then how can it be shown that it is non-scientific? If we leave it in, readers will be misled.

BTW, the "textbooks" given above are not the type of textbooks written by academics and used in classes. There is an adjunct professor as one author. "Books" is probably a better term.

Smallbones 14:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I support a keep resolution for a couple of reasons. First, it seems that the Wikipedia:Notability (science) and the WP:SCI projects need to first work together to see if they can get their two sets of 'proposed guidelines' to work in synch. However, as neither guideline is (yet) a Wikipedia policy, it seems premature to utilize proposals as a basis for article deletion as I perceive Sedeo's basic argument. Also, as a grad student in economics, I have touched some of this material in standard academic literature searches. Before my research into social economics took me a different direction, I had even checked out and scanned Prechter's two book titles on Socionomics from the university library. There are many items of social science and social philosophy covered in Wikipedia that have a much smaller basis than does Socionomics.

Perhaps most importantly, I think we would do well to heed Thomas Kuhn in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." He shifted his own career from Physics to that of studying the History of Science. He noted "...problems about the differences between [communities of social scientists] and those of the natural scientists among whom I had been trained. ...I was struck by the number and extent of the overt disagreements between social scientists about the nature of legitimate scientific problems and methods." [he doubts the natural science practitioners are firmly out of these woods] "Yet somehow, the practice of astronomy, physics, chemistry, or bilogoy normally fails to evoke the controversies over fundamentals that today often seem endemic among, say, psychologists or sociologoists" (pp. x) Since 'Scientific revolutions', or paradigm-shifts, emerge gradually out of scientific work that was not, in general, intending to produce them (Kuhn, 62), I think it is best if an online open encyclopedia like Wikipedia set a reasonable, but not excessively high, bar for topic inclusion. This is especially important in any of the relatively 'fuzzy' fields of the social sciences. I believe Socionomcis meets that reasonable bar. I further believe it would be a mistake to have a group of well-intentioned Wikipedians from a new project use a draft proposed guideline to eliminate articles using that early draft guideline.

Full disclosure: I have edited the Socionomics article on occasion in the past. N2e 19:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (science) and WP:SCI have long been merged. On proposed guidelines, see my comment above. Proposed guidelines become active guidelines if there is consensus in application. So the idea that a proposed guideline cannot be used in discussions is false and in fact counterproductive. Proposed only means they are not actionable and reasoning has to be consistent with existing policy and active guidelines. ~ trialsanderrors 19:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On the question of Kuhn and paradigm-shifts, remember WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. There are 100,000 ideas out there that are below the surface, 99,999 are crack-pot and one (maybe) will be a paradigm shift. Wikipedia policy is to write the article after the theory has become notable, not before. Semperf 20:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I requested admin review of this AfD because of the pending ArbCom case. The case should probably have been pointed out in the nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 23:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell us what that means T&E? Should we stop talking here and also tell other editors not to vote or comment? Sdedeo (tips) 23:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know since I usually don't deal with ArbCom cases and don't know what the exact procedure is. But I can see that ArbCom doesn't want the article deleted during their deliberations. So it might be procedurally closed until the ArbCom findings are out, but I asked other admins' input on it. ~ trialsanderrors 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there is no policy about it, so I guess this can proceed. ~ trialsanderrors 05:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since we already have an article on the Elliott wave principle and we have prior ArbCom resolutions which support resisting the use of Wikipedia to promote fringe theories. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: The first point is an argument to avoid: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article." The second point is uninformed regarding recent Arbcom rulings: "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience."--Rgfolsom 14:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a direct allusion to WP:NPOV#Undue weight, which is policy, and which states that If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. I would argue that the ancillary article might be the yet-to be created Socionomics: The Science of History and Social Prediction. The threshold for books is lower than for neologisms. Usually the only requirement for books by notable authors is that they were critically reviewed by reliable reviewers. ~ trialsanderrors 19:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your point as argued in good faith, yet in good faith I tell you that I keep feeling like I'm trying to hit a moving target. I just re-read "Undue weight," and I believe the spirit and letter of that text does allow a socionomics article, albeit shorter than it is now (a proposition I actually agree with). So, if someone had gone to the socionomics talk page and said, "Needs lots of attention," I would have agreed in a New York minute. But now I'm arguing a death penalty case. The punishment is absurdly disproportionate to the article's crimes. I understand and appreciate that your suggestion offers a post-delete solution, but the truth is that this RfD was overkill. Socionomics could have been handled in a dozen less ham-fisted ways.

--Rgfolsom 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given the arguments and evidence, I can't see a good reason to delete this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the weak arguments and lack of real evidence, I can't see a good reason to keep this promotional piece. --Calton | Talk 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything about this seems like a neologism, and not a particularly widely-accepted or used one. The citations seem like they all involve the author trying to promote the term, not actual reliable sources independently reporting or using it. I think the nominator's discussion of the citations is particularly informative; one of the article's writers responded ably, but failed to rebut the nominator's points. Therefore I agree with the nominator, and would delete it. --TheOther Bob 00:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article makes explicit claims of notability and provides ample reliable sources to back up its claim. Use of the malicious "Vanicruftspam" nonsense and derisive references to the coiner only serve as further evidence of a potentially bad faith nomination. Alansohn 14:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume that this is a good faith nomination.--TheOther Bob 15:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I submit that the "evidence to the contrary" clause in WP:AGF deserves to be raised. This nomination began with multiple instances of abusive and uncivil language, including an insult to a living person, which WP:AFD expressly forbids. I have twice been personally identified by name. Editors here have implied that my sources are phony, notwithstanding the slam-dunk evidence of their validity. Editors who are offended by offensive behavior should speak up, especially when "evidence to the contrary" is as obvious as this.

--Rgfolsom 17:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "evidence to the contrary" clause is not an exception that devours the rule -- you must assume good faith unless the evidence is clearly to the contrary. Examples of times when evidence is clearly to the contrary include "vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying." None apply here.

I don't think WP:AFD addresses insults to a living person; you probably mean WP:BLP (though it also doesn't say that). In any event, that guideline does not require that anyone who comes along with a conflict of interest not feel "insulted." I assume you are Mr. Prechter, since you say you've been identified by name? As such, you have a pretty large conflict of interest. If you don't want to see your theory critiqued and your sources analyzed (and potentially found to be phony or invalid), then you should not participate here. That's the gist of WP:COI - if the article is about you, and you therefore cannot separate criticism of the article from criticism of you as a human being, then you're too conflicted and should step away. It is in no way bad faith to question, challenge, or analyze a subject, and you should not assume that such questioning is anything other than a good faith desire to build the encyclopedia.

By the way, so as not to distract from the AfD, if you have further comments regarding the conduct of the participants, may I suggest that you take them to the talk page instead? Thanks.--TheOther Bob 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Robert Prechter. Please read note my handle and read the rest of the page more carefully. As for the relevant issue: if you believe name-calling (a kook with a crank theory) exhibits "a good faith desire to build an encyclopedia," please say so plainly. Thanks,

--Rgfolsom 18:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you are Robert Folsom, an employee of a related institute rather than the author himself - my apologies for not noticing that previously. In any event, the COI problems remain, as does the failure to assume good faith. Do I think referring to the subject of an article as a "kook with a crank theory" exhibits a good faith desire to build an encyclopedia? Yes. It's not particularly civil, but it is good faith. This is a request to delete the article; that the article is about a "crank theory" put forth by a "kook" (in whatever more civil terms we could say that) makes it more likely that it should be deleted.

Now, should he have said that in a less confrontational way? Sure. The nominator perhaps violated WP:Civil (though I'd argue that you took it more personally than you should, because of your conflict). You've since violated WP:AGF. I think you're better off seeking relief in the form of an apology of some sort from the nominator - none of this has anything to do with whether the article should be kept or deleted. Thanks.--TheOther Bob 20:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Keep if rewritten and independent, non-trivial reviews provided, delete otherwise~~ I think this case is at risk of spiralling out of control and personal issues might override factual issues. As I expressed it earlier, I believe Socionomics as a scientific neologism is still too feeble to be covered in Wikipedia, but the book might very well be notable from the sources provided (I'll leave the proof to the editors). On the issue of science or pseudoscience, it's business research, so the rigorous standards of the hard sciences don't apply. So I would recommend as a peace offer that is hopefully acceptable to all that this article be rewritten to be about the 1999 book on Socionomics. Books by notable authors have low thresholds of inclusion, and the listings above strike me as sufficient to meet them. This way the issue of science or not? will also go away, and rgfolsom's awkward role as COI editor might be alleviated. I recommend that the article on the book stay in line with its relevance within the fields, which is very small in academic circles but at least moderate in practitioner's circles. What ultimately has to be remived is the impression that Wikipedia is used to further corporate goals. A neutral article can achieve that, an article with exagerrated claims about importance will probably not find favor with the editors. ~ trialsanderrors 02:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have to disagree here -- the 1999 book is published by "New Classics Library, a division of market forecasting firm Elliott Wave International ... an independent publishing company owned by Robert Prechter." [74] i.e., it's a vanity press when it comes to Prechter, and the bar for independent articles on a vanity press book is I believe set quite high. Do we, for example, have multiple independent reviews of the book? If not, really can't do much with the article except post the blurb, which is the problem with the subject as a whole. Sdedeo (tips) 05:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Amended. This might be my longest bolded opinion ever. ~ trialsanderrors 06:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm very grateful for your good-faith effort to find a compromise, TE. I stepped back and took the time to review the record again; I respectfully say that it remains clear to me that socionomics does satisfy the relevant policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR), and does not warrant deletion under a reasonable reading of WP:DEL. I also believe that it satisfies the proposed higher criteria in WP:SCI, even though (as you noted) that criteria is not binding.

I am willing to make and respect any reasonable edits that you or any editor deems necessary to keep socionomics as such in this encyclopedia. I want to be part of and accountable to the Wikipedia community.

For the record, please know that I have not made and do not want to make any edits that put "corporate goals" above the interests of Wikipedia. Instead, my hope is that if a person come across socionomics in an investment book, or in The New Scientist magazine, or in one of thousands of places on the internet, they can also turn to this encyclopedia and read an informative entry on the topic.

--Rgfolsom 00:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s all step back. I’d like to respectfully suggest that we all step back and review the record again, dispassionately. As trialsanderrors notes, the personal issues are threatening to overwhelm the facts. If anyone who originally voted in favor of deletion still believes that his vote is appropriate in light of all the evidence that has come forth, that is of course his prerogative. But now that the evidence is on the table, my guess is that some who initially voted "delete" will see that the policy issues regarding this article have indeed all been answered. Or, at the least, that no compelling evidence demands indictment. In such a situation, I humbly submit that reconsidering an earlier vote is an honorable thing to do.--MarkA12 01:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As for me, the evidence was pretty underwhelming, so no. You might want to contact the other editors though to see if they changed their opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 03:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I must say no as well. Someone's comment on my talk page notwithstanding, I gave this a full review the first time around. Sorry, but I don't see what you're talking about when you say that evidence has come forth - I see nothing new.--TheOther Bob 13:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I, too, am comfortable with my original point and do not see a reason to change it. Whether or not the closing admin can determine a consensus here is up to him/her. Semperf 15:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With all apologies to the closing admin, I was asked to clarify my position above since my bolded opinion reads like a line from a James Joyce book, so here we go: The argument that rgfolsom and others have brought enough evidence that the term meets our basic standards for neologism is underwhelming. For a comparison of cases that were discussed under WP:NEO, see Special:Whatlinkshere/WP:NEO. As a quick scan will show, we delete the vast majority of them even though some have a pattern of infrequent use. In this case we have the advantage that we can be very certain that all positive evidence of its use has been offered, so we don't have to speculate whether there are hidden sources and we might make a wrong call just because we can't access them. The evidence is extremely underwhelming. The book with the core claim to notability has been released eight years ago, and even if we take the provided evidence at face value we get about one mention per year of the term Socionomics. That is less than the number of mentions the term received before Prechter coined it (usually to denote some hybrid of sociology and economics, but completely unrealted to Finance). So the claim that the term is used by at least a "significant minority", as required by WP:NPOV#Undue weight is unsupported by the evidence. Undue weight goes on to say that "[i]f a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article)", which seems to be the criterion here. So the question is always, is there an matching ancillary article where this information can be presented in accordance with the weight the term carries in the world? And the answer to this is clearly yes: the article Robert Prechter. The core guidelines were never meant to be interpreted in the way rgfolsom does above, or we were held to carry every "Bear Fell Out of Tree in Santa Cruz" story that makes the local news on a Tuesday evening. Does this restate my opinion above? Not really, I think an article on the book might be possible, but the evidence of independent reviews still has to be brought (the mentions above I could check turned out to be mentions in passing or authors with connections to the Socionomics Institute). If the book, like the term has not proven enough heft in the world of academic finance or Wall Street, the book as well as the term should be mentioned in the Prechter article. This article here grossly overstates is significance and therefore fails WP:NPOV#Undue weight. None of this takes into account whether the theory has any scientifc merit or not, as it is immaterial to this debate. ~ trialsanderrors 17:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:

First, WP:NEO is a guideline, not policy.

Second, WP:NEO says:

"To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term -- not books and papers that use the term… Neologisms that are in wide use -- but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources -- are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia."

I have provided multiple secondary sources that go beyond mere "use" of the term -- five books from reputable publishers, two academic journal articles, four trade press magazine articles, an article from a reputable academic in a reputable science magazine, conference papers, a conference proceeding co-sponsored by a prominent university -- each one is either about or includes a non-trivial treatment of socionomics. A term that receives 25,000+ results from a Google search cannot plausibly be described as in use only "by an extremely small minority." Please show me an article that was deleted because of WP:NEO that had anything remotely resembling the evidence for notability that socionomics offers.

Third, you quote from NPOV undue weight -- yet that essay also emphasizes this: "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper." I respectfully but candidly say that your admirable attempts to compromise -- and your "maybe it does, maybe it doesn't" comments regarding notability -- show a degree of doubt. So I trust you won't hold it against me for repeating this sentence from the guidelines to administrators: When in doubt, don't delete.

--Rgfolsom 18:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making an argument based on WP:NEO, I'm making an argument based on WP:NPOV#Undue weight, which is policy. The pointer towards cases that reference WP:NEO is just a quick way to access discussions on similar topics. On doubts, I have none. I'm sorry, I've seen many, many failed attempts by academics to establish neologisms, and this one falls at the low end of the spectrum. One mention per year is not "use". It's wholesome rejection by a community that creates massive amounts of accessible literature, both academic and applied. ~ trialsanderrors 21:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No doubt you find this back & forth as tedious as I do, so I too say I'm sorry. But your personal experiences in academia carry zero weight vs. the face value meaning of passages like this one:

The argument 'non-neutral point of view' (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either.

And not to mention the Arbcom ruling I've already cited:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.

As I've also said before, we can wrangle on and on over the letter in WP:Undue weight, but the spirit of that essay is actually generous and inclusive. The example given of a tiny minority view is not of the "tough call" variety, but instead universally recognized as preposterous -- the flat earth. In the larger spirit of NPOV, the spirit of that policy is to avoid bias. To use it as a rule to kill an article where the obvious meaning of "bias" isn't even an issue cries out for the common sense application of an even more important policy.

--Rgfolsom 05:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm beginning to find it tedious. This is not a tough call. Eight mentions in eight years is not usage. It is not significant, and I'm far from convinced it's legitimate. There is nothing more to be said. ~ trialsanderrors 07:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Russ[edit]

Reason for deletion: I feel that this is probably self promotion. There is little indication that the artist has had much impact beyond a small circle of friends. The article seems to be written by acquaintances of artist. There is a dearth of citations; most sources are unreliable, trivial, and/or unrelated to the subject of the article. Bus stop 21:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is no reflection on the quality of the artist's work, which I would find a good reason to have an article, but unfortunately our guidelines are other and this article fails to meet them. Self-promotion isn't a reason in itself to delete, nor is material by friends. Failures to meet WP:NOTE and WP:VERIFY are reasons. This article does not have sufficient reliable sources to evidence the degree of prominence required. Tyrenius 21:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Freshacconci 21:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I seem to remember this "NeoPopRealism" from a year or two ago (so, yes, there is a bit of self-promotion among the group.) Right now there appears to be only one or two notable sources, and those mention Russ only in passing. We should delete without prejudice to later recreation if, indeed, she garners significant attention from independent sources so we can actually write an article. Sdedeo (tips) 21:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "NeoPopRealism" is a marketing term. It has nothing to do with visual art whatsoever. No scholarly use for the term exists, and none ever will exist. Wikipedia should not be exploited to promote mundane products, especially by lending it's tacit support to coined terms with an art cachet to them. To do so is to obscure the distinction between real terms applicable to the visual arts and marketing terminology without any real meaning at all. Bus stop 22:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, this AfD is about Nadia Russ, not NeoPopRealism - that's already been deleted. Also your argument is not a reason to delete anyway. If it is notable marketing terminology without any real meaning at all then we would keep it. Wiki is rather soulless like that. Tyrenius 22:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then perhaps it would be in a different category? Freshacconci 13:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would confirm the category without a doubt! Tyrenius 13:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, okay. But we're not talking about a notable marketing term using an art cachet, but an attempt at coining a marketing term using an art cachet, and exploiting wikipedia to establish it, which I think was Bus stop's point anyway. But still, as you said, we're talking about Nadia Russ, not the art movement she created. Freshacconci 14:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 00:23, 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.

Delete. Non-notable and no references or sources. Brainsynth 21:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiekka[edit]

I have lived all my life in Finland and have never heard of such a band. There are no Google hits related to that group ("hiekka" is Finnish for sand). It is mentioned neither on the Finnish Wikipedia, nor at the record label's home page. --Jetman 21:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are provided. J Milburn 22:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An album and EP in eight years on a red-linked label? That's not a good sign. Appears to fail WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 04:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mind you, Poko Rekords is actually a notable record label in Finland (regrettably, there's only a Finnish article). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless something materialises to tell what's going on. Sources would be really nice. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, doesn't meet WP:BAND. Shimeru 20:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 since article has been improved to include more sources which assert notability for sure. Flyingtoaster1337 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce McMahan[edit]

Subject is only borderline notable per WP:BIO. He is often mentioned in the news but apparently only because of alleged improper sexual relationships (e.g. [75], [76], [77]). Since the subject or his publicist has been blanking most of the article and he's only notable due to a single incident, this entry should be deleted. I disagree with the talk page reasoning that "Bruce McMahan is notable on account of wealth combined with the fact that the legal conflict between him and his daughter has made him a public figure" - there aren't that few multimillionaires who are more notable than him. (Google "Bruce McMahan": [78]) Flyingtoaster1337 21:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's clearly notable. He's 1) "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" and 2) "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated."

You argue that "Since the subject or his publicist has been blanking most of the article and he's only notable due to a single incident, this entry should be deleted." That's a poor justification for deletion. It shouldn't matter whether an individual wants the information on Wikipedia or not. Exeunt 22:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Type Five:

I agree with Flying Toaster and the Wiki editor who removed this entry last round. Perhaps subject is clearly notable in the mind of poster Exeunt because he is a related party to dispute in question and trying to do damage. How does he know about a PR firm, how was he contacted via email, how is that he refers to the damage to this person's reputation as justifiable in user talk. If this is indeed notable, then Wikipedia should list all wealthy people, and all people who have been accused of sexual impropriety, include all tabloid newspaper and televison content on this database. In my humble opinion, poster is biased with an agenda, not a true contributor to Wikipedia. I am the one who in a good faith edit accidentally blanked the article which I corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Type Five (talk • contribs).

So you're telling me you're a neutral contributor with no ties to Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif LLP who just happened to blank the page for the third time after it was restored? It's disingenuous (very lawyer-like!) to accuse me of being someone with an axe to grind with McMahan; I frequently edit Wikipedia, have no agenda other than improving this project and protecting it from private interests, and I have the advantage of not being a sock puppet and lawyer hired by Mr. McMahan to protect his image.

Oh, and the funny thing about the subjects of tabloid stories--they're notable. What's true and notable about their lives would make it into a good Wikipedia article about them. Exeunt 22:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anything with this much controversy must be notable. The article seems to be suffering from edit wars by interested parties. At this point we have one solid reference, but should have more. The corporate bio is good background, but not sufficient to establish notability. --Kevin Murray 22:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Be careful what you are accusing people of TypeFive, it is ironic to accuse someone of being 'not a true contributor to Wikipedia', and then fill your comment with poor logic, and not sign your post correctly. As for the article in question- Exeunt, you say that there is much coverage, ~~do you think you could link to/cite some more directly?~~ As for the matter of whether people WANT the information on Wikipedia, if information is properly sourced and relevent, removing it constitutes vandalism. It is not for the subject of the article to decide what is in it, otherwise all murderers would demand that the articles on them ommitted the fact that they had killed somebody. J Milburn 22:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I have only just noticed the the nominator provided. This person is notable according to Wikipedia's rules, and the nominator seems to have inadvertently proven that with their links. J Milburn 22:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets strict WP:BIO just on the scandal (same article appeared in Voice and Miami New Times, but the latter had a follow-up too, and the NY Post ran articles as well). The individual is also a founder and longtime president of the National Cristina Foundation [79], which would make him notable in itself. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Exeunt 23:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I am not up on all the protocols of Wikipedia as far as signatures and did not post accordingly. I reiterate my original criteria for deletion per official Wikipedia policies and guidelines and believe the response of Exeunt validates my perspective on this. Type Five 23:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Hope I did the signature thing right.[reply]

Comment You sign your comments by typing ~~~~, or pressing the signature button above the editing window. Your original comment didn't seem to cite any Wikipedia policies- Why do you support the deletion of this article? J Milburn 23:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Though the article is need of a helluva rewrite to be encyclopedic, it appears to cite enough resources to meet WP:BLP. The additional sources listed here only enforce that. Pending a rewrite, I'd say we can keep this one. -- Kesh 23:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm, not sure I'm informed enough on this subject to comment, but WP:BLP is probably worth noting here. I do have some concerns about this article, as the sources do not seem very reliable to me. I don't know that this should be deleted, but I do feel this should get some attention from a person willing to investigate the situation seriously. I do see how this could raise legal issues for Wikipedia though. FrozenPurpleCube 23:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:As long as what is said is sourced, I can't see there being any problem. J Milburn 23:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can, when the sources are not reliable, and the material is defamatory. This isn't the New York Times publishing something, but a much more minor paper. As such, I'm dubious of the source, either in regards to verifiability or notability. FrozenPurpleCube 01:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Okay, the Dealbreaker.com article just references the Broward-Palm Beach New Times articles, so it's not useful. That should be stricken from the article. And the Villiage Voice article is exactly the same as the B-PBNT article, written by the same author, so that one's out. It's looking a bit weaker, but the two B-PBNT articles and NY Post article still support it. The article would be much stronger with new, independant sources, though. -- Kesh 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree that the Village Voice citation should be removed (a) it predates the New Times article (day, hours?), but more importantly it demonstates broader editorial oversight of the writter's allegations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs) 00:27, January 28, 2007
  - Just curious, but how does it demonstrate "broader editorial oversight?" My only real problem with preferring the New Times article is that the second, follow-up article is also on there, and references the first one. -- Kesh 00:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not to reference policies and guidelines correctly. My references on the Wikipedia site were "what Wikipedia is not" along with the policies and guidelines for biographies of livng persons and other guidelines regarding what is "verifiable," encyclopedic in nature, and neutrality. I will try the signature thing again, thanks for the guidance on that.--Type Five 00:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we need is for you to explain how the article violates those policies, not just which ones you feel are applicable. AfD defaults to Keep, so those wanting to delete need to be specific in their reasoning for why it should be deleted. -- Kesh 00:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Type Five, are you kidding us with the "signature thing" you seem to have mastered the reversion process just fine. --Kevin Murray 00:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seriously. You're pushing WP:CIVIL here. Let's keep the discussion to the article itself. If you have a problem with an editor, take it up on their talk page. -- Kesh 00:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Type Five is a single purpose editor recently created whose actions at this article border on vandalism. He/she has also implied that long time editor and broad contributor Exeunt has an axe to grind. Let's call a spade a spade! And I have warned Type Five regarding vandalism at his/her talk page. --Kevin Murray 00:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Call a spade a spade, but leave off the passive-aggressive comments. What you just posted is a lot better than the comment at 00:27. Let the facts speak for themselves, and it's a lot more civil. -- Kesh 01:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to answer you Kesh. I have sent two lenghty responses regarding your question, but they are not going through due to an editing conflict of some sort.--Type Five 00:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC) I will try again. Wikipedia policies regarding biographies of living persons presume that the articles can affect the subject's lives (two parties in this entry), show some degree of sensitivity, are unbiased which I don't believe the author is from his comments and references to law firms, etc.), presumption of privacy, criteria for non-public figures, justification, verifiable sources of high quality, etc. Kevin, I am not kidding about anything, I am a newcomer, I admitted that I blanked a page before I understood how to improve an article, and I was unsure of how to do the signature. I will try to keep this neutral however.[reply]

I appreciate your efforts at trying to explain. There are a few misunderstandings here, though. First, the policies state that the article must be unbiased, not the editors! I have my own personal biases on many subjects, but I still try to maintain neutrality in all my edits. I do have some concern that the reference cited are not of high quality, I'll grant that. And it needs rewritten to be more encyclopedic. However, as of yet, I don't see that it violates policies. It's weak right now, and if the references are shown to be of poor quality, then I would agree that it should be deleted. -- Kesh 01:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Type Five, my appologies. Welcome! You are wrong on this though, and with all due respect, you are trying to push rope uphill at this point. The best that can be done is to try to diversify the article to demonstrate the subject's finer points. Rich doesn't make him notable, and incest doesn't make him notable, but the two are sysnergistic. Per WP guidelines what is noticed and documented is notable, and this poor fellow has definately been noticed in major way. Good luck with mastering that signature function! --Kevin Murray 01:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kevin. Kesh, I have looked up the London Standard on this site as well as the other sources, they all seem to be cited as tabloid or alternative, but I guess they are sources. To me, this is what Wikipedia isn't.--Type Five 01:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to help build this article to include more than the scandal, but don't see much more well referenced information available through the obvious sources. Can we expand the information on his charitable work and his leadership in the investment community? Also, these are at this point allegations from his daughter/wife; how about presenting his side. --Kevin Murray 02:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Times and Village Voice are one in the same company. I retract my argument that the two references demonstrated broader editorial review of the same contributing writer. I have removed the New Times article from the bibliography since I believe the Village Voice article demonstrates a broader geographic interest in the scandal. --Kevin Murray 02:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think we have very much come to the conclusion then, that this should be kept, but worked on a little. J Milburn 11:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on discussion on the article page today there is a warning box regarding controversial and potenially libelous content for bios of living persons. In an effort to create an encylopedic quality quality article, the entry is now really reading like a tabloid. The vibrator entry is particularly troublesome. I suppose the subject matter (wealth, sexual accusations, lawsuits)is interesting to some, but I still feel the article is what Wikipedia is not. When in doubt, do no harm.--Type Five 17:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you argument is 'Wikipedia is not a tabloid, therefore we don't talk about controversial topics?' Something else that Wikipedia is not- Wikipedia is not censored. There is no reason to shy away from talking about more unsavoury aspects of people as long as we source it well. I cannot see why you have a problem with this. J Milburn 17:40, 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 to delete, default to keep. Any merging, renaming, etc., as variously proposed, is an editorial matter. Sandstein 19:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acting Vice President[edit]

Delete. Article is a hoax. The office of "Acting Vice President" does not exist. JasonCNJ 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revise and rename. The article is not a "hoax" in the sense of consisting of false information deliberately inserted by the creator. The primary author, User:Ericl, really does believe what he has written. Unfortunately, he's wrong; as JasonCNJ has pointed out, there is not and never was an office in the US federal government called "Acting Vice President." However, before nuking the article, it does appear to contain useful content: a laboriously prepared list, in a format that I've never seen before (but compiled from reliable sources and not original research), of the persons who were next-in-line to the Presidency at times when there was no Vice President of the United States. The article should be cleaned up, edited, and renamed to a more appropriate title. Newyorkbrad 22:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revise and rename as per Newyorkbrad. This is actually a rather good article- interesting, verified encyclopedic information. J Milburn 22:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something like List of successors to the President of the United States in the absence of a Vice President (a mouthful, maybe someone else can do better), but remove or deemphasize that "Acting Vice President" stuff as it's unofficial/informal and at best difficult to verify. --Dhartung | Talk 22:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it is correct that the article is not technically a hoax, it is completely inaccurate. As a political scientist with two degrees in American Politics, I can say with complete certainty that there has never been an office called "Acting Vice President". I am also unconvinced that the information included in the table is worth preserving, though I am open to changing that position. Soltak | Talk 22:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Constitution of the United States & Presidential Succession Acts 1792, 1886 & 1947 don't mention 'Acting Vice President of the United States. The list content of this article is dealt with here. GoodDay 22:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the appropriate article to merge to, then. I do think the list in "Acting Vice Presidents" has some more information. Newyorkbrad 22:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only appropriate article to merge to would be President pro tempore of the United States Senate, which does not cover this point at all and is woefully short of the early history of the office. The problem with that "Next in line" list being in Presidential Succession Act is that the subject of that article is 1947 legislation. --Dhartung | Talk 02:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete who cares anyways, and also, just out of interest does any other country apart from america have presidents? Fails spectacularly to have any sort of world view whatsoever! Jcuk 23:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Many countries other than America have Presidents with similar duties and authority. See List of Republics for further information. Soltak |
  - Comment that was actually meant as sarcasm, as the author of the article obviously hadnt written with any sort of world view in mind. Jcuk 22:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- True, but in this context that's the least of our issues, and could be addressed by a name change if it were the only problem. List of Presidents of the United States doesn't have much of a world view either, alas. Newyorkbrad 23:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something else per Newyorkbrad and Dhartung. The table has some merit as a list of people who were once first in line to the Presidency of the United States, but they did not hold the title "Acting Vice President." --Metropolitan90 00:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename this article should be renamed and merged with a vice president page. If you noticed the title directly above the chart does not mention "Acting Vice President". I tried to avoid using that alleged title because it is not a real title. The U.S. Vice President page also shows vacancies. This article basically fills those gaps. Someone even linked those vacancies to the article. The table listed shows how they became "next in line" which is the basic source. Also some of the first several people in the article were mentioned as "Acting Vice President" in their own articles after this one was created. I would say "next in line". Those should be revised as well. Jjmillerhistorian 01:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article per GoodDay. The list already exists. Renaming to List of Presidential Successors would be inappropriate unless its re-written to include every Vice President. List of Successors to the Presidency of the United States in the Absence of a Vice President is an absurdly long title which frankly no one would ever search for. If people are looking for succession, they would likely search for presidential succession and go from there. I had never heard that any of these folks were ever addressed as Mr. Vice President. Is there a source for that? Montco 06:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Found a source, but I don't know how reliable it is. suite101.com/article.cfm/presidents_and_first_ladies/116788 (apparently suite101.com/ is a blacklisted link) It sounds like it was an unofficial title until 1886 when the line of succession changed. Jjmillerhistorian 07:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just when I get too sure of my own convictions, I surprise even myself. While its true that there is no constitutional office of Acting Vice President, the US Senate web page uses the title Acting Vice President when referring to Samuel Southard and Willie Magnum who were Presidents Pro Tempore under Tyler. I still think the list is better placed under the page I earlier posted, but I guess the term can be used. Regarding jjmillerhistorian's link, I guess its ok. High school teachers don't usually rate high in my list of "experts" but I don't see that the author has any incentive to lie and he is independent. [80]Montco 07:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are additional sources for use of the term as well. David Davis (Senate president pro tem) is called "Acting Vice-President" at the Senate memorial service for James Garfield, for example. [81] This 1864 Statesman's Yearbook says the Senate presidents pro tem are known as Acting Vice-President "until their successors can be elected".[82] There are numerous other 19th century sources using the term, so the article is correct that this usage was common even though it is not supported by legislation.--Dhartung | Talk 08:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Was the title 'Acting Vice President' used verbally? 'yes'. Does the office lawfully exist? 'no'. The president pro tempore during VP vacancies, can't cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate. Therefore he wasn't 'truly' Acting VP (couldn't assume ALL duties). GoodDay 18:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now I have Abraham Lincoln in his own words, saying in an 1856 speech (when he was in the House), "In 1841 Harrison died and John Tyler succeeded to the Presidency, and William R. King, of Alabama, was elected Acting Vice-President by the Senate".[83] Leaving aside the fact that his dates were mixed up, if this isn't just a bit of rhetoric, it suggests that there was actually an office, which obviously had no constitutional basis, but it may have been an office established by the Senate. More research is obviously needed.--Dhartung | Talk 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I thought it was interesting William Rufus King was 'Acting veep' much longer than he was a real Vice President. Jjmillerhistorian 22:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is interesting new information, new to me as well. Perhaps a useful short article could be created at "Acting Vice President of the United States" incorporating this, with the listing merged into the presidential succession pages. Newyorkbrad 20:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Wait a sec, this AfD is turning into a Rfc. An Afd is for voting 'keep', 'merge' or 'delete', our comments are beginning to dominate this AfD. GoodDay 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: So far 5-delete, 5-rename. Far from a consensus. GoodDay 23:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of the delete votes assert that the article is a hoax, which has been proven incorrect. The closing admin should take that into account unless they return and present new arguments. --Dhartung | Talk 02:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the hoax votes actually point out that the office doesn't exist, and they are correct. Regardless of whether certain individuals have used the term in the past, there is simply no office under any law or the Constitution called "Acting-Vice President." The information is more trivia than anything useful, and should absolutely be deleted. JCO312 03:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But we have sources which verify that it was a real thing -- title, symbolic role, or what have you -- and contemporaries agree that it was considered a solemn responsibility. The Constitution makes no reference to parties yet the most important person in the Senate is the Senate Majority Leader. Wikipedia is not just about the offices that are in the constitution. I admit that I was skeptical myself until I read the sources. --Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have sources that indicate that on 3 or 4 occasions a significant person used the term. The Senate never "created" this position. I wouldn't object to including this information somewhere else (the name proposed by User:Dhartung is a little unwiedly. But certainly, at the very least, this needs a rewrite to indicate that this is NOT a real office. JCO312 15:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, it is not a real office. That certainly explains away all the hits on .gov domains, such as [84][85][86][87][88] and the term seems to have been used right up throught the 1970s, i.e. the last period prior to the 25th Amendment and the appointment of Ford[89]. In only one of those cases [90] is there a suggestion that the title was never officially conferred. This definitely merits further research, and the article seems to have inaccuracies and some supposition (i.e. WP:OR) filling in blanks, but it was indeed a real office albeit not a constitutional office. --Dhartung | Talk 20:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The first citation you've given explains the problem in a nutshell, it refers to William Rufus King as being "in effect the acting vice president." It does not say that he was the Acting Vice President, because there is no such office. As User:GoodDay has pointed out, unlike an Acting President (who assumes all of the powers of the Presidency), the "Acting Vice President" is not empowered to break ties in the Senate. At the very least, this article needs to start off with a sentence that acknowledges that this is not an actual position in the United States Government, and instead, is a term that has, in the past, been used to describe a situation where there is no Vice President. JCO312 15:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. This is a list of people who were at some point in time actually next-in-line for the U.S. Presidency without being V.P. Such a list is well-defined and interesting, and could be a starting point for research into some aspects of American politics. The Presidential Succession Act has a partial listing of this content in each of the "Potential Implementation" sections. The "Next in line" list in that article does not identify when the V.P. office was actually vacant, which this list does. This list should either be linked from that article or merged to that article. Gimmetrow 05:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be renamed Vice Presidential Vacancies or similar for a short title. I just revised the page a little. Maybe this could be merged or mentioned on the Vice Presidents article as well. Jjmillerhistorian 15:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Newyorkbrad.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 12:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something else per Newyorkbrad and Dhartung. WMMartin 14:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup and verify. I withdraw the rename suggestion now that there is sufficient verification of the title. --Dhartung | Talk 20:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made some changes which I think address some of the concerns. The list, as it stands, is needlessly long, as it includes people who were next in line to become Acting President, but who, even according to the entry, could not be referred to as "Acting Vice President" because they were not the President Pro Tempore. Perhaps renaming the article would solve that problem. JCO312 18:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We should mention 'in a revised version' however, that the president pro tempore, can't assume all of the VP duties (a ppt can't cast a tie-breaking vote). This fact, makes the 'Acting VP' title questionable. GoodDay 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry about that, you've already added the 'tie-breaking vote' duty, which is performed by the VP only. GoodDay 18:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I moved the table to the Presidential Succession Act page, and reduced it on this page, such that only Presidents Pro Tempore are included, as they are the only ones who could be referred to as "Acting Vice President." As written, I would change my vote to Keep JCO312 00:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I concur with your interpretation (that the office could only be held by Presidents pro tem), and I believe verification will come in time. The move of the other next-in-line guys helps. The quibble about the AVP being unable to cast a tie-breaking vote actually seems to have been a debated issue in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, by the way. Further discussion on Talk page. --Dhartung | Talk 07:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep renaming and/or merging may be appropriate, but they don't require an AfD. Eluchil404 08:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article itself says that the title isn't an actual title. The fact that the list in there has the title "List of people who could have been referred to as 'Acting Vice President'" doesn't help as well. The "position" isn't even anything more than being next in line when there is no vice president. It doesn't really matter to me that people used the term once or twice. I'm sure more than one Senator has been called an "asshole" by the President, that doesn't make "asshole" an official title. I wouldn't object to the information being moved, though, maybe to List of Presidents pro tempore of the United States Senate. --UsaSatsui 18:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joulia Stepanova[edit]

Non-notable acress or perhaps just non-verifiably notable actress. Appears in the video to the excellent Rammstein single Sonne as a non-speaking extra. Has no other IMDb credits [91]. I can't find anything on google other than the fact that she's claimed to be a Russian soap opera actress and lots of people find her very attractive. MLA 22:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Sonne, as there is practically no content anyway. Well, if a source can be found, anyway. J Milburn 22:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly referenced and sourced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 00:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There aren't any referenced to demonstrate a soap career. So right now it looks like the sum total of her acting career is being a non-speaking extra in a video. Montco 05:56, 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. The discussion was rather idiosyncratic, but anything with zero sources fails WP:NOR by default. Sandstein 19:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack "Jackie" Mercer[edit]

Procedural. I discovered that this article had been tagged and no follow-through had been done. Neutral janejellyroll 10:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless properly sourced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note No it was followed through with just the article's creator blanked the AFD. Just trying not to look bad...--M8v2 18:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize! I couldn't find that a dicussion page had been created after the AfD tag had been placed. I realize that the article's creator had removed the tag from the article itself and I did remind them on their talk page that it was inappropriate to do that. janejellyroll 20:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep noteabel person so keepOo7565 22:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Please do not delete this article. I spent a lot of time on researching and gathering very rare info on the character. Many people find this article interesting and helped me troughout putting up a lot more information.--Jack Mercer 23:12, 28 January 2007
  - Note Oo7565, it's not a person it's a character. Jack Mercer, The rare info you found can't be found anywhere else thats a reliable source.--M8v2 22:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note The movie contains footage of birth certificates, tomb stones, etc, that are easily missed on first viewing of the film. Also between production and DVD sale of this movie a commentary, by the producer, has been recorded, this divulges more off screen/alluded to information. Adding to this, the actors, predominantly Garrett, have been increasingly interviewed and asked about their previous characters, whereby they have divulged previously un-marketed information. Lyeac 08:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note? Heres the info that was lost due to User:Jack Mercer's blanking of the page. It's the reason for the AFD.
      - None notable character from a movie. More important characters in the movie don't have a article. All relevant info is found in the main movie article. Full of speculation over sexuality.--M8v2 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note Jack Mercer is one of the four main characters in this film. The actor, Garrett Hedlund - relatively unknown, who portrays Jack is credited aside the well known names of Andre "3000" Benjamin and Mark Wahlberg on the movies jacket and opening credits, and the character of Jack himself appears multiple times in all manner of movie jacket, advertising and trailer... Jack is a main character. Secondly to say that more important characters in the movie don't have an article is false, Bobby Mercer (Jack's oldest brother ~ Mark Wahlberg)has an article, and I've read several sites attempts at compiling information about Angel and Jerry for publish in this forum. Thirdly, all relevant info is not found in the main article; indeed being new to and inspired by this fandom, I found out about Jack's birthdate, the plans for the roof scene and that Jack was originally supposed to survive the shoot out, all from this article. Finally it is correct to state that Jacks sexuality is speculative at best, Bobby converses with Jack; "How have you been, still sucking a little cock left and right?", and latter in the bathroom scene Angel askes a question about a rash, concerned that he has contracted an STD, and Bobby states; "Ask the cockologist here" referring to Jack in the shower. Jack's sexuality was discussed un-biasedly here, in indeed, a more correct forum than the "Four Brothers" main page ~ that doesn't even report the movie divulged history of each character.Lyeac 08:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, contains nothing but in-universe fictional biography. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Shall we also delete Daniel "Oz" Osbourne, Julian Sark, Karl Agathon, Cole Turner, Hoban Washburne, or any other in-universe, perhaps majoritly unknown, but none the less, characters? Lyeac 08:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prague specifics[edit]

This article belongs on maybe Wikitravel not here. But most of the statements there are unsourced and many are IMHO nonsense (I am from Prague). Something is written about Czech generally, not Praguers etc. Zanatic 22:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything relevent into the Prague article, and delete. This articles serves no real purpose. J Milburn 22:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reading that Czechs love beer was quite enough for me. Meelosh 01:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this falls under Wikipedia is not a directory.--Kubigula (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 15:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. --Core desat 04:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Necryptophile[edit]

I was happily wikifying this page when I thought I'd check out google to see if I could put a link in to the band's homepage. I hadn't even considered that they'd be non-notable considering their output but I can find absolutely no trace of them on google or their current record company's website. So I guess they fail WP:N miserable. Happy to be proved wrong if someone else can find something on them. Madmedea 22:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because if the bands not notable, their albums definitely aren't.[reply]

Delete The fact that NOTHING exists suggests that this may even be a hoax. Doesn't look like a hoax, but there you go... J Milburn 22:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Madmedea, you may wish to put their works up for deletion as well: Dissected For Human Consumption (Rarities Collection) and Dissected For Human Consumption (Companion Rarities DVD). If they can be included in this AfD debate, I elect to Delete them as well. If the band goes, then these two articles must go as well. →Ed Gl 22:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would appear that the article and reality do not coincide.--Anthony.bradbury 23:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per total failure to find any info on the band. janejellyroll 23:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. --Sable232 02:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shock, horror! Mein Gott! No even a myspace page??? Delete all as miserably failing WP:V. Ohconfucius 03:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, let's just speedy these per CSD A7 and WP:SNOW. --Sable232 05:30, 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 16:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water Tower Boeblingen-Waldburg[edit]

Yet another non-notable and uninteresting tower article. Article has been deserted after being created over a year ago. The tower isn't even that high. Delete, and possibly give it a mention in Böblingen. →Ed Gl 22:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable. I'm shocked and appalled that the article has been around even this long. Soltak | Talk 22:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If every 100-foot water tower had its own article, there would be no room on th

server for anything else. (ok, slight exageration). But clearly not notable.--Anthony.bradbury 23:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How could I possibly have missed this one? Boeblingen-Waldburg scores [141 unique Ghits, the overwhelming majority of which are from wiki mirrors. The others are all german property sites for the location. Ohconfucius 04:03, 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 delete as non-notable (WP:CSD#G7). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Scoville[edit]

Subject does not seem to meet criteria for WP:BIO in terms of notability. In addition article seems to have been exclusively authored by User:Betteryeti, who's contributions to Wikipedia seem to consist solely in external links to pages authored by Thomas Scoville, and thus may be a vanity/fan page of some kind. Zeraeph 22:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Likely vanity article. Soltak | Talk 23:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article has now been blanked by its creator. -- Bpmullins | Talk 05:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 and so tagged. Ohconfucius 04:06, 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 keep as a stub and as part of the Category:Law enforcement by country series. — CharlotteWebb 07:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Law enforcement in Afghanistan[edit]

Surely this information could simply be merged into Afghanistan. I don't believe that there is enough depth of information here to justify an independent article. Indeed, a lot of it is made up of things that might happen or are scheduled to happen. Until enough info is amassed to surpass something as simple as a brief mention in the parent article, I don't see a need for this. Soltak | Talk 23:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per nominator. Why did you bring this to AfD? Surely you could have just done it, or perhaps placed a merge proposal on the article for a couple of days? J Milburn 23:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Honestly I didn't even think of it. Isn't it sad that AfD is the first thing that popped into my mind? I'll take care of it now. Soltak | Talk 23:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes but still recommend deletion as I do not feel a redirect would be worthwhile. Someone looking for information on Afghan law enforcement is much more likely to first check the main article than to type in Law enforcement in Afghanistan. Soltak | Talk 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a stub which appears to belong to a series of Category:Law enforcement by country articles, such as Law enforcement in Germany. --Dhartung | Talk 07:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize the need for articles such as Law enforcement in Germany because it contains a large amount of information and has a breadth and depth suitable of an independent article. Law enforcement in Afghanistan provides nothing that can't simply be included in Afghanistan. Soltak | Talk 19:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are proposing a merge and redirect and wasting everyone's time in AFD. There is a reason for stub articles, and when they are part of a common grouping with similar scope and titles, there is more reason to keep them around as an incentive for someone to expand the topic. --Dhartung | Talk 22:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep as a stub There is indeed a reason,: that not much is written here yet does not mean that it cannot be. Deleting (or for that matter) merging stubs defeats the customary way of building article.s Most good WP articles began as stubs. DGG 05:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superkids comics[edit]

No sources are provided but since it is a new article I thought I would look around. I was unable to come up with any information as to the notability of this company, a Google search for "Superkids comics" comes up with only 12 hits. Daniel J. Leivick 23:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, unsourced, nothing to distinguish this from a hoax. -- Dragonfiend 01:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Duke (musician)[edit]

Subject is a recording artist on a student-run record label. No outside sources, nothing to indicate WP:MUSIC has been met. janejellyroll 23:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The student-run record label is slightly misleading, as his album has appearances from a variety of notable musicians - Marshall Crenshaw, Brad Roberts (Crash Test Dummies), Suzzy Roche (The Roches), Steve Holley (Wings, Ian Hunter), David Mansfield (Bob Dylan, Bruce Hornsby). You don't see people like that appearing on your typical small label release. More third party sources would easily change me to keep though. One Night In Hackney 05:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:MUSIC. Only one listed source is independent and non-trivial. Eluchil404 08:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Bullet Comics[edit]

Re-creation of an article recently speedily deleted, so I'm bringing it here in good faith. Original speedy reasoning was that it reads like an advertisement, and that still holds true. Also, some real Conflict of Interest concerns - article was created both times by SBComics, whose contributions are few and all involve promoting Silver Bullet Comics. Appears to fail WP:N. Antepenultimate 23:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and Salt as recreated content, otherwise delete for an apparent utter lack of notability compounded by COI problems. Otto4711 23:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Otto, note we can't speedy G4 here, as the previous deletion was a speedy. --Dennisthe2 00:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explanations The original version of this article was about the award winning webzine at http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com. The owners of the retail store deleted the content about the webzine and substituted commercial material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.173.128.81 (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Explanations Article was attacked by person in voilation of the Silver Bullet Comics trademark, causing edit war. Article was deleted. New entry was created to correct that, but entry's contents were lost, so a quick version was posted till further expansion could properly be done. Article suffered speedy delete too hastily, and was reposted. Article only reads like ad because it has not been fleshed out to it's proper state where it was before edit war deletion. Conflict of Interest comes from attempts to protect trademark. Aditional editing will adjust article back to the informational entry on this battle and it's results, removing it's current "reads like an advertisiment" issues.71.71.113.156 09:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If I'm understanding what you're saying, then it is being claimed that an article was deleted due to an edit war - which to my knowledge does not normally cause an article to be deleted. Edit-warring articles are generally put up for protection or go through arbitration; it is not a valid reason for deletion (especially speedy deletion). The deletion log show this article to have been deleted twice, both for concerns of advertising. Admins are supposed to check an article's history to make sure it is not the target of sudden, drastic revisions before acting on any speedy deletion request (and I believe they do). If protecting your trademark is truely your number one concern, you should realize that allowing this article to be deleted and salted (essentially, protected from re-creation) will accomplish that quite nicely. I doubt this is solution you're looking for, however.

None of this addresses my concerns of this article failing Wikipedia's Notability criteria, however. The cornerstone of that important policy: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." Please note the specific wording of that phrase and follow those links for explanations of just what we mean by "independent" and "reliable" sources. Note also that "non-trivial" means that it is more than a passing mention or quote in an article about a larger or different topic. I was unable to find such sources myself in relation to either incarnation of Silver Bullet Comics.

I hope no-one minds that I moved this coversation down here per usual practice, in order to keep the timeline of comments straight. Also, please sign your comments here by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your posts. Thank you. -- Antepenultimate 21:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Those sources do exist, including Newsarama's coverage of Silver Bullet Comics for their Free Comic Book Day 2004 and 2005 events. Sources are being added.71.71.113.156 20:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:N. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 02:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article now has more sources and info than the current Wikipedia entries for 'Comic Book Resources', 'The Comics Reporter', 'Comic Shop News', 'Funtime Comics', 'Million Year Picnic', 'Newsarama', and Hundreds upon hundreds of other entries covering comics websites and stores, all of which have been allowed and are not up for deletion. As this entry's subject has long been BOTH a US Trademarked site AND a store, making it unique, and founded by a person with many ties to the comics industry, it shoud be allowed to be fleshed out, not deleted. If every imaginary character that ever appeared in a single comic can have an entry, this unique company more than qualifies, with it's rich history of exclusive stories quoted all over the internet, and current legal battle. Many articles on Wikipedia utilize this website as the source for their article's information... so having this entry be significant enough to qualify as a trusted source, but not accept defining it, is completely contrary to what an enclyclopedia accomplishes. To delete this entry is to disqualify all entries quoting this source as a valid resource. This entry should be allowed to be expanded, as deleting it serves no purpose, in light of other similar content rampant on Wikipeda. To not let it have the chance to expand is to favor other sites' ability to have entries over it, under the same criteria.71.71.113.156 06:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note that inclusion is not an indicator of notability, so the existence of other similar articles is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Also please take a look at arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as you've made quite a few of those above (note that "arguments to avoid" is not an official policy, however, it gives a pretty good idea the types of arguments that closing admins are likely to ignore, IMO). As for many of the "sources" that have been introduced to the article, they all seem to be more about nationwide events that Silver Bullet happened to participate in (especially the 24 Hour Comic sources). This is also true for the Newsarama sources - These do much more to demonstrate the notability of Free Comic Book day than this particular store, and does nothing to demonstrate the notability of the website this article was originally promoting (and yes, I still feel your aims are promotional in nature). Also, these sources are somewhat dubious in terms of what we consider a reliable source - The Comics Journal links, especially, seem to be in the form of a blog, where short blurbs tend only to link back to Silver Bullet's own site. -- Antepenultimate 18:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Bucketsofg 22:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of censored music videos[edit]

Delete - indiscriminate list with far too broad criteria for inclusion. Any music video that has so much as a single word bleeped by any of the listed stations is subject to inclusion. Limiting the list to just those listed stations is improperly POV as there is little or no justification for including some videos censored on some shows/stations and not others so paradoxically the list is simultaneously too broad and too narrow in scope. The article is completely unsourced and it's doubtful that reliable sources could be found for most of the entries (partcipants on the talk page even note that they have conflicting memories of seeing the videos censored vs. uncensored. Noting some of the videos as "extremely offensive" is also impermissably POV. Otto4711 23:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning delete properly referenced and with clearer criteria for inclusion, I don't think that it would be such a horrendous list. But I agree, the current list is ridiculous. I think the lead sentence "If the video's title is in bold, this means that the video is extremely offensive." is pretty funny. In a bad way... Pascal.Tesson 00:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have to agree with the analysis by the nom. I also see no reason why this is limited to north america (although doing so does narrow the overbroadness that was noted). Agent 86 01:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and extend Is this suddenly everybody's solution to every problem on Wikipedia? Can't we just extend the list of music stations? - Ndrly 06:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extending the listed stations does not address the remaining problems with the article. Otto4711 22:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Unverifiable and indiscriminate; if a music video sparked major controversy or was sensored by many stations, write about it in the article for the song. I don't see the point of collecting censored videos in a list like this. Graham87 09:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's valid and factual. Censorship exists and can be documented. There are plenty of other lists on Wiki that are allowed to stay simply because of their popularity and not based on the validity of their editors' arguments for existence (see the absolutely worthless and misguided, vague and deceptive lists/POV and nonsense at the "Hollywood North" page which is really just advertising for the Canadian film industry). That page is allowed to exist even though there is no documented clear use of the term "Hollywood North" which is just a bastardization and cannibalization of the true, original Hollywood, California name. Donteatyellowsnow

Existence of one article has no bearing on whether another should exist. If you believe that an article should be deleted, you can nominate it. Your arguments do not address the merits of this article, and it is this article that is the topic of discussion. Otto4711 22:52, 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. Bucketsofg 22:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Faller[edit]

This apparent autobiography has WP:BIO and WP:COI issues. While notability as a media producer is claimed, the article (and the articles on the person's projects) don't feature the multiple independent substantial coverage required for notability. Sandstein 09:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete He does have a couple credits to his name, so it's possible someone could scrounge up more coverage elsewhere, but the article is unreferenced. The claim of "first underwater bullet-time" use is dubious, since anyone can add trivia at IMDB. Leebo⁸⁶ 15:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I've edited the article to remove a lot of silly discussion of his food preferences (fan crap), and cut to the core of his purported notability in photography and filmmaking. This article needs some verifiable sources, but lack of sources should not be a reason for deletion, it should be a reason for further research. --Kevin Murray 01:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The rather unsourced content fails to convince me that this article is encyclopedic. Agent 86 21:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Dwain 00:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Please see WP:ILIKEIT. Sandstein 06:26, 25 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, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable minor film maker. No independent, reliable sources in article and I can't find any through google. Eluchil404 08:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Renaming is an editorial decision that can be made on the article's talk page. --Core desat 04:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of haunted locations[edit]

This list is a complete farce and will never pass WP:NOR, i may as well claim my pc or cat is haunted Gnevin 23:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete the list is indeed a farce. Especially given the very affirmative title. I suppose there could be some value to a list of allegedly haunted locations but then again the latter would be so enormous as to make the whole thing pointless. If we're going to have an entry for every local superstition or folk-tale, there's really no point. Pascal.Tesson 00:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folklore is a important subject in cultural anthropology... don't be so quick to dismiss it. I'd have no problem with renaming it "List of reportedly haunted locations" or some such. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is a mish-mash of legends, folklore, tall tales, and tourist attractions promoting themselves as "haunted". The article might have some value if it were strictly identified as Folklore, but how such an article might be administered, I don't know. --- LuckyLouie 00:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The subject matter on this page is often subjective, and serves as a good point of entry for anyone with an interest in the paranormal to look up the facts behind what is often folklore, coincidence or tradition. A name change, and clear introduction into the subject would help and perhaps encouragement of referencing, but deletion would be a tragedy, a loss of a unique source for anyone with an interest in the subject. Ghostieguide 00:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article fails WP:V also. As i've said before what to stop me saying my pc is haunted . I'm from Ireland and i've never heard of the 4 irish places their being haunted where can WP:RS be found for this article?(Gnevin 00:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - Essentially all this is is a dismabiguation page that links to existing articles that claim paranormal activity occurs at a certain place. WP:V is actually followed in the individual articles, as they themselves provide the links to reputable sources to back up the claims. As for the article itself failing WP:V, that's a bogus claim. Look at the bottom. References. A lot of the article IS supported by links to existing articles on the internet. That's WP:NOR satisfied too. Just because you haven't heard of something in the article isn't legitimate reason to delete the entire thing. The Kinslayer 00:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment This is not a dismabigious page and if the articles it link to has WP:RS reference why arent the included in this list (Gnevin 00:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I said already. A lot are. Bottom of the page under 'References'. There are 38 of them, so I'm surprised you missed them. I certainly think a site such as this should be classed as a reliable source, don't you?The Kinslayer 00:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the Whitehouse and the BBC the rest are not WP:RS mostly ghostly fan sites , WP:V#Burden_of_evidence says you must prove to me not that i have to prove their not haunted (Gnevin 01:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Your being selective. 'Most' are not in fact ghost sites. At least half of them are published books, which pass RS. We also have WGNTV, which is another news site like the BBC and the Seattle Times. At best only 25% of the links could be dismissed by someone truly depserate to find a problem.The Kinslayer 01:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and since all of these say 'alleged' 'supposedly' or 'said to be' haunted rather than claming they ARE haunted, all I have to prove to you is that there are reliable sources that make the claim. I'd only have to prove to you they are haunted if we are actually trying to claim the stories were true, which we are not. The Kinslayer 01:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'alleged' 'supposedly' or 'said to be' says who .This is the definition of WP:NOR this article uses {{fact}} 66! times and could use it at least that amount of times again. (Gnevin 01:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No, NOR means WE can't make the claims. We aren't making the claims personally. This article has citation tags yes, Because it's still in the process of being sourced and cleaned up. You've alread turned round and tried to argue that 38 sources don't count, so I doubt you'd accept it even if the 66 tags were filled in tomorrow. Strange as it might seem, putting together a comprehensive article doesn't happen overnight. The article was certainly not abandoned, as the dit history shows. You claim the list is unmanageable too, but then again, you've not even tried. The Kinslayer 01:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed all the references don't count only that majority arent WP:RS (Gnevin 01:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

And we've already proven that claim is bogus, since all 38 of them are published articles, per NOR in a nutshell. We make no original anlysis of those articles. And WP:RS is a guideline not a policy and therefore is not a deletion criteria in itself. Next problem? The Kinslayer 01:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10 books references and a couple of bbc and whitehouse is a minority and the 38 are not WP:RS. Anyway we are going in circles lets just see how this plays out (Gnevin 01:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

We are "running in circles" because you are being inconsistent and contradicting yourself. Firstly, you claimed that there are no reliable sources in the article. Then you changed it to "Besides BBC and Whitehouse, rest of them are not". Then you changed it to "Besides 10 books and news citations, rest of them are not". If you actually went through the citations before you nominate the list for deletion, you would found around 17 verified sources. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 01:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We also have the Seattle Times, The Jakarta Post, WGNTV, Midwest Living magazine, the Chicago tribune, the houston chronicle and a few foriegn language news sites. Significantl more WP:RS than '10 books references and a couple of bbc and whitehouse' The Kinslayer 01:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Needs clean-up, and delete locations that cannot be verified. The haunting subject is influencial enough for us to keep the list. I would like to recommend the nominator to note his remarks of "no sources", "complete farce", when there are 38 references with 10+ book citations, and various news citation from sources like BBC News. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 01:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I would agree that maybe a name change may be in order to resolve this dispute, but I do feel that people should be allowed their views on this subject. I will go along with a small name change but I have no issue with the content of the page as i had heard about some of these places before! Tankie ryan 01:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an article like this can degrade into ghost-cruft if were not watching it carefully, but there is nothing wrong with the concept. Just strongly enforce WP:NOR and WP:RS and it should be fine. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Tag unsourced locations, give users a chance to respond to them, and then delete those that are unsourced. There's no reason to throw the entire article out as it can otherwise completely conform to Wikipedia guidelines. --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (possibly merge) While it is not exactly well written, and could be better sourced, it is a solid point of entry with information that it both relevant and useful within the field of the paranormal. It is also more informative that a category, which is the only other alternative. perfectblue 09:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the relatively ignored comment by J.S. at the top shows a good basic undertsanding of the subject Just because some editors might have what they consider highly rational ways of thinking should not dissalow other ways of thinking - and folklore in many cultures in the world have considerable issue with the phenomenon of haunting - whether their claims or folklore is true verifiable or otherwise is totaly irrelevent. The idea of this list being a way into the subject and locations of claims of such phenomenon is excellent and there should be every effort to maintain this facility! SatuSuro 11:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has a terrible name and a vacuous introduction. Other than that, it's fine. YechielMan 05:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is fine and should just get a title facelift and a new intro sentence. -- Hrödberäht 01:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute Keep in the Name of Jimbo Wales - let us go through the concerns here:

"Complete farce:" "foolish show; mockery; a ridiculous sham."

Foolish show: This article is definitely not a show of any sort. Those who have been editing it for extended amounts of time have been pruning it of "showy" claims by less dedicated people.

Mockery: by no means is this article mocking in any way at all. A mocking tone is usually referred to as vandalism, and is reverted on sight.

Ridiculous sham: while "ridiculous" may be a POV thing to say about this article, "sham" is downright incorrect. Dedicated editors like Nealparr et al. have gone through sources and paragraphs making sure there is no "sham" in the article. On the contrary, I've watched them delete tons of sham from the article in keeping it up to Wikipedia standards.

"Will never pass WP:NOR:" This was, in fact, my initial concern with the article ghost; I was sure that the only way people would be able to add material to the article would be through original research. To my surprise, and as you can easily find for yourself, there are plenty of reliable sources that this article contains. Those statements that have no source or contain original research, for example,
"I may as well claim my pc or cat is haunted," are immediately removed, as a quick glance through the article history would have revealed.

It seems to me that the issue being addressed here is not whether the article meets Wikipedia standards - it meets them just as well as any other article - but rather, whether hauntings really occur. The question of its reality is irrelevant to the article itself (yes, as others brought up, the title may be changed to reflect this a little better), but if a newspaper says "such and such a place is haunted," who are we to treat it any differently than a newspaper claiming "an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima?" Who cares whether the place is haunted by your definition of the term? To insist that it isn't despite sources would qualify as original research. V-Man737 06:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Ghostieguide. Kamope · talk · contributions 12:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the reason for this AfD is that it will never pass WP:NOR as the list now contains 50 references, individual listings may require further referencing but the list definately isnt a collection of "original research". Gnan garra 14:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Good grief, how could I have missed the fact that this was up for AFD for 3 days? I've been putting some effort into getting this cited and cleaned up with an eye towards nominating it for featured list in a few months. I thought it sort of strange that other people had suddenly taken off with the sourcing but was glad - now I see the reason, it's on AFD. However, there is nothing in this list that should cause it to be deleted. Everything I could say in favor of keeping it has pretty much already been said; but this list is improving by leaps and bounds and if it keeps up it won't be long before it meets all the featured list requirements. There's no reason on Earth not to keep it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if I would have to come to your talk page to wake you up... V-Man737 12:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the college professor and folklorist Dr. Bill Ellis argues, the study of alleged hauntings and similar phenomena is an important academic undertaking that provides cultural insight. --The Argonaut 22:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep someone needs to "adopt" this list, not just to keep on top of the sourcing, but to stop it getting too long. Every town in the world has a haunted house, and this list could become a huge cruft magnet. Totnesmartin 00:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not every town in the world has a haunted house that has been documented by reliable sources. V-Man737 00:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reliable or not, if a ghost is written up somewhere, it's sourcable and so could potentially get on this list. Totnesmartin 13:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to List of locations said to be haunted or List of locations claimed to be haunted or List of allegedly haunted locations or any other title that doesn't imply that the legitimacy of these claims. Hesperian 03:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hispanic surnames[edit]

This page is an indiscriminate, unmanageable, unencyclopedic list. Sable232 19:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, not exceptionally useful but redlinks are one reason for lists instead of categories. I don't see how it's indiscriminate or unmanageable. If we have that many Hispanic surname articles it seems to make sense to have them navigable in some way. --Dhartung | Talk 20:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very much in keeping with and well placed in Category:Lists of surnames by ethnicity or nationality. TonyTheTiger 22:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I saw that category, and I would have no problem putting up others for AfD if this one is deleted. Most are OR and not verifiable. What constitutes an ethnic surname? --Sable232 22:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is there any point in this? You would have to make every last name mentioned in every article link to a list. I suggest replacing this with a link to an online phonebook. Citicat 00:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it is completely unsourced. The idea of a category or list of this type isn't a terrible one, it may be a legitimate way of organizing information however each and every name needs to be sourced and a definition of what precisely constitutes a 'hispanic surname' would have to be devised. I'd be willing to bet that quite a few of these names are not hispanic. --The Way 01:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used to have a Dictionary of Surnames and very interesting it was too. Admittedly, it was British surnames, but similar must be available for other languages and cultures. But the point is, it was a DICTIONARY, not an encyclopaedia. This list suffer several faults, notably that the first few links I followed go to irrelevant articles (e.g. Abella >>> 14C female Italian physician; Abreu >>> Abreu Camp in the USA). And why is O'Higgins not on the list? However, it may be useful and there are, as has been said, similar pages (but I don't see personally how I would use it or any similar list) so I remain neutral for now. Emeraude 12:33, 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, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteHas a potential to be factual but not encylopedic. We could need every name in every Latin American and Spanish phone book. But this depends - is a name Hispanic if a verified Hispanic person has it? Also the list is already too long to be of any use, and in theory it needs to be expanded.Obina 00:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename 'Hispanic'-->'Spanish' and transwiki. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but Wiktionary is. Articles on Hispanic surnames (or any surnames) should also be deleted per WP:NOT. (The term "Hispanic" also seems problematic, as would be the articles in Category:Lists of surnames by ethnicity or nationality per Sable's concerns about OR/V. In this case though, that can probably be fixed just by renaming to "List of Spanish Surnames." Classification of names by linguistic origin seems OK and verifiable by linguistic sources; classification of surnames by ethnicity seems dicey.) Pan Dan 18:25, 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. --Core desat 04:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 24 circular[edit]

Another of a series of pages OttomanReference has created in parallel to the Armenian Genocide page, it is original research as well as a FORK. He's trying to creat some notability to his theories about the Armenian Genocide Fad (ix) 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the original article, before my recent edits constituted Armenian genocide denialist literature. The references were unverifiable, and there were no academic references. Consider renaming the article to "April 24 (Armenian Genocide)". Otherwise, I support the delete. Serouj 20:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: April 24 circular is a "cited event" which is included in the literature (both sides). It is the most important, the milestone, even in the history of Armenian Genocide. It is not an original research. The day of the "April 24 circular" is recognized with the Genocide Remembrance Day as the beginning of the Armenian genocide. April 24 circular is not the Armenian genocide itself to be claimed as a "parallel article", it is part of the Armenian genocide. It is not a fork, it is included in the article like the many other sub-articles. It is "genocide deniers", propaganda to eliminate this event, or other milestone events, from the history of Armenian genocide. Elimination of this article will bring a big gap in the storyline Armenian genocide, which genocide denier's main policy to eliminate the "milestones" from the "history of genocide". This is a "bad faith" nomination on behalf of (ix). OttomanReference 21:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a significant event in the time line of the genocide, elimination of this article will bring a big gap. This is a bad faith nomination.OttomanReference 21:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith, this nomination is under two policies. , having any notability. You've filled it with original research. April 24 refers to the Armenian intellectuals arrest and the changing policy on the evacuation. The Armenian genocide has still to survive after the damages you have created. Fad (ix) 22:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user Fad (ix) is acting on bad faith (a) He accepts the circular and its consequences as a "part of Armenian Genocide" which he specifically mention the importance in his comment [92] (b) Article is hardly an original research as the content is covered in both sides of the argument. Besides there is a genocide memorial day which choses the same day. (c) it is a bad faith as Fadix concentrates on personalities and trashes them. In this case the OttomanReference. Fadix divides people into camps and rejects the cited additions of the users based on the camps that he constructs. (d) What fadix believes as attack against the genocide is totally his construction, as there are many people who believes the real attack against the genocide is elimination of the most important events, milestones, from the wikipedia and keeping the Armenian genocide without "strong" factual base. The people who bring "strong factual base" is attacked by the Fadix as a denier. This is part of "Defender"-"Deniar" duality that Fadix generates. OttomanReference 23:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There is an April 24, the symbolic beggining of the Armenian genocide. When intellectuals and artists were arrested and later killed, on which date, the Ottoman redirected the evacuation in the desert. There is no such notable thing as April 24 circular. This notability, YOU cooked it, much like you have cooked other notabilities and created articles. Assume good faith on the reasons behind my decision. You have created a FORK, of a date covered in the Armenian Genocide main page. Your disruptions have no end. And also, stop making unsubstanciated charges against me. Fad (ix) 23:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The circular as a document is real. There is no symbolism on the circular as the official document codes are known and published. Archive code BOA. DH. ŞFR, nr.52/96,97,98. It was one of the most famous circular of the Ottoman Government which passed on April 24 1915 by Talat Pasha. The effects are also real and covered under Armenian notables deported from the Ottoman capital in 1915. It is a "bad faith" nomination.OttomanReference 23:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This circular IS NOT notable, you have just confirmed my point that this article is not about April 24, but about your supposed notable circular of April 24, which is totally absent of ALL notable works covering April 24. This article is a FORK, like it or not. Fad (ix) 23:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article is April 24 circular, if anything that is not related with the Talat Pasha's order was not included in the article. The version [93] version before Fad (ix) edited proves this point.

Article is not about "commemoration of the genocide." The title is "April 24 circular" which tells the events related with the circular. The effect of circular is so important that the same day is selected for commemoration. Commemoration is a supporting argument for keeping. Even the user (FADIX) who asked for deletion says it exits in this comment which in the link ""FADIX: You are using my arguments which justified my claims that there was a dispute. March 2, the deportation started, April 24, a general order of deportation was issued,.."" The claims that nonexistence of this event and asking for deletion is a bad faith. Thanks. -- OttomanReference 00:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment/Keep'Temporarily Undecided (see below) - The nominator's reason for the deletion nomination is that "There is no such thing as an 'April 24 circular'". Actually, there is. Search for +"April 24" +circular -wikipedia Armenian in Google and on the first page you get what is apparently a Turkish government link (or at least a strongly denialist website) that states:

The Ottoman government, after having been patient for nine months following the general mobilization, was finally forced to ake sound measures vis-à-vis the Armenians. In the wake of the eruption of the Van Rebellion, on 9 C. 1333 (24 April 1915) the vernment sent a secret circular to provincial and sanjak governors with the aim of disbanding the revolutionary committees which had initiated these incident and which had armed the Armenians. In this circular it requested that the Armenian committee headquarters be closed, that their files be seized and that the committee leaders be arrested. (copied from [94])

Moreover, as User:OttomanReference has noted, the circular carries the title BOA. DH. ŞFR, nr. 52/96, 97, 98 (see footnote 16 of the same link). Whether the page title should be changed or certain info should be added to/removed from the article is not a reason to bring it to AfD. Black Falcon 05:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletions. Black Falcon 05:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate was not listed in the AfD Log for 2007 January 27. It is listed now. Black Falcon 05:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Falcon. Sorry, but I have said There is no such thing as an 'April 24 circular', having any notability. You have, I assume, involuntarily distorted my message by adding a dot after the term circular and by mistake deleted my words. (check diff).

I do not deny the claim of a circular, I have said a second time in this very same page: There is no such notable thing as April 24 circular. This notability, YOU cooked it,… April 24 is recognized as the day when intellectuals have been arrested, most killed. What OttomanReference did is taking the Turkish government claim on the event (the very same page from the Turkish government website you have footnoted). Check the article on its state before Serouj edits, check the footnotes OttomanReference had provided and the text and compare them with the one from the page you have linked here. This page was created as a fork of the Armenian genocide article, check the genocide article section about April 24. OttomanReference created this parallel article by recycling the official Turkish government claim on April 24 events by cooking some notability over some obscure 24 April circular and completing it with original research. He created two parallel articles about Armenian casualties, in parallel to the already existing Armenian casualties’ article. The article he has worked on titled: Armenian notables deported from the Ottoman capital in 1915 which seems as a good intentioned article, while the large majority of the notables who have been deported have been murdered, those mostly cited are those having survived. Ottomanreference had a history of disruption on the Armenian genocide article, having created documented socks, and the article still suffer of the disruptions he has created by using his socks to implement his changes.

Just as evidences, this is what he wrote above: The title of the article is April 24 circular, if anything that is not related with the Talat Pasha's order was not included in the article. The version [2] version before Fad (ix) edited proves this point. Now check April 24 on google, and see what are 99,99% of the results you obtain in connection with the Armenians, is actually not related to Ottomanreference cooked event, and thosefor can not be used to justify the existance of his cooked article, which is a FORK, the reason I have provided for its deletion, and not the reason you report I have given. Fad (ix) 06:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- My apologies for the misunderstanding. I thought you had nominated the article for deletion on grounds of WP:HOAX, but after rereading your comments above, I see now your point revolves around WP:Notability. I am, for now, changing my "keep" comment to "undecided" until I can look into this topic some more. Thank you for pointing out my error and assuming good faith. Cheers, Black Falcon 07:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You won't find any mention of an "April 24 circular" in academic papers on the Armenian Genocide. OttomanReference has not provided a verifiable source in accord with WP:VERIFY and his arguments are considered Armenian Genocide denial which only has one place in Wikipedia: the Denial of the Armenian Genocide article, where its claims will be debunked anyway. April 24 is to the Armenian Genocide what Kristallnacht is to the Holocaust. If anything, an article named "April 24 (Armenian Genocide)" should be created, not one title after a non-existent "April 24 circular". Serouj 07:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, http://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/yayin/osmanli/Armenians_inottoman/1b_001a.htm is not "material that has been published by reliable sources" and therefore fails WP:VERIFY. The government of Turkey is known to be a denier of the Armenian Genocide, and therefore this type of argument belongs in the Denial of the Armenian Genocide article. Serouj 07:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources do not assert notability of the April 24th Circular. It is apparent that April 24th is, in fact, a notable day in the chronology of the Armenian Genocide. However, it is not apparent that this circular is notable or important, outside of topic itself. --Haemo 10:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like POV forking. Completely inappropriate--TigranTheGreat 11:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Aivazovsky 12:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Notability: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. Though Talaat's order is often noted in books on the Genocide, it is always done so as part of giving the history of 24 April 1915. Thus, due to the lack of "non-trivial, reliable" sources that treat the circular as their primary subject-matter, I am changing my original vote (see above) to delete. Black Falcon 18:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I support User:Serouj's idea to create some kind of article about April 24, 1915: e.g., 24 April 1915 purge of Armenian intellectuals or 24 April (Armenian Genocide). Or perhaps the information can be added to the background of the Genocide Remembrance Day article. Black Falcon 18:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a good proposition, the thing is that the main article is in very bad shape, I would find it logical to work on it first. Fad (ix) 19:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The genocide remebrance day is enough, and correct. Nareklm 18:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Serouj and Narek. Hakob 01:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After reviewing and examinening all the facts and the arguments. I made up my mind to vote for delete for the reasons above, which was my first vote, to delete but changed my mind temporarly to review the facts clearly. ROOB323 06:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:35, 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.