Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 9 July 11 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy deleted. Jaranda wat's sup 02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

72nd vfw[edit]

72nd vfw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable online gaming group. Contributor repeatedly removed the PROD tag without providing a reason, so now it goes to AFD. No notability claimed in the article. This should have been a speedy deletion, but most likely the contributor would remove the DB tag as he did the PROD tag. ●DanMS • Talk 00:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. is correct. The original contributor blanked the page in this edit. The page was later restored by another editor, probably during anti-vandalism patrol. ●DanMS • Talk 01:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per lack of notability and the style of writing. Corpx 01:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Company might be notable but creator failed to make any assertions of such consistent with WP:CORP in article, nor did s/he add references during the week this was on AfD. (I would also note that this page has been speedied twice before, and any administrator coming to this after a subsequent recreation should seriously consider salting. Daniel Case 21:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MultiLing Corporation[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:CORP Deiz talk 23:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per lack of "significant coverage in independent media" (only press releases found) in WP:NOTE Corpx 01:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if 1) article can be expanded and revised beyond what I just did and 2) if more references can be added to better demonstrate notability. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the original creator of the page, I posted a comment in the discussion page before I found this page (sorry I'm new). Thank you for the constructive criticism, I'll dig up better links. I'm hoping to keep my first real page alive. Provotrumpet 14:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It will help the closing administrator give weight to your opinion if you can demonstrate how the article satisfies the WP:CORP criteria. Deiz talk 14:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You must be looking at a version of the article that contains multiple, independent non-trivial references that I just can't see. Or you're completely ignoring WP:CORP. Closing admin, I trust you will give appropriate weight to the keep opinions offered here thus far, i.e. pretty much zero. Deiz talk 10:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the closing admin should ignore both process and policy to follow a guideline. Gotcha. —Xezbeth 12:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the closing admin should ignore opinions such as "Seems notable enough" that neither state nor even hint at why the subject in question is in any way notable. Process in these cases involves giving appropriate weight to such opinions, and if I'm inviting anyone to ignore policy in the above comment I'd be obliged if you'd point out where. The notability guidelines I refer to have been built over years with the input and discussion of many, many dedicated Wikipedia contributors and I find your italicizing of the word guideline both insulting and vindicating. Deiz talk 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it amusing that you criticise the detail I gave, when your nomination consists of 3 words and a link. I also find it amusing that you take offence at my italicising when you yourself did it in your reply to me. Whether something like this is worthy of an article is subjective, and I resent your attempts to discredit my !vote just because I disagree with you. —Xezbeth 14:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My nomination gives a link to the guideline, and notes that the article fails to meet it which is a pretty typical reason for a trip to AfD, regardless of how many words are used to express it. Your opinion entirely fails to address the issues raised by that nomination. Feel free to include "I reject the WP:CORP guideline and the need for companies to have been featured in multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources" in your opinion so the closing admin has a better idea of where you're coming from. If you disagree with :CORP, you're disagreeing with a hell of a lot more people than just me, and I'm happy to stand up for all of them. Deiz talk 14:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete - I agree, no assertion of notability is in this article, and no secondary sources are presented which assert the company's notability. However, I am uncomfortable voting delete for an article that was only created 7 hours earlier, as that seems to contradict the assumption of good faith (though if proof can be given that this was a SPA, I'm all in favour of permablocking the user or IP address). At the same time, the creator has now had almost a week to provide references, and hasn't done so. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 02:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nagare Mutsu[edit]

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

Doujinshi artist, thus entirely self-published. No actual works you can buy at a bookstore (that I can find evidence of existing). WP:NOTE. Snarfies 23:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence of notability, barely any evidence he even exists. Someguy1221 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though I found no immediate objection to the article's content, there was also no immediate references on the web or in Google book search to suggest notability. J. T. Lance 09:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with 5 Ghits, outside of online encyclopediae: [1]. Bearian 20:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. FisherQueen (Talk) 11:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wii sports cheats[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Wii sports cheats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, written in a very unencyclopaedic way, possible copyright violation - talk page suggests direct copy from another source. Goes against game guide rules and if the content is important it should be included on the Wii Sports page, not this page. Guest9999 23:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete there were a number of concerns raised and issues to be considered before closing this. The policy WP:NOT in particular WP:NOT#REPOSITORY while this states ..without text, the title of the work maybe "text" it doesn't convey anything either. The next point of consideration is "usefulness" whether as that or as "encyclopedia", to this without any context to individual images it is nothing more than a duplicate of commons:William-Adolphe Bouguereau on Commons. That brings into the equation Wikimedia Commons and whether its policies enable the same presentation. All the images are stored on commons and everything in this article is already there(including three images I identified as not being in this gallery). Commons has changed its policies to encourage the creation and use of galleries as a better way of presenting media.

Finally considering the previous AfDs, the first was a consensus to keep there was a substancial commentary to transwiki to Commons in December 2005, Commons was only 3 months old and still had a significant period of development to undergo. The second AfD had an almost unanimous transwiki and delete opinion expressed as such that was the result. This AfD was raised as a matter of courtesy where in reality its was a WP:CSD#G4 candidate, that being considered the Keep opinions need to provide substantial reasonings beyond usefulness that hasnt been the case.

I've already ensured there is a nlink back to the article William-Adolphe Bouguereau on the commons page, and I'll link directly to the commons gallery from that article. Gnangarra 13:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery[edit]

AfDs for this article:
William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This gallery is identical to the gallery on Commons at commons:William-Adolphe Bouguereau. It's also been deleted before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery 2, but before that it was kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery so I figure running it through AfD again is better than a speedy. Bryan Derksen 22:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP is not a "collections of photographs or media files" in WP:NOT Corpx 01:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because something that has already passed two of these must be good enough to a reasonable amount of editors to remain on the site. No need to keep rehashing the same arguments. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the second AfD's result was to transwiki to commons. I wouldn't have put it up for deletion again if both of the previous AfDs had been to keep or no consensus. Bryan Derksen 04:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Commons is where it belongs, and it's already there. Deor 02:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Belongs in Commons, where it already lives, and the article for the artist has a link to the commons page. Resolute 04:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just repeats material now on Commons, with no added value, so not needed. Johnbod 13:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Commons is an image repository for material that can be used by other projects. It is not a substitute for them. If the material has encyclopedic value then it should be within wikipedia, where it can be monitored by Wikipedia editors, who are not necessarily Commons editors. The Commons page is less attractively laid out and has surplus information. Commons is multilingual. Commons pages can end up looking like this, i.e. downright ugly, which is no way to view art. Commons is a workshop, not a gallery. This page does not fail WP:NOT, which says, "Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context". the encyclopedic context is William-Adolphe Bouguereau, which this is a legitimate content fork of. No one would quibble if there was a list of the artist's works. It makes sense to have pictures to go with that list. You can only know art by looking at it. Tyrenius 00:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - personally not my favorite painter, but this gallery is within reach of people who like the work, and seem to use the images. I really think it should be available. Modernist 00:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Modernist —  $PЯINGrαgђ  01:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tyrenius and Modernist. This has encyclopedic value, and is no more a violation of WP:NOT than any other verifiable list. If the pictures were gone, it would still be a list. The purpose of commons is to look for pictures, not study them. This should remain here. - Zeibura (Talk) 01:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has encyclopedic value. It's incomplete, though. where is The Fair Spinner? --Scottandrewhutchins 19:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a mere collection of images with no article to go along with it, fails WP:NOT#REPOSITORY without question. Jay32183 21:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not fork an article to make one that violates WP:NOT. This article has zero content. Saying that there's content in another article is meaningless. There is no excuse for this kind of gallery, especially one that duplicates a Commons gallery. Jay32183 22:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So would it be OK to move all the images back into the main article where there is the text? And do you object to all lists on the same basis? Tyrenius 23:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all lists are content forks, and even many that are do not violate WP:NOT and in fact conform to WP:LIST. Similar content is no reason to keep this, maybe it should be deleted to. I haven't examined every list, I can only decide "keep" or "delete" on ones I have. Jay32183 00:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So would it be OK to move all the images back into the main article where there is the text? Tyrenius 08:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with images on the main article. Might be manual of style conflicts, but that's a concern for FAC, not AFD. Jay32183 22:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an argument for merge, not delete. Tyrenius 00:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it isn't. There isn't any content here. The history does not need to be kept because pictures were added to another article. Jay32183 03:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Delete" means it shouldn't be on wikipedia. You're not saying it shouldn't be on wikipedia: you're just disagreeing about where it should be and think it would be OK in a different place. If you take material from one article and put it in another, the technical term is "merge". Tyrenius 22:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clearly this list is both useful and has plenty of content, it has encyclopedic value for several editors and as Tyrenius points out it is in context with the main article. This isn't just an orphaned batch of random pictures, there is an article about a then popular 19th century artist (albeit a revised reputation today) however the pictures remain in context with the main article, and should stay. Modernist 02:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, being useful is not, in itself, a reason to keep. Second, by being its own article the gallery is out of context. The gallery is on the Commons. Instead of duplicating it here, just have the main page link to it, which it already does. Jay32183 03:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So in other words being useful is bad, so whats good? - being useless? These images might be merged with written text, and content, hmm the article perhaps, logic. Modernist 05:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, "being useful" isn't bad, "it's useful" is not a sound keep argument, because there are plenty of useful things that do not belong on Wikipedia. Dictionary definitions are useful, but they belong on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Jay32183 22:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • We are in agreement, useful is good, however this material should be kept because it is often used by editors, perhaps merge with the main article would be best. Modernist 23:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I said claiming that something is useful does not mean it should be kept. In fact, I said that this page should be deleted as a blatant violation of WP:NOT. Have you actually read WP:USEFUL. It says not to say "Keep - Useful". It doesn't matter if the list is useful, we delete useful stuff all the time. Jay32183 03:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • This isn't a random list or a telephone book. These images are clearly being used to illustrate text, and to represent this particular artists work and his ouevre. As I stated earlier this is not an artist that I like, but others do and it's valid and worthwhile content. Probably this gallery should merge with the main article. This just sounds like the IDONTLIKEIT so it should be deleted arguement. Obviously you delete things all the time, as you say - and certain things should not be deleted. Like these images. Modernist 08:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • My responses to you have not been an argument for deletion, they have been an explanation for why your argument isn't valid. My argument for deletion has been that this is just a repository of images, which Wikipedia is not, but Wikimedia Commons is. This arleady exists on Wikimedia Commons, so there isn't anything to worry about. Jay32183 19:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I have already addressed those points above by my "keep" post. Tyrenius 21:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if it's already Commons, this particular article shouldn't be here - especially if that was the outcome of a previous AfD (I don't personally like to second-guess previous results). I appreciate the encyclopedic value of this article, but the "selected works" section in the artist article should serve the purpose. Any work of his judged not sufficiently significant for his "selected works" section can rest in commons, with a link to the commons provided in the main article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Tyrenius, with a minor addition from me: not only this is an expansion of the encyclopedical contents of the main article, but also serves to alleviate article size issues. I strongly believe the interpretation of WP:NOT#REPOSITORY given above on this matter to be well-intentioned, but misguided; this entry by no means is "an indiscriminate collection of images", but serves to illustrate the works of the main article's subject, without adding to its already significant size. Phaedriel - 22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also add that this article (of images) should be subject to editing like any other. It has already been pointed out that a particular painting is absent which should be included. Furthermore, it is not necessarily beneficial to have every image on Commons included. There may be a case for trimming, for example, so that it gives a balanced overview. This should be done in conjunction with the main William-Adolphe Bouguereau article, so that ideally the two work together. I think the gallery there should be reduced, and images integrated into the text. Then for a decade-by-decade survey this gallery would do an admirable job. Some brief text might be included also. Such a format could be extended to other artists who merit it. Tyrenius 00:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Keep or Merge -- Why wouldn't images be kept with the article on the artist who made the paintings? Bus stop 02:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tyrenius has made points that I have made elsewhere. Galleries are essential for understanding some subjects, suchas art. For a variety of reasons, I feel separating galleries form the main article is the ideal solution. I also feel that a gallery on Commons is a very poor solution, and that without galleries on Wikipedia itself we are failing in our mission to provide encyclopedic coverage. For those who point at WP:NOT, I believe that this gallery passes as WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is not "Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles" (emphasis added). This gallery does not have no text. Dsmdgold 03:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not one valid keep argument yet. There is no denying that this is a repository of images and fails WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. This is already on Commons and no amount of editing will save it. This gallery does not provide any content whatsoever. Deleting it is the only thing that can be done. Consensus is not determined by vote counting. People who don't make valid arguments get ignored. Jay32183 18:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This belongs in commons, and Wikipedia is not a list of photographs or pictures, WP:NOT --AW 18:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I see several valid Keep arguments beside my own: In particular the Keep arguments put forth by Tyrenius, Phaedriel, Dsmdgold and others. Clearly the material should be merged or kept. As stated above WP:NOT#REPOSITORY doesn't really apply here or fit the circumstances of this gallery and its relationship to the main article, these are art works, not dictionary words. Modernist 19:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a useful reference and I fail to see how Wikipedia would be improved by its deletion. I think that it is important to apply guidelines with the benefit of the Project always in mind. BlueValour 23:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to commons:William-Adolphe Bouguereau. I feel this is the only way to gain consensus on an apparently contentious issue, particularly since the Commons gallery has the exact same content as this article.-Wafulz 13:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Vanessa McIntosh[edit]

The result was 'Delete' - Per debate, no reliable sources assert encyclopedic notability of the subject.. Shell babelfish 00:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominated for the fact article fails to meet WP:BIO, as article consists of trivial public appearances, also for the fact this is nothing but a vanity article of a non-notable person. Also, this user Celebritymodels has made edits in a manner to create a one-dimensional character of this AfD nominated person in the Big Brother 2005 (UK) page which has now been reverted.

Evidently this user is in a way of editing wikipedia in a way of promoting a client or would be in that case a vanity edit to create a one sided character of the person, notably this following edit from the Big Brother 2005 (UK) page

significantly this following is the edit this user has edited from [2].

Vanessa was hugely unpopular for her bitching about other housemates behind their backs, she was unpopular due to the fact that all she did was eat, bitch and sleep however she could hardly do anything in the house after sustaining an injury to her ankle.

to

Vanessa was popular with audiences for her bubbly character, and her funny diary room entries. She was the girl next door type, friendly with most of the people in the house. Vanessa famously loved the colour pink and was always buying haribo sweets on the shopping list. She was overawed by larger characters in the house, but lost two stone in weight and was successful in pursuing a modelling career. She is now a contracted model to The Daily Sport. Dr Tobias Funke 22:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I wrote this article in reference for Vanessa McIntosh. She has achieved things that other housemates from her series have not, and has contributed greatly. She is a celebrity commentator for YV Magazine, the sister newspaper to The Voice. This is Britains best black newspaper, and Vanessa has her own monthly column in it. She is in the public eye, and she is also involved with modelling. Vanessa is an inspiration to members of the black community, and to young girls who are aspiring models. She is also an ambassador for Beat Bullying and gives up her time for charity. Vanessa has a fan base over 29,000 people. If you check her myspace you will see this for yourself: www.myspace.com/officialvanessa
  • In response to Dr.Tobias Funke, I am sorry for editing someones elses page and I will not attempt ever to edit it again. Vanessa's public appearances of great significance to the urban community and also her contribution to several charities who rely on TV stars and models to generate publicity for their work, is a good cause. Vanessa has done television, music videos, modelling, charity work and commercials. She is more than just a "reality tv star".
  • In response to Ten Pound Hammer, I have now added more reliable sources to my references and sources, and I will continue to update this page. I only added youtube links so Vanessa's videos can be viewed online. Obviously this will not be my only primary source. I am still working on the page.
  • I am new to Wikipedia, and so perhaps my writing skills have not yet reached the perfection that your standards require. But I have spent a huge amount of time collecting references and researching Vanessa's career details to provide the most accurate account of her current status as possible, and I am still working on it. Please do not let this page simply be deleted because of one persons narrow minded view that "reality show contestants are generally notable only if they win".
  • This is a very biased statement, and Vanessa McIntosh deserves to have her biography updated. I agree not to edit information written about Vanessa on any other pages, as long as this one remains online. Thankyou & I urge you please do not delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebritymodels (talk • contribs) — Celebritymodels (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Also, we have notability guidelines for people on Wikipedia. "Reality show contestants are generally notable only if they win" isn't my opinion; it's the consensus of many Wikipedia editors. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless, Celebritymodels, any article on Wikipedia needs to conform to certain standards. In this case, you will want WP:BIO, and WP:N. Might want to pay attention to WP:BLP as well. In any event, a counted fan base does not register as notability under these standards, and Wikipedia is not a means of promoting anything or anybody. Further, a promise to only edit this page does not enter into this argument in any capacity whatsoever. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per my comment to the article's creator above. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per established precedent that reality show contestants are not notable unless they've done something outside the show. Corpx 01:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because article is put together well with an image, a dozen references, external links, and definitely shows notability with multiple television appearances, multiple charity work, a nice biography, etc. Seems like someone with a career beyond the show and a well-done and sourced article like we're looking for. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a vanity article presenting a one-sided view of a non-notable person. Notability has to be a long-term thing, and has to be established by multiple, reliable, independent sources (myspace and blogs, as per above comment, do not meet these criteria). EyeSereneTALK 09:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now as per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles... Article shows research and organization. There is also a fanbase that denotes some notability. J. T. Lance 10:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The fan base is not a reason for keeping, and almost none of the references of either RSs or significant.23:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt, she does not meet notability standards, and if this SPA has announced a desire to only edit this page then I would suggest salting to stop a recreation of a blatant vanity article. Darrenhusted 00:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now Dr.Ashley I think the article is very well organised, and shows notability of character. This person has done research, a good biography, photo etc. If the author has agreed to add more references, I see no problem with keeping it. The character has obviously shown a career after the show. Dr.Ashley 4.14, 12 July 2007
  • Delete, edited to be read out like a CV, notice that Beat Bullying on the introduction paragraph, a redlink entry, is bluelinked separately. Also, the article creator's username doesn't help as it sound suspiciously like a model agency. Willirennen 21:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Im not a modelling agent. I created the name "celebrity models" to write for models that I consider to have reached some status in their career to start writing articles for. Also I did not intend for it to look like a CV. When registering on Wikipedia, I first spent the time and effort researching what other celebrity models (if any) had been written about. I found the pages of Louise Glover and Leilani Dowding. And I based my layouts on a similar pattern to what had been written for them. However I see no one suggesting that the articles written for them be deleted. So why should this one? Thankyou. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Celebritymodels (talk • contribs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete for failing WP:BIO.. Shell babelfish 01:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aisleyne[edit]

Nominated for the fact no reliable sources that detail the notability or history of the item, so fails the verifiability standard. As well for the fact it fails to meet WP:BIO. Also, the original result for the original AfD was redirect, therefore the article creator Rishko has therefore got around this and created another article without the surname. Dr Tobias Funke 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now per this search --Addhoc 22:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, this search relates to events within the Big Brother house in 2006 and nothing else outside it. Dr Tobias Funke 22:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This does not appear to meet notability as a bio. The disjointed account of the Big Brother thing could be cleaned up and shortened if the article ends up being kept this time. --Stormbay 22:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least move to an appropriate title. — Xy7 16:39, 15 July 2007
  • keep - She's a meaningless pop personality, but she has appeared in TV, radio and magazines. Can someone please explain how she fails notability? I'd love to vote delete, because I personally feel transient media personalities are not notable and not worthy of inclusion; however, I've not seen any Wikipedia rule (or interpretation of one) to justify my position. Please help me!!! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, refer to WP:BIO, Not notable
  • Keep - Notable, as regularly appearing on television, radio and in newspapers/magazines. Also, a regular contributor to two high-circulation magazines. Mentioned in many other Wikipedia entries (mainly TV show listings), which have now been linked to. Daringo 00:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the appearance on television does not equate to notability; in this instance it seems like trivia. There is no impact on society at large by this individual's presence on television. I would even label this type of article as fancruft; it serves no purpose except to a few. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lots of people appear on TV regularly and aren't notable. Have people written or had TV programs about this person beyond the context of Big Brother? SamBC 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Close and moved over to WP:DRV. Being a little bold here. That User:2005 disagrees with the closure reason is, according to the DRV page, enough to warrant a move over there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of slang names for poker hands[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of slang names for poker hands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously nominated. Closing admin ignored strong consensus for deletion, and inappropriately editorialized an advocacy position counter to the consensus. Wikipedia is NOT and slang or idiom guide... still. 2005 21:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • WilyD's action was plainly inappropriate. Closing admins should not make a decsion based on their own feelings, especially in the face of a strong consensus, and blatantly clear policy. Transwikiing it is fine, but irrelevant to the fact that the article should be deleted. The closing was both inapropriate and just plain unhelpful. And to call it "hasty" to get inappropriate action corrected is just silly. 2005 22:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "their own feelings", but WilyD closed as no consensus because he felt that most of the "delete" votes assumed that the article could and would be transwikied, which it hasn't been. Why not just go about transwikiing it instead of bothering with another deletion debate? Λυδαcιτγ 23:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make things up. It helps no one. Nothing whatsoever was said about transwikiing in the closing so don't say it did. Instead the closing admin did inappropriate editorialzing of "it's clear to me that there's no community vision for what should happen to this article, yet widespread agreement that it has some value". While the admin's views on community vision are irrelevant, no one can seriously dispute the strong consensus was to delete. Transwiking is a different issue. the article violates policy and needs to be deleted according to normal afd procedures. 2005 00:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an editorial, that's an evaluation of consensus. In any event, there was certainly not any kind of consensus for deletion - transwiki'ing was probably closest, although it didn't have a clear consensus. I've already suggested to the nominator he could get a consensus for a transwiki at the page, transwiki it, then speedy it under CSD:A5. However, if you feel I did something wrong, WP:DRV is the appropriate forum for that. Cheers, WilyD 02:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was clear, and your editorial opionion not welcome. make your comments in the AFd, not in closing when ignoring the clear consensus that the article should be removed. Transwikiing is irrelevant to that. You talk page comments seem to even betray that you didn't read the comments before closing, but that also is irrelevant. The article violates policy, and NO ONE has argued differently. It should be deleted, not tediiously wikilawyered. 2005 05:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure I didn't offer any editorial opinion - nor did I have any comments to offer. The claimed consensus for delete simply didn't exist if you read the comments. That a transwiki consensus might exist is not the same as a transwiki consensus was demonstrated - the first is true, I believe the second wasn't (although it may have been close). Transwiki = Keep+edit. In the non-existent world of "Keep/Delete" there was actually a clear consensus to keep - one which you supported. Ragging on me for closing the AfD based on the discussion rather than the !votes isn't productive or worthwhile. Cheers, WilyD 11:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. If the decision is questionable, this needs to go to Deletion Review. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shouldn't this be at WP:DRV instead? (Rhetorical) Cheers, WilyD 00:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and close - this is inappropriate. While there is no formal requirement that a certain amount of time pass following a no consensus close, it is bad form to renominate the following day. If you disagree with the close and there is a policy reason behind your disagreement, try to work it out with the closing admin and then take it to WP:DRV if you still disagree. However, if this ends up at DRV I'm likely to support the closing admin's close. Otto4711 00:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Otto4711's suggestion for a Speedy keep and close. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP is not a dictionary. This is a list of words are their meaning, which clearly violates WP:NOT Corpx 01:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)I'll abstain from voting because I dont want to set a precedent for such quick renominations. At least wait a month or so unless policy or the contents of the article have changed Corpx 05:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm also opposed to the re-nomination after such a short time, but barring any restrictions to do so, I cant base my opposition on any policy or guideline Corpx 02:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can certainly base opposition to the re-nomination on common sense. Does there really need to be a formal policy in place saying that re-nominating articles a day after an AFD closes is bad form for common sense to tell you that such a re-nomination is bad form? Do you really want, by acquiescing to this nomination, to give any credence to the notion that if you don't like the outcome of an AFD you should re-nominate the article again the next day? You've seen enough AFDs where people bitch about articles being re-nominated a month or three months or a year after an AFD, do you really want to see closed AFDs coming back over and over and over every week? The nominator has an outlet for questioning the outcome of the AFD. It's deletion review. Otto4711 04:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense says an article should be deleted via the appropriate process when it 1) violates policy and 2) has no one saying it does not violate policy. Talking about deletion review is wikilawyer nonsense. Wikipedia is not a slang guide. That is black and white policy. The best interest of the encyclopedia are served by following policy, and proper procedure, which is why this article is up for deletion again. Save the wikilawyering for some other time. 2005 05:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the original AFD, while there may have been a slight majority, it does not look like a consensus per WP:CONSENSUS. I think the admin acted correctly in this case. I don't have a problem with the re-list, but let's assume good faith. ~ Infrangible 02:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong fold (delete). It's in black and white. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a slang dictionary. Clarityfiend 02:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and take to WP:DRV. This isn't the correct forum. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy close and take to WP:DRV per Otto; Le Grand Roi; Flyguy; one cannot chain nominate articles until s/he gets a result s/he wants. Carlossuarez46 18:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - contrary to the nomination, there was, indeed, no "strong consensus for deletion". In fact, it was specifically closed as "no consensus", and frankly, I can see why. My !vote stands, and I'm tempted to be bold and close this as I schlep it over to DRV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Despite the long incivil tirades from SPAs, there are no arguments to keep, and this is a copyvio (translations are derivative works). --Coredesat 06:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etienne Kuypers[edit]

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

Note: I composed a version of this AfD with the comments by single-purpose accounts filtered out at /Readable.

Copyvio (literally translated) from [3] (the site states 'alle rechten voorbehouden' (all rights reserved) at the bottom), also self-promotion (this guy has been an extreme pain for us on the Dutch Wikipedia (see nl:Overleg gebruiker:80.200.58.212/blockmsg), his article was salted on 10 April 2007 and he kept on recreating it with various spellings, whining on talk pages through his dynamic IP address, etc. We know it is him because he sent an email to Wikipedia from one of the addresses mentioned on his website, a moderator on the Dutch wiki did a check and confirmed it was sent from one of the spamming IP addresses[4]). Furthermore, I doubt his notability; as one can see, the titles of the "references" don't make any reference to him. 115 Google results. Finally, the article is poorly written ("who has always straddled the boundaries between Philosophy and Social Sciences"). SalaSkan 21:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Could this be speedied as a copyvio? --Charlene 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm unsure whether literal translations from a copyrighted website are strictly copyvios. I guess they are, but I don't know if this is speediable, so I listed it here just to be sure. SalaSkan 13:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of his work makes him notable by Wikipedia guidelines, as far as I can tell. Postmodern Beatnik 16:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear,

I cannot see why there is something wrong with this article. It is written with much help of a devoted Wikipedian. The Dutch comment is interesting, but I don't know what he wants to say exctly. So Dutchmen are the moralists they want to be? The sentence he quotes is perfect English. If you tell me what you want to change i nthis text, I will do rewrite this exactly how you want it.

Kind regards, Joblf — Joblf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]


Dear all,

I can see that the Dutchmen made doubts on the credibility of me: the writer. Well, that's an insult! You don't know dr. Kuypers' work, now you are questioning his works? The story about the Dutch affaire is absolutely not known by me! This is ridiculous! Besides my text is NOT from his website. You can find all the sources and references in the mentioned publications. Please try to read these! I also cannot see what you mean by selfpromotion. The article is a good review of facts on Kuypers' works; with much help of a devoted Wikipedian. I am noy going to discuss this any further, because the text was perfect. Now a Dutchman makes his classic comment. I am prepared to rewrite the text, but please give the exact points you want to read in teh text.

regards, Joblf — Joblf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Etienne, first of all, people have asked you this a hundred times, sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Second, you are evidently a single-purpose account, see [5]. Third, I won't bother with replying to your messages anymore. Regards, SalaSkan 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just one thing: the sentence I quoted is linguistically correct, but not written in an encyclopaedic manner. SalaSkan 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You claim that your text is "not from his website"? [6] is just a little too similar to Etienne Kuypers#Studies and Etienne Kuypers#Positions, don't you think? By the way, you confirmed it yourself here.SalaSkan 19:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! I've seen far too much of this poor me, I'm trying so hard, I don't understand kind of talk on nl.wiki, including my talk page. The author is Etienne Kuypers himself. Joblf is yet another of his many aliasses and unnumerable IP-addresses. Dirk, E. Kuypers, Frits, H, Huub, Ludwig, L. Krawinkel, P, Per and Per Van Driel are among the others.

The guy has no encyclopedic significance at all (most of the Google hits refer to talk pages on Dutch wiki, endless similar talk as above, and some to his own website) and is a nuisance you'll soon wish to get rid of.

Please check:

RToV 20:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*) English translation of the Dutch page:
Thes IP-numbers and one user account listed are part of the "Etienne Kuypers-(self)promotion group. On many talk pages appearing under the names "Dirk", "E. Kuypers", "Frits", "H", "Huub", "Ludwig", "L. Krawinkel", "P", "Per" of "Per van Driel". From these adresses again and again copy violation text containing self-promotion have been created on the self-started article "Etienne Kuypers" in many different spelling varieties. Also the person repeatedly has been added as "famous person" on the page Zutendaal where he lives. This has continued over and over again and explaining to him this was not the way to act did not have any effect. Many Wikipedians up until today are approached by the person to plead for restarting of the article. The article in many spelling variations has been blocked from remaking since april 10 2007. This automated text-message to add newly used IP-addreses can be found here. When harrasment continues a block request can be made or a block can be given. Due to the variable nature of the IP-addresses one day block suffices. Every time the person logs in his provider Belgacom allots a random number to him.

Delete The edits above and the conclusions drawn by both Salaskan and RToV are completely spot on and correct. The affair has cost many editors and sysops on wiki-nl lots of energy unfortunately. The sad part is this guy does exist and is a published philosopher who lives from his books published but he has ruined everything for himself by his endless "self-promotion campaign" which continues up until today. Apparently he does not realise his book sales are in fact ruined by what he publically did and which can now be googled world wide. Best wishes, MoiraMoira 20:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC) (sysop on Wikipedia-nl who has helped coordinate this affair and created the files on the case mentioned above)[reply]

  • Weak delete The documentation asserted for the notability of his books and other publications apparently consists of unselective lists of all publications in the subject, DGG (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also suspecting something like that. Winkler Prins is one of the most renowned Dutch encyclopaedias, and I doubt someone with 115 Googlehits in 2007 will have been mentioned in an article of theirs in 1991. SalaSkan 09:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all,

First of all: I am NOT the subject of the article! I have no idea why my text is not good enough. Now some Dutch Wikipedians are involved on this text, which is written with help of an American Wkipedian, but they don't give any arguments why my article is not good enough. Besides this, it is very, very immoral to wonder if the written information is correct. It is very easy to check all the information: especially the references in the Winkler Prins Encyclopedia. When someone is immoral to write "the guy has no encyclopedic significance at all" is easy to check by the reception of Kuypers, but I know the Dutchmen won't check this. There is a campaign against dr. Kuypers, which is not moral. Nobody has concrete arguments for this. But, dear Dutchmen, if you don't want to check all the references (dr. kuypers is a very respected philosopher in your country and in Belgium), check his students or his booksales. You can read his most important books, which are selected in my article. Maybe you wonder if these books are written? Maybe the ISBN of his books are an invention? Your behaviour is so provincial, typical Dutch by the way...

Have fun!

Kind regards, Job — Joblf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Dear all,

I forgot something. One of the anonym persons above wrote that the text under 'studies' and 'positions' is from the website of dr. kuypers. Well, can you tell me how to write different things about the same facts? When the man studies at that university, I cannot mention another university! I have to describe his biography, and every biograhpy has facts; they remain the same in every text. Or not?

Have fun in Holland! Try to be reasonable instead of so immoral and provincial.

Regards, Job. — Joblf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

For me this discussion is very strange. The article is written with the help of a devoted Wikipedian, the text gives all the relevant information about the author; with enough references and significant sources. Of course these facts remain always the same, so it is easy to claim that the text is a copy. The text IS a copy, a copy of facts! Some facts are found on the homepage of the object, but there is no exact copy of these pages. You can find facts on the website, which are written down in the article. It is absurd to say that this is a copy of each other. Absolutely not! The Dutch Wikipedian-war against dr. Kuypers has no authentic arguments. They never give any arguments, they have not checked the information, they even don't know the relevance and the reception of Kuypers. They just come with insultst and so on. How can you talk like that, if you have never checked the reception of the author, his works, his sources, his references? How is this possible with editors? How can you speak like this when you don't know the object of the article? These people use immoral talk. It is very strange, but I can tell you the article gives all the relevant and correct information about a respected philosopher who published more than twenty books and more than threehunderd articles. There are a lot of publications where you can read on his reception, his influences, etc. The Dutch Wikipedian-war on this author is ridiculous, strange this unreasonable talk. Even more strange, that the American Wikipedians are listening to talk without concrete arguments.The article gives the exact information students wants to know, so for me there is no argument to delete this text. It is perfect like it is.

Kind regards, J — Joblf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]


I looked to the text on the website and to the text in this W-article. The W-article is absolutely not a copying text! Of course existential facts keep the same, but there is absolutely no copying text. The article gives more accurate information on dr. Kuypers, which is not on his webpage. So I really cannot see any problem.

regards, Job — Joblf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Etienne, The "problem" is this is self-promotion from a series of randomly allocated IP-numbers belonging to a set of main-ranges that are allocated randomly to you by your provider Belgacom that all trace back to the village of Zutendaal where you live. The problem is that not every one making a living out of selling books about a specific topic is worthwhile to mention in an encyclopedia. The problem is that the article does not have any peer references/reviews only some comments from newspapers so the relevance of your work is vague. The problem is for you you cannot tell it is you otherwise you won't have any credibility left and the self-promotion cover is blown. The problem is you have spoilt matters by your own acts alas. The problem is that you made matters incredibly difficult for many dedicated Wikipedians by you endless tries to get yourself on Wikipedia. The main frustration for us all is this affair costs so much energy and leads to nothing. You started the account Kierkegaard on the Dutch Wikipedia a year ago. Only one article about yourself resulted. If you are a true Wikipedian we would have expected a lot of worth while contributions in your field on many articles. None resulted. Then later your article was nominated for deletion for reasons of copyvio, self promotion and non encyclopedic non substantiated overly positive content and the whole circus started leading to the results found above. Now the same article is placed on Wikipedia-en an similar circus is started including the whining comments in strange language telling every one "this is not true and what are you talking about and it is not me and the person is sooooo good". From a legitimate philosopher with some books and perhaps worthwhile mentioning on Wikipedia (that is up for grabs and I won't judge this at all) you have become a subject on google that colleages laugh about. This is not good for your own name so I really suggest you'd stop these actions now before your vanity causes you even more damage. I challenge you to abide by the outcome and start writing about philosophic topics via your account here and with Wikipedia-nl and show you are a valuable Wikipedian. Perhaps then in a few years time some one else will start a nice article about you. You cannot earn a reputation the way you publically did you see. MoiraMoira 08:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MM,

AGAIN; you are insulting me of being dr. Kuypers himself, again you are telling all sorts of things which are not reality. There is something in your mind which I cannot help. I think you are paranoid, or sick otherwise. Your complete moralistic story about how to work, how to work not, and so on, is so typical Dutch. All writers who tried to write an article on dr. Kuypers were put down by your Dutch collegues; selfpromotion, copying, and so on. But the text has nothing to do with selfpromotion, nor with copying another text. The article is on a respected philosopher, the text just gives reasonable information on his work. This is just what students need. First this was wrong, second that was wrong, etc. Nobody said exactly what was wrong. Do not feel for dr. Kuypers. He does his work, we all will not stop this, because of your typical Dutch moralistic talk. The article on the English W was made with help of a devoted Wikipedian, until the Dutch came. At that time this was wrong, that was wrong, etc. Now you are telling there are not enough peerreferences.Again a new argument. Nice. What's next? How many peerreferences do you want? You are giving everytime another argument. Npbody said exactly what was wrong. Now it is the peerreferences. You are making yourself ridiculous. Do not bother on Kuypers: he is completely involved in his work. And what others think or say: it means you are there when others are talking and thinking about you, isn't it? Stay on your typical Dutch garden: provincial and moral all over the world. You can try to help writers with your comment, instead of insulting them.

Have fun in Holland! regards, Joblf — Joblf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Dear MM,

By the way, I know you are not an intellectual, but I'll give you the peerreferences in the article you want so much; no. 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 16 are ALL PEERREFERENCES OF RESPECTED COLLEGUES OF DR. KUYPERS. Not enough? Or do not you know these scientists? Vague - as you call it? Or is it something else with you? - ignorance, or rancour? Maybe you know dr. kuypers personal, and did you have a guarrelsome relationship in the past? I really do not know. it is so childisg, all your comment, with everytime new arguments... So, here are your peerreferences! Check them, dear MM (I hate talking to a pseudonym; where is you courage? give your name and talk!). After you have checked all these peerreferences we can talk again. Maybe these peerreferences are not good enough, because you do not know the philosphers? Or maybe something else? Let me tell you, dear MM, these scientists/peerreferences are worldfamous. So, it is up to your knowledge and moral integrity.

Success. Joblf — Joblf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

? Then tell us your name? Is it perhaps Etienne Kuypers? SalaSkan 10:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told so often: there are several students who tries to write this article. I managed it with the help of an American Wikipedian, he says he is on vacation ruight now. The text was fully accepted on Wikipedia, untill a few moralistic Dutchmen came in between! The article is perfect as source for students. So I really won' go any further on this authorsubject. It is a ridiculous theme. An insult!! As long as nobody of Wikipedia gives his real name, we won't do that, except telling my forename - as you know. BUT DR. KUYPERS IS COMPLETELY OUT OF THE QUESTION AS AUTHOR!!!

Think about yourself, before insulting other people.

Regards Joblf — Joblf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That's not what I'm talking about. You're saying "I hate talking to a pseudonym; where is you courage? give your name and talk!" Then why don't you give your own name? SalaSkan 11:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear,

You don't understand me, or you just cannot read my words exactly. We all give our names (you already know our forename, I gave you my forename; JOB), but as long as other people speak under pseudonym, it is logical that other ones also speak under pseudonym. That's logical, don't you think? But it is easy to talk under pseudonym and give comment (like Wikipedians do), while authors must gove their names. again: NONE OF US HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH KUYPERS. I gave you my forename, you can get my familyname, when all Wikipedians give their true familynames. Anyway; has this anything to do with the quality of my article? Read the arguments of MM (no peergroupreferences), and try to think about that. again a new argument. A ridiculous argument, because no. 1, 3, 6, 8, 12, 14 and 16 are peerreferences of respectd philosophers/scientists. I cannot help that you or MM does not know these people. That's the quality of your knowledge, but THERE ARE ENOUGH PEERREFERENCES. If you need more: I can give you more. But after that: what is at that time the new comment? I have the feeling that you all are talking after another. The There was a perfect text here, made with the help of a devoted American Wikipedian, but at the moment some Dutch Wiki's are involved: everything went wrong, without concrete arguments. there is something on with the Dutch and dr. kuypers. Maybe somebody hates him, because of their professional life? An ex-student, or something? It is really absurd, this whole story. For me it is unbeleivable that the American W are talking after the Dutch. i thought you have an indepent view, a more moral opinion, than these fellows.

Anyway; read the text and give me some advice, if you think there is something wrong. read the text of Hanneke Canters on W. You can see there how good my article on Dr. kuypers is.

Have a nice weekend.

regards, Joblf — Joblf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This is an agressive campaign again dr. Kuypers. It is absolutely onlogical. When you read the text on W about Hanneke Canters, it is absolutely onlogical that anyone makes comment on my article about dr. Kuypers. There is a campaign from Holland against kuypers and it is a shame that at that time Americans are involved and talk after the Dutch. I thought everybody coulkd think authentic? That is strange, because the American Wiki's had no problems with my article. At a sudden, after the Dutch came in, there were problems. But the text is absolutely perfect as it is now. Again read the text on Hanneke Canters... Very strange that this text is good enough for you all.

Succes. Job — Joblf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was Merge and redirect to Griselda Blanco, redirect is to maintain GFDL compliance as the article has an extensive edit history Gnangarra 15:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Godmother (book)[edit]

The Godmother (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clearly doesn't meet WP:BK notability. Only ~23 google hits. No assertion of any independent media coverage, let alone multiple nontrivial citations. Author relatively unknown, won no awards, no movie, not taught in major schools. Also, there is an ongoing edit dispute at the article regarding non-free image use (using a gallery, including the back cover of the book, which clearly violates WP:FUC #8), so this reveals my bias towards this article for full disclosure. Andrew c [talk] 21:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being the only book about a subject does not grant notability Corpx 15:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of books that pre-date the internet with good sources on the internet. Corpx 08:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note Zodiac (book), a 1986 book, and Helter Skelter (book), a 1974 book. If you search google for "Robert Graysmith" Zodiac, you'll get 164,000 hits. If you search google for Bugliosi "Helter Skelter", you'll get 51,500. And what about the 1965 In Cold Blood (book), searching for "In Cold Blood" capote gets 401,000. That said, the fact of the matter isn't that google only gets 23 hits, its that not a single source is cited, let alone multiple, nontrivial independent sources, which are our notability requirement. If this requirement was met, or some other form of notability established, even with non-web sources, I'd withdraw the nomination.-Andrew c [talk] 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Griselda Blanco. She is notable, the book is not. Tualha (Talk) 01:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Griselda Blanco. The book doesn't meet WP:BK, but a merge will retain the information in a more suitable context. As Tualha said, the book isn't notable even if the subject is.--Isotope23 15:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the first keep vote was a conditional keep that has not been met. The second keep was by the article's author. I'd support a merge per Tualha/Isotope23.-Andrew c [talk] 01:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any relevant info to main article, then delete: topic does not appear to require its own article. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 04:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Peacent 01:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Transfers[edit]

Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Transfers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An indiscriminate list of transfers, similar to ones which have previously been deleted when sorted by league rather than club. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • ☒N Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or list of indiscriminate information. VanTucky (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as noted above, this is not a directory or indiscriminate collection of information. --Angelo 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I was considering afd'ing this before, wasn't sure know. My thoughts was that this list could of been something decent, but it really hasn't evolved the right way. Govvy 21:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge what can be salvaged into Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Unmaintainable list which will eventually crash PCs if left standing. Blueboy96 22:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with some merge as suggested above, since separate articles about trades or signings, etc. are not necessary and/or not approriate.--JForget 22:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's one of those lists with some good info but will be just another list shortly. --Stormbay 22:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge amd delete. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You don't need to merge anything from this article, the trades should be in each players profile of when they switch clubs ect. and the big important deals are already in the Spurs article. Govvy 14:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is about the transfers of a particular club, and the Italian one was for the whole of the League. Mattythewhite 14:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but what makes this one an indiscriminate list of information but not the league ones? The club article has narrower scope, so I would have thought is less likely to fall under 'indiscriminate list'. (Playing devil's advocate here) Paulbrock 15:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's curious to see how many of the guys participating in this discussion did not take part to the Italian league one. Many of the five keep votes came from users heavily involved with that article, and only two delete votes came to light, one being mine. --Angelo 17:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that this article lists the transfers of one team dating back to 1992, not just one year. From what I know about soccer, a list like that for one team is unmaintainable. Blueboy96 19:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't really see the point of this article. There's no context, there's no notability. --Malcolmxl5 21:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a list, don't expect there to be context! As for notability, that will be in each footballers article! Or you could just say delete per nom!Govvy 21:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I see it's a list :-) but I see nothing that explains why the list itself is 'notable'. Perhaps I should have said it's an indiscriminate list of information and 'delete per VanTucky and Angelo. Cheers! --Malcolmxl5 22:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and redirect to Livery Company. Non admin closure. --Jorvik 14:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Twelve City Livery Companies[edit]

Great Twelve City Livery Companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Repeat of a section in Livery Company bärlinerTalk 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. I created this almost a year ago and no doubt I had a reason at the time. While the article isn't essential, it might be better to redirect to Livery company than to delete. Xn4 20:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge and redirect. My first thought on reading the title was that it related to some non-notable business. In fact, these are guilds, medieval in origin, in the City of London. This seems notable enough to keep somehow, and much of the information is already present in livery company, though these twelve seem singled out for a particular honour and are the first in rank. On the other hand, the title here is unwieldy. The information should be preserved in one form or another. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC) (Master 1990-1997 of the Worshipful Company of Rogues and Blackguards)[reply]
  • I know a little about these as my wife lived in one of the Guild Houses as a child. I see no reason to keep this article as all, or at least most, of the information is already in livery company. Complete the merge and redirect to livery company. --Bduke 00:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. I think one of my reasons for creating this article was that I wanted to include the twelve external links to the official web sites of the twelve companies. None of those links are at Livery company, but they could reasonably be merged there. Xn4 13:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per Xn4 ...Proposal seems appropriate. Individual company links may also be included in their connected entries. Thanks. J. T. Lance 21:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Each individual company has such a link bärlinerDiskussion 16:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- suggest a speedy close. per creator. DGG (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - while consensus is delete it is a borderline case on notability, such that in the future there maybe sufficient independent sourcing to warrant an article, at that time request restoration/recreation. Gnangarra 14:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Thomas Neill[edit]

AfDs for this article:
James Thomas Neill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously nominated in December 2005, shortly after the article was created. Several reasons for deletion: created and almost exclusively edited by the subject of the article; no actual claims or demonstrations of notability (although there are references); and no evidence of notability outside WP (I get only 17 distinct Google hits for "James Thomas Neill" -wikipedia). I think it'd be polite to userfy it before deleting it, but can't see any reason to keep the article in mainspace. --DeLarge 20:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as nominator. --DeLarge 20:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You don't have to add "Delete as nominator"; just filling out the Articles for Deletion itself counts as your vote. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I know, it's just that I've seen a few procedural AfDs in my time where the nominator was neutral, so I just like to put my opinion in bold text for clarity, even though the closing admin (hopefully) won't just be counting votes. --DeLarge 21:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. I'm sure he's a nice guy, and probably well liked within his field, but unfortunately he fails WP:BLP (and then of course the conflict of interest). Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, I like the article, COI yes but it was very neutral in tone, but for me to change my opinion I need a newspaper or magazine article on this person. Callelinea 20:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Delete. I did a little bit of research on subject, and I feel that there is enough material to assert notability. Also, although it is extremely COI, I don't feel that warrants deleting the article. Before I make a judgement one way or another, I'm going to attempt to source out the whole thing and NPOV it. Trusilver 21:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC) I just struck out on this one. I have been unable to find a single decent, objective source that isn't somehow tied to the subject. I even ran down the street to the public library to do a full-on periodical search and I still failed to find any biographical information. I'm going to say delete based on failure of WP:N, WP:BLP and WP:COI. Trusilver 22:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify, although I cited WP:COI, I don't think that's the article's biggest problem. As User:Callelinea said, it's written in a neutral tone; WP:NPOV isn't an issue. I had a good look for sources myself -- in fact, I've pondered AfD'ing this page for about three months -- but I've strugged so far. Most of the claims of notability (e.g. the Articles & Presentations by James Neill external link which lists "Articles about James Neill") are in fact about his website, which I suspect doesn't meet WP:WEB anyway. I just can't find any reliable, external sources about the man himself. If you're going to work to keep this page, I think that's where you need to concentrate on. Regards, --DeLarge 21:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for "lack of significant coverage by independent sources" - All references are not independent. Corpx 01:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because I do not think a second discussion is really needed. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you even take a look at the first discussion? Corpx 01:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it had a keep vote and a delete vote and then was withdrawn by the nominator, so seemed good enough to keep. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One "Weak Keep" back from 2005 is enough to not warrant another AFD now? Corpx 01:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That and the nominator withdrawing it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CCC Read it. It's important. It's policy. Seriously. Trusilver 03:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll check it out. Have a nice night! --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are some hits for him plus Wilderdom on Google Scholar.[8] However, there seems to be a lack of biographical information available. Capitalistroadster 02:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep 14 peer-reviewed papers, though most are in one very specialized journal. (None of them since the last AfD). Not enough if just judging him as an academic, but theat seems to beonly part of his career. all in all I think it passes the bar. DGG (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -WarthogDemon 23:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom SatuSuro 10:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, his "research" seems to be of the fringe variety. I'm not sure he meets the notability criteria at all. Lankiveil 11:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
just a comment that I don't think the criterion of whether he's fringe or notis directly relevant.DGG (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I meant that most of his research work appears in fringe journals and publications. I apologise, I should have originally been clearer. If publishing OR in the South Zillmere Journal of Psychiatry and Pet Care makes one notable, then by jingo, I'm in! More seriously though, if any of his work had attracted significant mainstream attention, I'd probably consider him notable. But it doesn't appear that this is so. Lankiveil 11:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of the relationship of osteopathic and allopathic medicine in the United States[edit]

History of the relationship of osteopathic and allopathic medicine in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Article's contents are essentially a fork of material that may belong in the main osteopathic medicine article. Update: After having combed through the article with OsteopathicFreak, I do believe that we can find enough material for this subject to merit its own article, whereas previously I was doubtful. Antelan talk 20:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete looks like just a bunch of notes.--SefringleTalk 20:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. Nominating user has repeated deleted this information from other pages. Article is still a stub and in development. The solution may be to merge the article into History of medicine, as a section. However, this is a very specific topic that deserves its own article. It would be somewhat distracting on the main History of medicine page. User:OsteopathicFreak 21:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we keep this about the article? I know you created the article originally, but AfD is not to be taken personally, and I notified you appropriately about the proceedings. Antelan talk 02:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Tag your article as a stub and put in something like "RESEARCH IN PROGRESS-- Please Don't Delete" At this point, it may be a bunch of notes, but it's a history of how the acceptance (of alternative health care practices) has changed in the last 50 years. You know, it wasn't that long ago that it was considered unethical (and cause for loss of license) for a phyisican to recommend someone to go to an osteopath, chiropractor, acupuncturist, etc. Just as the "Blue Laws" of a generation ago have changed, so has this. Mandsford 23:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for author: I left out the most important thing... change the title of your page to User:Antelan/History of Osteopathic Medicine. If you've never moved an article before (changing its name), you just go to the article and click on the tab that says Move. Take this one out of the mainstream if you're working on it. Mandsford 00:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment there is a specific tag for the purpose {{underconstruction}}. DGG (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to look again at the sourcing in that article. The article is has POV issues, especially the portions that are not sourced.
  • "The history of discrimination against osteopathic medicine begins with the Flexner Report." This is WP:OR and, given the actual contents of the Flexner Report, a factually inaccurate and highly-POV representation. The Flexner report led to the closure of 94 of the 160 MD-granting medical schools, making a "discrimination" claim hard to stomach. Flexner noted the similarity of MD and DO training, and insisted that DOs be held to the same standards that he was proposing for MDs. This is not "discrimination" by allopathic medicine against osteopathic medicine. It's straight POV OR.
  • "Discrimination against osteopathic medicine is a type of anti-competitive practice of allopathic organizations and physicians against osteopathic organizations and physicians." This is the second sentence in the article, and unsourced.
  • "For example, some MDs oppose the current AMA policy declaring for equality between the DO and MD degree." This is an extremely loose interpretation of the AMA statement, and is based on a generally untrue premise (MD and DO are not equivalent - DOs have specialized training that MDs lack).
  • One of the See alsos is Anti-competitive practices. Should we put a See also: imperialism at the top of the History of United States article because that is the point of view of some people?
In conclusion, I feel that much of the material belongs merged into other articles, and much of the material should be removed. Antelan talk 03:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article needs a lot of work. But at the same time it is sourced appropriately and is notable. I don't see any justification to delete it. It's possible that it could be merged, but I feel that it will make the parent article unnecessarily long. Trusilver 22:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a list above your comment regarding just a few of the portions of this article that seem, to me, inappropriate and unsourced. I find it strange that people continue to say that it's "sourced appropriately". It really doesn't seem that way to me, but I sincerely would like to get some feedback if am I just off-base here. Antelan talk 22:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI perhaps should have said that it's generally sourced appropriately. I've read through most of the references and have been able to match up a lot of the article with it's source material. Sure there's a few things here or there that I haven't found where it's coming from, but that's a flaw in a whole lot of articles. It's nothing to delete it over. Trusilver 23:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making Improvements. I fixed some of the more egregious POV issues that were raised in this discussion. The article does need some work. But there's too much info to go in any other article. The topic is interesting and noteworthy in its own right. There are entire books written on it. With time, more information will be added. OsteopathicFreak T ? 23:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some edits as well. With the changes we've made, I do have a better sense for how this could grow beyond a history of osteopathic medicine. Antelan talk 00:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus (nomination withdrawn), and improvement. Peacent 01:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caledonian-Record[edit]

Caledonian-Record (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable local newspaper for a town of approximately 7500 Nomination withdrawn per notability established post-nomination sumnjim talk with me·changes 20:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do we do now? Just wait until an admin closes the discussion? Ben 21:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This paper is the only paper for the entire Caledonia County. Additionally, it circulates rather extensively in Orleans County as well. Further, it is a historic paper, publishing from the 19th century. It is a daily paper, quite rare in Vermont. Only eight papers dailies in the state.And how many newspapers founded as "pro-Whig" are still publishing? This one! Student7 20:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Continue adding those claims to notability with sources into the article and you'll have a speedy keep. Canuckle 21:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, not a lot of relevant Internet hits. User:Student7's claims might assert notability, if only I could find any sources to verify them... Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 22:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, makes several notable claims that are well sourced. Easily a notable paper. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 12:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A small paper in a small region is analogous to a large paper in a large region. The Caledonian is important to not only Northern Vermont but Northern New Hampshire. It was the first paper in Vermont to publish online, and it is very old and has deep roots in the local society. When I was doing my research on it, I was amazed at the number of genealogical sites referencing the paper. Anyways, I added some more sources and the first online thing, so I most certainly believe this is a keep if it wasn't before. Ben 21:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First of all, a small paper in a small region is analogous to a large paper in a large region doesn't make sense at all. Are you trying to compare the Washington Post or the New York Times to this newspaper? I read through the article and checked the references. I don't see what makes this newspaper notable? Nothing in the article even hints at it. So what if it was the first in the region to publish online...that doesn't make it notable. So what if it's a daily newspaper, definitely not notable. There is nothing in this article that proves notability. It might go against the norm in it's region, but that doesn't make it notable. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 13:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Firstly, what I meant was that you can't expect there to be a huge paper, like the NYT, in a small region with very few people. However, that does not undermine the importance: a small paper will be as important to a small community as a large paper is to a large community. Sorry for the confusion I caused: it was not intended. Secondly, this is a very old paper (170, to be exact), it was founded as a Whig paper (nowadays, few people have ever heard of the Whig Party or its significance in early America) and is still publishing, it has a circulation of 11,000+ in a very sparsely populated area of a small, sparsely populated state, it not only services one state, but two, it is a daily newspaper (save Sundays and select holidays), and it was the first paper in Vermont to publish online. With all due respect, sumnjim, I have a hard time understand what you mean when you state that "So what if it's a daily newspaper, definitely not notable. There is nothing in this article that proves notability." You do (pardon me, did) have a valid point when you said that the only two keep votes were from the two who had contributed to the article. As Student7 noted, he and I saw that this was an article with potential, but it did lack several major things. I cleaned it up some, and voted keep, which I felt was fully valid. I don't see where you are getting with noting that: it seems irrelevant. Yes, we did edit the article, but only to improve it because we felt that it could be kept. If I had wanted it deleted, then why would I have wanted to waste an hour of my time editing an article I wanted to delete. I do not see what you are getting at, I guess. Ben 01:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Everything in Vermont is small. Their largest mountain would be a speed bump next to the Rockies! Should that disqualify the Green Mountains? Many counties have the population of the state (and larger). Should that disqualify the state?
    Suggestion for the new entry on Vermont: "Harmless." (The next revision can contain an updated entry which reads "mostly harmless!"  :) (But perhaps this, too, is overreaching!  :) Student7 02:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get the harmless stuff, but he does have a point. You can't pick out a Vermont article and delete it due to size. Ben 02:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you guys are partial to VT, and I have nothing against VT, however by looking at policy, it just doen't pass notability guidelines. You cannot say "everything is small in VT", so this is notable because (blah blah). You can't say "it has 11,000 circulation, so it's notable" (WP:BIGNUMBER). You can't say "it was the first to publish online in VT so it's notable", you can't say "it services 2 states, so it's notable", and you can't say "it's old, so it's notable". what has the paper done significantly to gain widespread notariety? what has the paper done to make it known? what has the paper done besides just print a paper that 20,000 other newspapers do?. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 13:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 1) Well, there are only 1,500 newspapers in the country, I assume some of those are not dailies. That tends to set the upper bound on articles on newpapers. 2) Most people on the web get their news on the web or maybe tv so is it perhaps that you think that newspapers are passe and shouldn't be cluttering up Wikipedia? Seems POV. 3) The paper is conservative. I hadn't connected all the dots here before, but maybe this all started for that reason. Wikipedia is supposed to be liberally biased according to reports. Is this why this paper got nominated for the axe? 4) There's a lot of tiny towns in Vermont with a lot less moxie than this paper. Some with no people in them whatever! Are they in for the axe as well? 4) Does this mean that no school, church, college, or town can be in Wikipedia unless it meets some big city editor's idea of "notability"? People voting with their feet/market penetration means nothing? 15:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - First of all, there are more that 1500 newspapers in the country. Secondly, it has nothing to do with me thinking that "newspapers are passe", quit putting words in my mouth. I've stated it many times, it doesn't belong on wikipedia, because the newspaper hasn't done a damn thing "special" to make itself notable. It's just a rinky-dink newspaper that publishes online and publishes daily. BIG FREAKING WHOOP. Thirdly, the article didn't get nominated for the axe for anything else other than reason #2 above. Fourth, I've found other small VT newspaper articles as well (thanks to student7 for putting them all in a category for me) and I'm going to nominate them as well, as they are NN as well. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Student7, I don't think that you should get into WP:OTHERSTUFF. That will not advance the debate. I don't think that here is the place to accuse others of a non-neutral POV, if there is any place to do that at all. Maybe a source on the "reports" which accuse Wikipedia of a left-wing tint would be useful. He did use WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE, though, even when he had stated that it should not be used. That's still a lot of newspapers, though. Ben 15:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Please be advised that the only keep votes are from the only two contributing editors to the article --sumnjim talk with me·changes 18:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • NoteAlso be advised that the original Afd nomination was made against a stub, quite properly. The contributions have been made SINCE the article was nominated. This isn't a case of original contributors balking, but new contributors who see promise in the article.Student7 21:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Isn't the paper usually a player in the New Hampshire primary season? I can't find a record of that to be truthful, but as a former resident I knew the paper for its political commentary, which traditionally is pretty conservative. Anyway, I think a newspaper with a circulation of 11,000 is pretty notable and the article has taken good shape over the past couple of days. I vote keep. H0n0r 00:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't use WP:BIGNUMBER as a reason for keeping it. You guys are still failing hardcore at establishing notability. Being a daily circulated newspaper does NOT make you notable. Being a whig paper does NOT make you notable. Being able to claim that you published online first in the region does NOT make you notable. There is nothing special that this paper has done to gain notariety that my hometown paper hasn't done either, and probably about 5,000 other newspapers. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (please note I was canvassed to come here) - This is a 170 year old newspaper and the first in the state to go online; both notable features and it is well sourced. I generally consider daily papers as significant enough for an article provided there is something encyclopaedic to say, as there is here. I fail to see how deletion would improve Wikipedia. TerriersFan 02:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Anybody can have a claim to notability, because anyone can lie, I'm not saying they're lying in this article, but anyone can have a claim to anything, doesn't mean it has to be true or right. Anyways, about the article I agree with sumnjim, in WP:BIGNUMBER I have voted for several AFD's where a voter or the creator of the article says if you type xxx in Google, it comes up with 12,000 relevant hits So what?? we can't rely on googles page hits to write an encyclopedia! And to what TerriersFan said, I fail to see why the article on this newspaper will improve wikipedia. Just because it is a 170 year old newspaper doesn't mean we can put up on wikipedia, there are dozens, probably hundreds of newspapers someone could label "notable" that we don't need to put on wikipedia --♫Twinkler4♫ (Talk to me!) 14:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have also voted in AFD's where voters say "if you type xxx on google, it only comes back with a few hits." You are absolutely right: we can't rely on google hits to write an article. This is a two way street. In addition, while this article does not blatantly say "This article is notable because it has x, did x, was x, and did something else x", it lets the facts speak for themselves. Are you expecting to go to an article, look at the first line, and have all the reasons it's notable laid out for you? If that is what you want, then there doesn't seem to be any reason for an article to be written if one could merely put the reasons it's notable. Notability should be woven into the article so that it makes an interesting read and provides solid, encyclopaedic knowledge while it is giving history, the current situation, etc., etc. Ben 15:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm here because I found canvassing on someone else's page. Circulation does not equal notability, nor do analogies to circulation numbers. NYT, etc., aren't notable because of circulation; they're notable because they are trusted sources for news and have broken more big stories than anyone else. As it stands now, the article does not meet the requirements for notability, because it asserts none. MSJapan 14:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Not due to circulation (which isn't that impressive), but due to long history and considerable importance to the community. Sourcing is adequate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sumnjim made a good point: don't use numbers in your arguments. Therefore, any argument citing the small circulation of the paper should be deemed invalid, as should Sumnjim's comment ("Not notable local newspaper for a town of approximately 7500") which cited the size of the town as a reason of non-notability. With that done, let's look at facts. This article has many sources. That certainly seems "adequate", if not good, and certainly meets WP:N. It has a long and rich history: 170 years old and founded as "pro-Whig", which is most certainly a rarity. Also, it received a good deal of press coverage in regards to the court case with Lyndon State College, which would seem to have it meet WP:N: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." It is also the only newspaper in the state to carry Ann Coulter's column. This adds to the uniqueness of the paper which is a part of its notability. It is also the first paper to publish online in Vermont: another first. The paper is the oldest in Caledonia County, Vermont: it would seem that it is quite groundbreaking. Now that the national coverage due to the court case has been added, this article seems to clearly meet notability guidelines. I fail to see why it should be deleted. Ben 15:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use big numbers in your arguments, hence the WP:BIGNUMBER, it doesn't say WP:SMALLNUMBER. And by the way, a circulation of 11,000 is teeny tiny, it hurts your argument more than helps it. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with comment I was asked to come here. I'm not sure why. I don't have experience in this subject. My weak keep is based on the fact that this newspaper not only has been cited in the newspapers several states, but in the Washington Post. I can't pinpoint exactly what is notable about it, be it the historic value or its political coverage or the fact that it is mentioned as a complainant in a legal case which very well may have some legal significance (I know that's crystalballing, but, heh, sue me.) involving the disclosure of records in a murder case. That being said, I have participated in close to 300 AfDs. A common thread I see running through them is "I don't know it", which is pure BS. Also, there is "The article doesn't assert notability". My God, people, if you have enough time to sit there and fill out an AfD or comment on an AfD, you have enough time, as I did for the last hour, to pore through every detail about this newspaper, such as the above court case, its historic record, its claim as the first online newspaper in the state (which can be easily checked), its political pull (which also can easily be checked) or, how's this? The paper recently came under fire for refusing to stop running articles by Ann Coulter (one of only 40 in the country) after she used the word "faggot". I have seen many times where "the article doesn't assert notability" is used (Pollyfilla, Emily Hagins, Boogie Woogie (TV show))only to find some hint that this particular subject deserves merit, for whatever reason.--Ispy1981 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't argue the fact that the article isn't sufficiently sourced, but the sources don't establish notability. All they do is state exactly what you state in the article, that it publishes online, it's old, and has a circulation of 11,000. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I hate to disagree with you there, but, just glancing at the sources (which it's possible could've been added after the above comment), there are six of sixteen which denote that this newspaper was involved in a case before the Vermont Supreme Court. This includes AP and Gannett, which isn't minor. I hate to use OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (actually, I love to, because I think OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is crap, but we're not here to discuss what Ispy thinks is crap.)but we have articles now that display less notability than this one, and that are going to continue to display less notability than this one, with circulation sizes just the same, and claims of being the largest or second-largest in the state or county and claims of serving a small area surrounding it. If Wikipedia is going to hold itself to a high standard of excellence, then OTHERSTUFFEXISTS MUST be valid at some point. Here's the difference between this article and the others--this article has the history of the paper in it, this paper has the notability of arguing a case before the Vermont State Supreme Court. This little paper (population 11,000) attracted the attention of the Associated Press and Gannett. Look at Winona Daily News, for example. Where's the notability in that? Because some rich guy bought it? You delete this one, you may as well go through and delete all newspapers with small circulations that are old and may be online (there are quite a few). If you can look at the article as it stands now, carefully look at the sources and still aren't satisfied with the notability of this paper, I'll walk away from this AfD and let whomever decide its fate.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ispy1981 (talk • contribs)
  • Well if you look at how the newspaper looked when I originally nominated the article...you can see why I nominated it. I did look for sources in google before nomination (not for # of sources, but just for independant sources that can back up notability) and nothing showed up (at least in my searches) in the first few pages that hinted at notability. Per the information given recently regarding the supreme court case, I'll go ahead and Withdraw my nomination --sumnjim talk with me·changes 19:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historic newspapers are important & a US newspaper published since 1837 is historic enough to count. I see the nominator has just withdrawn, and the process of improving the article & then withdrawing the nom. is the best possible end of an AfD.DGG (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non admin closure. --Jorvik 14:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants[edit]

Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of state winners of a teen beauty pageant created from lists that were in articles deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Wisconsin's Outstanding Teen. Some of the editors who offered keep opinions at that AfD thought that simply combining the lists from those articles into one big list would be a good compromise and one of the delete !voters agreed. Now I'm all for compromises that bring articles into compliance with the relevant policies and guidelines, but this list is even more problematic than the deleted articles. Wikipedia is not a directory of teen beauty pageant winners. In addition, per WP:SAL,

Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future.

The state-level winners of teen beauty pageants are generally not notable and Wikipedia does not do articles about them. See, for instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canden Jackson. This article may be speediable as a {{db-repost}} ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Considering that I see two blue-linked names on there (one of which is to an apparently unrelated Australian actress, the other to a winner at the national level), and that precedent from the above-noted AFDs suggests there will likely never be articles for these people, I think a list is probably a bad idea. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Redlink farm. I wholeheartedly reject the notion that smushing a whole bunch of non-notable stuff into one big article somehow magically makes it notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at the end of the afd there were concerns at having 51 such articles, and proposals were made as to how to cut this down. I created this page as a compromise solution, and there were a number of editors who agreed that this was a reasonable compromise. The Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants are the sister pageants to the Miss America system and this is the second most notable Teen pageant in the country, and also one of only two televised (on The N). It is highly important that the names of titleholders and state results be found recorded and as Wikipedia is not paper I cannot see what the problem is. I feel the nominator is being vindictive - if he had concerns I believe the nominator should have raised any concerns when this article was briefly discussed on the original afd. If you search Google News for articles on the programme, you will find nearly 900 hits and if you search their normal news service there are 121 hits. WP:SAL is a guideline, not policy and the list serves more than just listing the names, it also lists the results for each state and in some cases important information about each titleholder, such as noting the first crossovers from the Miss Teen USA system and vice versa, the amount of which is only going to grow. I know the article doesn't have much content yet but that doesn't mean it can't be expanded, it simply means that at the moment I have other priorities. And I just saw a mention of the Teen afds... it was also noted there that the lists on the individual Miss Teen USA state article provided a way of recording the names of titleholders so individual articles were not needed. Please keep that in mind when you vote. -- PageantUpdater 22:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm at a loss as to why you think I'm being vindictive. This certainly isn't personal. You might want to consider extending some good faith, even to those who think they are improving Wikipedia by nominating one of your contributions for deletion. I see you did mention your creation of this article in that AfD on July 4, seven days after the nomination. I have to admit that I had stopped paying attention by then as I thought most of the arguments had been made, responded to, queried, counter-rebutted, etc. Also, it was a public holiday in my corner of the world and I was on vacation away from my computer. I apologize if you would have found my response there useful. Although I don't think further responses to AfDs one has participated in are strictly required by WP policy, guideline or practice, I personally try to take a "jury duty" approach to them and check in from time to time.
    In any event, I don't see any reasons (beyond WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING) why this article should be kept. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, that was unfair of me. However you last comment is just plain ridiculous. Are you ignoring the large number of Google News hits? THere are a number of articles that I don't see any reason for keeping on here but that doesn't mean I go around nominating them for deletion whilst ignoring that fact that there are hundreds of reliable sources. PageantUpdater 22:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (In my Uncle G voice) "Counting Google hits is not research". That is especially true where the search parameters are broad and overinclusive. There are sources for Miss America's Outstanding Teen, which no one is trying to delete. There were not sufficient sources for the state pageants individually, nor are there sources that discuss the state pageants collectively. Besides which, from the discussion at the prior AfD you mention above, this is intended to be a list. I've offered the reasons in the nom why I think this doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion of lists on WP. Your rebuttal was that WP:SAL is only a guideline. You are correct, but this guideline enjoys broad support in the community. The most common reason articles are deleted at AfD is for lack of notability, which is itself "only a guideline," after all. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears to consist largely of a list of non-notable people. The notable red links will become articles when someone undertakes the task. --Stormbay 23:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep As the name indicates, these were established under the auspices of the Miss America organization, so it's more than the county beauty contest (like the "Prettiest Pretty Princess Pageant" on My Name is Earl). My only concern is that the results, now in just their third year, might eventually take up a lot of space (although the current tables take up surprisingly little, at 19K).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs)
  • So everything that Miss American organization does is notable? Corpx 01:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I strongly opposed the state articles, and I consider this an acceptable compromise. Where there's a real difference of opinion, a compromised of this sort is the best solution--as with merging non-notable schools into school districts. DGG (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I too support compromise, when it's based in policy/guidelines. I can also understand someone who created an article feeling strongly about it. However, I don't believe in compromise simply because someone feels strongly about a matter when a good argument hasn't been advanced. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also (and a minor point), you said you strongly opposed the the state articles? You don't seem to have offered an opinion at the AfD on them. Obviously, this is not required to have a valid opinion at this AfD, I'm just a little confused is all... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I also was completely opposed to an article for each state. I had notability issues with the girls individually. But in order to reach consensus, I was and still am willing to concede that the girls as a group with the title are enough to confer notability to the article. Trusilver 02:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reasonable compromise to put them all on one page. Just because they are listed does not mean that every single person on the list is going to have an article. The information is varifable and may be of interest to some. Each state Miss Teen USA contest has it own page (Unless that is the next target for AFD). MAOT is part of Miss America. I suppose the next "compromise could be just put the state info the MAOT page. Or how about if we put the teen winners on the respective Miss State pages for example put Miss California OT on the Miss California page. I am wondering is there any page on wikipedia that the people who oppose this article would find a acceptable place to store this information or do they just want it gone? Smith03 02:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting the the Miss State Outstanding Teen winners int he Miss State articles would be a good compromise, as it would solve the WP:SAL and WP:LISTCRUFT problems with the list up for discussion here. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense: Putting the winners of Miss America's Outstanding Teen pageants on Miss Teen USA articles would be akin to putting Champ Car World Series race winners on the pages of Indy Racing League races. These pageants are in competition with each other. There is no linkage between the two. To think that this is an acceptable compromise shows a basic lack of understanding in the topic, an understanding that should quickly be apparent be reading the articles themselves. Perhaps a better understanding here may have prevented this nomination (and others) from occurring in the first place. --After Midnight 0001 03:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (edit conflict) A reasonable compromise was reached in the previous AfD discussion. There are currently 26 citations to the article from reliable newspapers throughout the United States, so some notability is asserted and referenced. While the WP:SAL guideline is important, I think this is a reasonable example where Ignoring all rules is appropriate. A compromise that I would like to see is that the article would not be a collection of red links to contestant articles that can't be started, but rather would be unlinked except for blue links to notable contestants. Royalbroil 02:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above--SefringleTalk 02:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The beauty pagent circuit is inherently notable. Mosquera 07:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a notable social institution. If the winners are not notable then that is an editorial judgment but the sereis of events are still notable. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep seems to be a reasonable compromise. Personally WP:IDONTLIKEIT but I would agree that it's fairly well sourced and seems to be within the notability of a 1.8 million article encyclopedia. Basically I can't see any compelling reason to delete it. Megapixie 02:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this arrangement is an acceptable balance. I've gone ahead and delinked the contestant names, since the consensus view seems to be that their individual articles shouldn't be recreated. --Groggy Dice T | C 06:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 02:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James H. McCall[edit]

James H. McCall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another campaign platform for another non-notable canditate, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Adams (political candidate) for a similar AFD, Delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 20:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete, Vanity piece, reads like a bad campaign brochure. Do notthink we need to know what he stands for, what what has he accomplished. No independent references on him either.Callelinea 20:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The article certainly needs work, but there are independent sources listed on his website. [11] Amusingly he includes paid adverts in his list of press coverage, but he does seem to have received some genuine coverage in the local press [12] [13] and on local TV [14] which could be used to improve the article. However, he's still struggling to meet WP:BIO, and the argument made elsewhere that notable candidates in a national election should have received national coverage is a reasonable one Iain99 21:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. On one hand, I'm not sure if a presidential candidate with 21 supporters could be considered notable, and candidates are generally not considered notable by Wikipedia precedent. On the other hand, that precedent generally refers to candidates for offices such as MLAs and representatives; a candidate for President of a country may be more notable. But 21 supporters.... --Charlene 01:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A notable candidate for president would receive national press notice, 21 supporters probably explains why he has not. Davewild 06:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was surprised to learn a few years ago that there are actually masses of candidates running for President of the US, it's just that the overwhelming majority of them aren't notable, much like this fellow. If he attracts press coverage, he may well become notable later on in the election cycle. As it stands, there's no coverage of him and (apparently) hardly any support which might translate into same later. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per most comments above. If the subject attains national press coverage later in this election campaign, or qualifies for the general election ballot in at least one state, the article should be re-created later. --Metropolitan90 07:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Charlene, Metropolitan90 and BigHaz, and per WP:SOAP. Bearian 20:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 02:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of 1930s nostalgia films[edit]

List of 1930s nostalgia films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As per WP:NOT#DIR, this page is a list only of wikilinks, and "See Also" items. The article makes scant comment on the films, and the list is growing to include films which do not fit the lead description. Titles are being added haphazardly, and the list is surely missing many films which simply have not been added. Discussion and feedback welcome. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 20:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. The lead indicates that there was a "wave" of 1930s nostlgia films in the late 1960s, to mid-1970s. I have noted this. But the article is a very loose discussion, primarily a list, and could perhaps be revived later as an article on this topic. Citations from WP:RS would be needed, of course. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)
  • Delete - the inclusion criterion appears to be "set in the 1930's". --Haemo 22:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V as it is unsourced.--JForget 22:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This needs to be worked on, but the 1930s-era film is a genre all its own, primarily about the Great Depression and the John Dillinger types of criminals. From The Sting to O Brother, Where Art Thou?, films set in the 1930s are popular. For generations that were raised on showings of films made in the '30s, like the Little Rascals shorts and It Happened One Night it's nostalgia of an unusual variety, since most of the fans were born long after the '30s ended. For whatever reason, the '30s seems to be more popular than the '20s, '50s, '70s, etc.Mandsford 23:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - being set in the same decade (or, as the article notes, sometimes in the previous deacade and side note if you're compiling a list of 1930s nostalgia films then why the hell are you including films set in the 1920s?! Jesus!) does not mean that the film is a "nostalgia" film so the concept of the list is fundamentally flawed. The popularity of the films is completely irrelevant to the compliance of the list and, with all due respect, I encourage the previous commenter to review WP:ATA along with the various Wikipedia guidelines and policies because he has a tendency to base many of his keep !votes on arguments that should be avoided and have no basis in policy or guidelines. Otto4711 00:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    'Comment Yeah, maybe he does... but it's a nice counterbalance to an interpretation of policy that is inflexible on some subjects, overly flexible on others. I might review all the policies and guidelines sometime next week, for sure.Mandsford 00:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mandsford. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An encyclopedia is not the place to categorize lists of movies by decade by subjective genre. Corpx 01:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Are reliable sources discussing the specific genre of 1930s nostalgia films? I'm not seeing any references that support this. Lists of films are notable when a) a specific genre has been identified and discussed by reliable independent third parties (e.g. noir movies, LGBT films) and b) those third parties have said which films are part of the genre. Otherwise the classification and the contents of the list are original research. --Charlene 01:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No such "genre". Clarityfiend 02:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Charlene; lack of WP:RSes is an insurmountable issue: I looked at Google Scholar and at Amazon and could not find such sources. Maybe someone else can? Carlossuarez46 18:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and discussion supra. Listcruft. Bearian 21:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 02:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2009[edit]

Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The 2007 and 2008 contest hasn't even happened yet. Note that Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (made by a different user) is currently being prodded. -WarthogDemon 19:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this should be deleted.--gottago 14:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of 10 Kilo Records artists[edit]

List of 10 Kilo Records artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article for the record label itself was SD'd in March as non-notable. That must also apply to the list of artists, most of whom lack pages of their own. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 18:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Most of the blue links are to common words and are not disambig'd - IE they're not notable artists on this label. Lugnuts 19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the label isn't notable, then this list shouldn't stay either. Seeing as there're hardly any valid blue links that actually link to the artists, I would say that the label is nn. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 19:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not notable.Mark E 19:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 02:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs featuring talk box[edit]

List of songs featuring talk box (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - prod deleted by anon without comment, which, boo! This is a directory of loosely associated topics, unified by the use of a particular musical instrument. A list of songs that use a talk box does not tell us anything the talk box, the songs that use it, the songwriters or performers of the songs, the relationship of any combination of instrument, song, songwriter and performer to each other or music in general. Otto4711 18:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per loose criteria of inclusion. Encyclopeida is not the place to categorize songs by the instruments used in their production. Corpx 19:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely not a strong categorization. Loosely associated topic here, nothing else in common besides the use of a talkbox. (Also, it seems that they left out a couple country songs -- I know at least one Kenny Chesney song uses talkbox.) Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an arbitrary list. The article doesn't bother to define or link to talk box, so I had to look it up. This is no more notable than a list of songs featuring any particular instrument or recorded using specific equipment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithent (talk • contribs)
  • Merge. Like Mithent, I couldn't figure out what a talk box was. Now that I know, I say put this one back in the box. Like the others, I agree that we can't have articles about songs that feature harmonicas, horns and harpsichords. Mandsford 23:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - do not merge WP:NOT directory and all that good stuff. Merging into the page for talk box wouldn't make this list any less of a bad idea, unless someone wants to have fun editing the articles on mandolins, double basses, kettle drums, and so on as they grow infinitely large and cluttered with similar lists. GassyGuy 23:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no merge per GassyGuy Bulldog123 00:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Uninformative and inaccurate. Some of the examples in list use wah-wah, not talk box, and it doesn't explain anything anyway.Daverotherham 03:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berries and Creme[edit]

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

WP is not a place to document every commercial that has aired. In the absence of evidence that this had lasting impact or drew critical commentary (like the 1984 Apple commercial did), there is no reason we should have an article on it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a little lad who wants to Delete Berries and Creme. Carl stated it perfect. --Hemlock Martinis 18:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources Corpx 19:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I must somewhat disagree that this is just another commercial. It certainly seems to have penetrated the cultural consciousness at least somewhat, though I doubt it'll become an industry milestone like the 1984 ad. But the article has no reliable sources, and a little bit of searching hasn't turned up any either, so this probably should be deleted for now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I am generally in favor of a keep as having the article does not somehow denigrate Wikipedia, but I think a merge or redirect could be fair as well, i.e. say what is important in the main Starburst article (or have an article on Starburst commercials?) and have a redirect to the relevant section, perhaps. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Which reliable sources are discussing this article in a critical sense? I can't find any. Without attribution to reliable sources, the ad (and what is it - one out of a hundred thousand in the past year?) does not pass WP:ATT. --Charlene 02:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment millions of dollars for a TV ad and this is the best they can come up with? 02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above (but not Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles) and WP:NOT. Bearian 20:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The L Word (season 1)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    The L Word (season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    The L Word (season 2)
    The L Word (season 3)

    Delete - Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries and these are seasonal plot summaries. Otto4711 18:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per pure plot summary and a violation of WP:NOT Corpx 19:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I am going to vote to delete, but I would vote to keep detailed episode by episode summaries and reserve the right to change my vote with that in mind.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confused Why do we have List of The Sopranos episodes and are targeting a different show for deletion? --sumnjim talk with me·changes 20:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • List of Sopranos episodes is indeed a list of episodes, with airdates and other relevant real-world information about each episode in addition to have a bit of plot summary for each episode. This article on the other hand is entirely a desciption of what happened plot-wise in that season, with no real-world information included, which fails WP:NOT. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/Rewrite somewhere, and perhaps transwiki to Wikia:Annex 132.205.44.5 21:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and add real world context a few paragraphs to describe a 13 episode season is not unreasonable. If context could be found for the Sopranos, I have no doubt it could be found here. Add a tag that says "needs context" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep seasonal plot summaries. How can the subject be talked about at all without describing the plot? These could be seen as subpages, though we don't organize things as subpages--the individual parts don't need the same amount of discussion as the overall subject, but they support the general discussion. If I do not know of the show, and want to find out, this is what tells me what it actually was. I think getting rid of individual episode articles was a good thing, but I am not sure i would have supported it had I realised that these too would be suggested for deletion. The advocates of removal of plot material are over-reaching. DGG (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Clean it up, give brief synopses for each episode of that season. Provide real world content, with reliable sources. Drop that "Goofs" section, as that's unencyclopedic. We aren't here to point out continuity errors, take that stuff to IMDb.com. On the plus side, at least it isn't riddled with images, as I've seen on some pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strike that. Delete - I just walked over to List of The L Word episodes, and this does a pretty good job of "summarizing" all the plots from all the episodes in the entire series. These season pages now seem like way to write up more details that couldn't be placed in the other article. Too much. I still say clean up those plots, and add real world content to that article, but these three season articles now seem redundant to a page that already contains just about the same information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge Or, unless merging is not a valid !vote, Delete. I would be rather loath to do anything to this article pending the various discussions on how things should proceed with episode articles. However, I can see no reason for this to be seperate from the section on the various seasons in the main article. As such, merge it. I  (said) (did) 01:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete—main article already summarizes the plot enough. — Deckiller 04:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, or merge if you have to. It has more than plot summaries, it has a section on goofs and mistakes. I am not at all interested, but why must this information be removed? It's rather long to merge into the main article, so better: keep. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What purpose is a "goofs" section? They are the first thing to go in an FAC if they happen to be on the page, since they are rather unencyclopedic. That's IMDb type information. As for the size of the plots, the main article summarizes each season, and if you go to the LOE page that I linked above, each episode has a rather decent sized summary of itself, which if you put all the episodes together is much larger summary that these pages. That's why I changed my initial choice "keep" to a "delete", because everything here is redundant to what is on two other pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Goofs section is pure trivia Corpx 15:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, reasonably detailed and too large to merge into the parent article. Could probably be comfortably merged into List of The L Word episodes, but AfD has nothing to do with that. —Xezbeth 08:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete per Bignole. I feel plot summaries are acceptable if the articles are developed enough to be encyclopedic, and if an interested Wikipedia reader would find them useful - that's my rationalization for not AfDing 3000 Simpsons articles - but, as Bignole says, a much better complete article is already in existence at List of The L Word episodes. So, delete as redundant. PS Jenny was cute, though insane. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete plot summary arguments aside, the article is unsourced and would appear to be original research. SamBC 19:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ck lostsword•T•C 18:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    James A. Runde[edit]

    James A. Runde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    I originally PROD'd this, but it was deprod'd. I see no evidence that this person in any way meets WP:BIO. There are some minor mentions of the subject in press releases pertaining to his employment moves, but that would appear to be it. My opinion is that this should be deleted. Isotope23 17:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Keep, obviously a wealthy bussinessman, sits on a few board of directors. He just might be notable. The article really is not that impressive, but could be improved. Callelinea 18:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but clean-up recommended. That Milwaukee article in Citation section actually has a nugget of notability:

    Then fate, in the form of 69-year-old Vice Admiral Hyman Rickover, intervened, dampening the peril and putting Runde on a promising path that eventually led to Wall Street and management of the largest initial public offering in U.S. history, the sale earlier this month of $5.5 billion worth of stock by United Parcel Service Inc. The UPS deal came as the result of a cold call made by Runde as an investment banker at Morgan Stanley Dean Witter.

    Canuckle 19:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral, leaning weak, weak keep - okay, he's a former vice-chair of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, and he spearheaded a big IPO - but the reliable sources are miniscule for him. One would think there would be more about a guy at that level. I'm not sure that vice-chair builds enough notability to put him over, in my book, which is why the neutral-towards-keep opinion. I just can't say "keep" without more indication that he's had more of an impact on his industry. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete on grounds of non-notability. He has reached the top of financial services industry and done some good work as a director, but that is what he is paid to do. A smart and hardworking man, but lack of third party citations suggest this article will not be expanded. Notability to come perhaps? --Gavin Collins 13:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Delete per Gavin Collins. I'm sure he's a wonderful man, a hard worker, and a humanitarian, but he's just not notable, although he may think so and edited his own article. Bearian 21:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Though not known to the average person, i.e. Duke Robillard to the Kiss fans (both with articles in Wikipedia), Mr. Runde is extremely well known in the financial area and is acquiring a “notable” reputation as a motivational speaker. ShoesssS Talk 12:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, seems pretty notable. Articles on businessmen are hardly uncommon. —Xezbeth 08:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Anas talk? 12:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Aaron Sofocleous[edit]

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

    No assertion of notability, no references at all to establish notability and verifiability of the subject. This is a real person, but this article isn't encyclopedic, I don't think he's nearly important enough to be included and I very much doubt the article can be improved beyond what is already there. The Parsnip! 17:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, First off no references and really nothing on the subject matter. Fix those problems and I'll change my vote.Callelinea 18:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete due no references (and only a few google hits, related to the text in Keith Moon) and no notability. PGWG 19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, not enough information on this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark E (talk • contribs)
    • Delete, not a notable person by any means. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, nothing at all in Google News Archive or Google Books. If he was influential, it must have been that secret type of influence. --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom and above. Bearian 21:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete How in the world can this article be improved? It says "Not much information is available on Sofocleous", also if there was someone who could put more info on him I'm guessing it wouldn't follow WP:NOR, because it also says "it is common knowledge within professional drum circles" there will probably be no references or citations. --♫Twinkler4♫ (Talk to me!) 22:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 23:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2007 French Alps coach crash[edit]

    I still believe this to truly fail Wikipedia:Notability. This event has demonstrated no lasting notability whatsoever; WP:NN clearly states (Emphasis mine) "Notability is not temporary [...] In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." Further, it is quite clear that this incident without a death toll is not half as notable as the vast majority of cases listed on List of road accidents, and should probably not even be listed there. Finally, the article fails the "Featured artcle litmus test": it would be absolutely impossible, now or ever, to create a Featured Article on this topic.

    • Delete as nominator Circeus 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I was hopeful I could find enough sources even on this, but I couldn't. Which in itslef demonstrates a lack of notability. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you know if it can be transwikied to Wikinews? They don't seem to have anything about it, and it would be a shame if your work were lost. Circeus 18:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. A bus crashed into a rock. Wow. No one died, no one notable was involved, and this was in no way different than the plethora of automobile accidents that happen worldwide on a daily basis. As predicted before, once the initial headlines wear away people are left going "The what what crash?" This is a news article, not an encyclopedia entry. ɑʀкʏɑɴ &#149; (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't be sarcastic. Deleting current/recent events has always been particularly difficult. Circeus 20:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't directed at anyone, just an expression of frustration that this has to go through two nominations. I'm also having a bit of a long and drawn out day and apologize if I came across poorly. ɑʀкʏɑɴ &#149; (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, seems rather insignificant even in light of the bus plunge phenomenon. --Dhartung | Talk 20:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. It seems like a pretty well sourced article, suprisingly.--SefringleTalk 20:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether or not the article is "good" or "sourced" is completely besides the point, which is whether the article topic is notable, which I believe it is clearly not. Circeus 21:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete sorry this is absolutely nn.--JForget 23:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I'm glad nobody was killed. However, if we were to list every school bus crash in history as a separate article, it would be a major problem. A lot of people have done sourcing and contributing, but I can't see what makes this accident any more notable than any other motor vehicle accident. Mandsford 23:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete One person was seriously injured. Wikipedia does not need to cover everything that generates a few news stories. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this is a relatively trivial crash. Resolute 04:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unfortunately road accidents happen all the time, often make news which could be widespread depending on who is aboard. This crash is little different than any run-of-the-mill accident and is therefore nn. Carlossuarez46 18:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Over one million people a year are killed in vehicle accidents worldwide, and each such fatality is covered in the newspapers, and the vast majority of them fail WP:NOT#NEWS. Even more of a failure of that policy is an accident where no one was killed. Scary for the passengers, and for their friends and families, but not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a compendium of everything that goes bump in the Alps. Edison 19:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result of the discussion was: Keep. The delete votes (which are in the minority anyway, even with apparent single-purpose accounts discounted) are based on the fact that the article uses no verifiable secondary sources, and were made before it was updated to reference a number of both accepted and appropriate sources. Although there are a number of comments that are simply 'I like it', there is at best consensus that the article should be kept until its relationship with a (possible) parent subject is established, and at worst no consensus that it should be deleted. ck lostsword•T•C 18:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ethan Haas Was Right[edit]

    Ethan Haas Was Right (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    No reliable secondary sources, way too much original research. --- RockMFR 17:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep I dont know all of Wikipedia rules but the article seems to be wriiten well with references.Rosario lopez 20:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The references are all from independent media and are from blogs and other sources of this promotion. Corpx 04:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: EHWW is in-game material; I would argue it is a reliable source, then, as far as the ARG is concerned. Other blogs are referenced as possible in-game, and known out-of-game— no information is cited from them; rather, they themselves are cited as being possible affiliatees or non-afilliates, with summaries. I realize there are some cited as information sources; as the Internet community takes these blogs at face-value, there are no sites out there documenting this information besides those. If any of the news sites were posting comprehensive information, believe you me, I'd be more than happy to cite them instead.
    A second point I'd like to bring up is that the aforementioned blogs aren't the primary source of information on the website— the website itself is the primary source— but they are, at this point, the documentation of it. The only other option is to cite all of the information back to the primary site— as EHWR is primarily a flash game at this point, it's impossible to point people to the exact places where they could verify the information for themselves, short of them completing the game. And for the videos, I felt it more appropriate to link to a transcription of the videos than to, say, link to the videos themselves on YouTube.
    As far as the other blogs go, I could remove the summaries attached to them, if you it's decided that such is irrelevant information. However, I would argue that for possible affiliates, as it's already known that one blog is in-game; thus, there is a possibility that there are others in-game, hence the information about them.
    Overall, I'm open to suggestions on how to improve the article. If you believe there is a better way to cite the information regarding the website in question, or that specific information needs to be altered or even removed, I'm more than willing to hear it. I think, for the moment, though, we should attempt to correct the article instead of deleting it outright. Keirberos 19:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability must be established through independent media sources, not content from the sites or other sites involved in this promotion. Anyone can open up a blog and say anything - hence, they're not notable Corpx 04:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The vast majority of the "references" in use are self-referential or from blogs or otherwise unreliable sources. The few remaining that might be classified as reliable only give this ARG a trivial, incidental mention. This "game" is something of a new phenomenon, and has yet to establish notability. Perhaps someone can userfy the content for future recreation should notability be achieved - but not yet. ɑʀкʏɑɴ &#149; (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just clarification... Userfy? Keirberos 20:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, as a note, 'vast majority'? The one site that has the most references is indeed a blog, but it's a verified, in-game, source. In context, it is quite reliable, more reliable than a secondary site recording the same information. I believe there are only two other blogs noted as recordings of information about the site; the others are merely noted as affiliates. Keirberos 20:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfy generally means to copy the text and put it in the userspace somewhere, for example, creating a page titled User:Keirberos/Ethan Haas Was Right and putting the text there. As for the sources - they may be true and verifiable, but they are primary sources. That is acceptable for factual information but they cannot be used to establish notability. Read the guidelines at WP:N, WP:RS and WP:ATT for more detail on why. ɑʀкʏɑɴ &#149; (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect to Cloverfield (which is better sourced to boot). Insufficient grounds for a separate article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I considered that option, but figured it was problematic owing to the fact that the official word is that the items are not related. I'd not have a real problem with a redirect, anyway, though. ɑʀкʏɑɴ &#149; (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd have to agree with Arkyan. This page originally redirected to Cloverfield; thus far, however, the only evidence either way has suggested the two aren't related. I've another proposal though— would any of you believe that this article could warrant being moved to Wikinformation or a seperate Wikia? Keirberos 20:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That'd depend on the policies of the wiki in question. As long as our licensing is compatible with theirs (ie. they accept GDFL contributions) and this article falls within the inclusion guidelines of said wiki then I have absolutely no problem with such a thing. ɑʀкʏɑɴ &#149; (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, non-notable game with no good reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article has cited sources and is well-written. Justin Bacon 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep what's the point of deleting this now and then undelete it later when the movie is released? It's just waste of time.  Grue  21:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why would we undelete this later? --- RockMFR 22:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Keep". What is the point of having an internet encyclopedia whereby users can post information on various topics, if you're going to ignore well written topics that address current (and subsequently past) internet or real world fads or viral marketing campaigns? The rules for Wikipedia regarding sources do not make any sense when dealing with such things as viral marketing campaigns since the only sources available for such things are the campaigns themselves. This current internet phenomenon is garnering huge interest from scores of people, why remove well written and relevant information on it? Doing so would be the opposite of what Wikipedia should be all about. [[User:Dpressen 22:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
    • There is no indication whatsoever that this game will become a fad. It is merely a topic of the week, and there is no significant coverage provided by independent, secondary sources to shape this game's real-world context, and thus, notability. This article is self-written and basically lists movie blogs and minor movie sites that have covered it, while there are no major sites that have covered it in a non-trivial manner. It is simply a knee-jerk reaction to create an article on a temporary phenomenon -- Wikipedia is not a news repository. Think of it this way -- based on the information available to us, would this article be relevant ten years from now? Does not appear to be. If its real-world context is the film itself, and cited sources at Cloverfield indicate that there's no relation, then the film-based game should be mentioned in the film article and not in explicit fancruftish detail. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but trim the heck out of this; write it as an encyclopedia article, appropriate for inclusion in the film's article when it comes out. This is way too long, and crufty. --Haemo 22:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No reliable sources. Cruft-filled, speculation-filled... no reason to believe a film which may or mayn't be connected with this game will increase its notability upon release because there's no evidence of that. GassyGuy 23:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep To say this is non-notable is farcical. There are pages on You Tube discussing it, multiple websites covering it, and if it's connected to Cloverfield, which i suspect it is, then it's even more notable since that's even warrented national news coverage. It's most certainly a notable, and useful, article to a (now) widely known internet site, and perhaps to a now widely known, if enigmatic, movie. 18-Till-I-Die 00:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Youtube videos, blogs and others dont count for notability per WP:RS Corpx 01:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're not talking about dogs on skateboards or some fanboy blog, we're talking about serious (and in many cases offical, ie: part of the company producing it) use of blogs and sites like YouTube to spread an official viral campaign, whether it be for the movie in question or some new product, I can't see how, with all the coverage it is getting from film sites, news sites, and the internet populace in general, that people would view it as something that needed to be removed from Wiki. As a matter of fact, all one needs to do is look at the rules under "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves", since a website is nothing more than interactive article in many instances, in this case especially, I think it's perfectly within in the rules to cite the official blogs and websites as sources. Dpressen 02:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliable sources to establish notability must come from independent media sources. Other sites/blogs created by the company to help with this promotion do not count in this case. Corpx 04:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Keep". This is an interesting article about a current web phenomenon. I believe that it has encyclopedic value in that it chronicles information about the site in a detailed and concise manner. The reliable sources are easy to get to! It all comes off of the site itself. Geez! Allemannster 03:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it all comes from the site itself, then the site itself isn't notable. There is precedent for deleting this sort of webcruft that does not conform to Wikipedia guidelines. GassyGuy 03:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an interesting usage of the word "consensus". Korny O'Near 18:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A game that's part of a viral marketing campaign is completely undeserving of its own article. Never mind the fact that NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE PRODUCT IS. When someone announces what the product is, the game will make a nice addition to that page. In the meantime, there's nothing about it that merits its own article in an encyclopedia. EvilCouch 07:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete because it fails WP:WEB in several ways: 1) It has not been reported in a non-trivial manner by any reliable published works, and the websites fail to be reliable because they establish no significant real-world context and just play the puzzles. There is no established, verified background for this game, which may very well be spam -- per sourced information at Cloverfield, a Paramount spokesperson and J. J. Abrams have said that the site does not belong to them. There is the headline of the week and should not warrant an ensure an entire article, especially based on movie blogs and minor movie sites. This being the case, this will suffer from recentism. Wikipedia is not a news repository. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP Let's not get messy here. Just leave the article alone. I know of an article that should have been deleted months ago but it still hasn't. This article cites it's resources and is very neat. PERIOD

    Astro 17:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Anybody can nominate an article for deletion. Please do the community a service and follow the procedures at WP:AfD to take care of the one you reference. GassyGuy 21:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, but Heavily Trim. The notability of this ARG alone is infinitesimal. When cited with other articles (about the Cloverfield association, now probably proven as false), it is fairly noteworthy, at best, and only in so much as it keeps others from reintroducing information to it without checking sources. Since it is not verified if it's related to The Class, Cloverfield, or some other game or product, it does not deserve extrapolation nor merging with another article.
    The 2nd paragraph, along with the content sections Characters, Puzzles, Videos, Divinus, and a great deal of Trivia and References are all extraneous. Even then, there is a good argument for recentism, but it would be nice to have something to clear up the confusion and lead people away from wikipedia when pursuing EHWR content. Yookaloco 22:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong DELETE - Not only is this WP:Fancruft, it has nothing to do with the movie that has made this site supposedly "notable". Just more garbage trying to jump on a bandwagon. -- 69.177.230.230 05:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know something the rest of us don't? I doubt it, so therefore, your mention of "garbage" and "bandwagons" is potentially irrelevant at best.UntilMoraleImproves 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: This article would have never been created if it hadn't been (falsely) associated with Cloverfield. ShadowUltra 06:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This game has been mentioned in multiple notable news sources, including G4's The Feed, Time-Warner's entertainment news, and others. It therefore meets the notability requirements set by WP:WEB. It does need editing, though. 67.186.34.123 07:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This article reflects on a timely topic, of interest to the general readership of Wiki. In addition, it is well researched and written. MWShort 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep If this does have something to do with Cloverfield, it will need to be re-created anyway. Even if it's not, it is a tie back to the Cloverfield hype pre movie release.UntilMoraleImproves 18:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - unnotable fancruft. Even if it were connected to the movie (or any other movie), it still wouldn't deserve a page of its own. It's a marketing website, people. It's not a worthy topic for an encyclopedia. Korny O'Near 18:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you back up your statements with any kind of proof?UntilMoraleImproves 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Proof of what? That it's a marketing website? If it's not, then it's just a website with games on it, which would make it even less notable - there's only about 100,000 of those out there on the web. Korny O'Near 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And what if it turns out to actually have a purpose such as promoting the "Cloverfield" movie? Do we then re-create the article when we could have just left it alone in the first place?UntilMoraleImproves 20:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We cant keep articles just hoping that notability will be established sometime in the future. Corpx 20:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So what reason do you have to say that this is not notable right now?UntilMoraleImproves 20:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As Corpx said before, many of the guidelines established on WP:NOTE can be accurately and fairly applied to the situation we are currently having with this article. Yookaloco 01:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As per my vote, "lack of significant coverage from independent media" Corpx 01:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. ARGs are uncommon enough as it is, and this one appears to be notable. However, it would probably be best to merge it into a "Marketing" section at Cloverfield. Even if the website isn't related, the hype it generated should be enough to warrant a mention. —Xezbeth 21:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're pretty much the same thing. Merges do not need AfD approval. —Xezbeth 21:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I think this needs to be kept, because this will be something our generation will talk about in the future. This marketing, or whatever it may be will define part of the internet generation we live in. Anyone who is internet savvy at this time will remember and look back at this for how great it truly is. I don't know if I am explaining myself correctly, but does anyone understand what I am saying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.35.99 (talk • contribs) — 68.163.35.99 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • I sure hope this does not define any part of the generation we live in! Corpx 15:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Coverage is not notable, wikipedia is not a game guide, etc. If this IS tied to cloverfield, it can be redirected to that article and any verifiable and encyclopedic information about the site can be included there.--Crossmr 19:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are many game guides on Wikipedia, I used a gameguide from this website a week ago for N64's Perfect Dark. So should that and all other game related articles be deleted as well?
    • Keep It's an interesting website that is worth mentioning even if it has nothing to do with 1-18-08 or Lost.--Pilot expert 01:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP I am a LOST fan who just learned about Cloverfield and all of the rumors surrounding it. I came HERE to wikipedia to read up a little more on it. I would have been suprised/ANGRY if there was nothing here.--75.61.77.188 05:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Although I don't think it has anything to do with Cloverfield, it certainly has with Mindstorm's game Alpha Omega. Look at the corresponding entry unter Trivia and follow the second link to an image comparison. So keep until it's real connection is clear and then merge it either with Cloverfield or Alpha Omega article. - Valeeo 07:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This is notable, the source exists, and it's been mentioned in press. --79.65.17.76 14:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This article can be easily fixed, there's no need for deletion. Furthermore, with the popularity of 1-18-08 i believe it would cause dissatification if this article were completely removed. Kycowboyntv 17:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but fix the hell out of this article. Zarggg 05:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep At least until after August, 1, 2007, when we find out the next phase of the site's development. If it's just a topic of the week, we'll know at that time. If it's part of some on-going film or game development project we'll probably see more clues leading to better data. Think of it like the DaVinci code online event. Dragonranger 15:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Inner City Pirates[edit]

    The Inner City Pirates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This band's notability is not established by the article. It appears to fail all 12 criteria on WP:MUSIC, and apparently (from a quick google search) no longer exists. EyeSereneTALK 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There are keep/redirect/smerge/merge/delete opinions, which makes it difficult to judge the result. I suggest that these two subjects be nominated separately if there is to be another AfD. Sr13 17:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Al Gore III and Noelle Bush[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Al Gore III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    Noelle Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Both of these articles violate Wikipedia's BLP and NPOV policies. They are textbook coatrack articles. Neither can be considered proper biographies as both are about non-public figures who's primary reason for being mentioned in the media is due to the embarassment they have caused their relatives who are prominent politicians. The material contained in these articles may be fine for newspaper articles, but it is not sufficient to create balanced biographical encyclopedia articles. Until such time as either of these people decide to become more public figures (which seems unlikely) and recieves substantial media attention for activities other than infractions of the law and drug addictions, both of these articles should be redirected to their more prominent relatives. I have taken the unorthodoxed step of nominating them together to avoid the appearance of partisanship which has nagged previous debates. Kaldari 16:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Redirect. Kaldari 16:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Articles do not violate BLP as they are sourced and written from a neutral point of view. And are not coatracks as they talk about their subjects rather than being baout someone else. The idea that people should only have wikipedia articles if there is positive information in the media about them is a new one to me. BLP is becoming more of a walled garden as time goes on, but this is ridiculous Lurker (talk · contribs) 16:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect both to parents' articles. No long-term importance. We don't need articles solely documenting family relations, knee scrapes, and pot smoking, or whatever the hell these people did. --- RockMFR 17:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Must have gone temporarily insane there. Keep both. Obviously notable. --- RockMFR 20:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - "the embarassment they have caused their relatives who are prominent politicians" makes them notable. See also Billy Carter, Roger Clinton, Jr., Neil Bush, and a host of other figures who made a name for themselves by being a headache to various better-known relations. bd2412 T 17:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep per Lurker and bd2412. I do agree with RockMFR about knee scrapes, and the paragraph in the Gore article about his sprained ankle should be removed. Conviction of a crime, however, is significant. JamesMLane t c 17:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Troublesomely trouble-prone relatives of notable biography subjects are in themselves notable when they receive extensive press and enter the popular lexicon (i.e., become the butt of late-night comedian jokes, are mentioned as clues on Jeopardy!, etc.). There are two examples that I think no one would disagree are notable: Jimmy Carter brother Billy and Bill Clinton brother Roger. Both have articles on Wikipedia, neither of which gives especial weight to biographical details apart from their eccentricities characterized at some time as being "embarrassing" to their presidential siblings. Billy was not primarily notable as a beer spokesman; that notability was secondary to his press-getting antics, the repetitive use of his name as a gag on Saturday Night Live and Match Game, and, ultimately, the Billygate scandal. Roger is not primarily notable for his rock band and acting career; he is notable as the child-abused, substance-abusive half-brother of the president who was included in a set of controversial pardons made as the sun set on the Clinton administration. Stating these notable facts in the articles on the subjects is not NNPOV, the articles for the presidential brothers could not be merged into the articles on their respective presidents because the material would be out of place there (in fact no details of either Roger or Billy—only mere mentions—are presently found in Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter), and the brothers are independently notable (i.e., their names are sufficiently well known to be the punchlines of jokes and the answers to trivia questions). The pertinent definition of coatrack (which, strictly speaking, is an essay and should not in and of itself dictate this decision-making process) is that a coatrack article "fails to give a truthful impression of the subject", and to the best of the knowledge of history, the nominated articles and the abovementioned examples do give truthful impressions of their subjects. Nor do any of them violate the spirit of BLP, which is intended to prevent rumor and libel from entering Wikipedia. At no point it its edit history was Al Gore III coatrack, as it never violated WP:NPOV, it only ever presented reported facts in a neutral, unbiased way, they never took on a politicized slant or included judgmental language, and they were never given undue weight. (It was actually the imputed perception of the facts as constituting bias that was the bias.) Robert K S 17:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect. If a person is notable only for embarrassing a notable relative, and that individual's bio reflects only those embarrassing incidents and a few odds and ends thrown in to make it appear more than it is (sprained ankles??), then redirection of the pertinent information is the most sensible option. If these individuals were not relatives of famous people, would the information about them in these articles be sufficient to warrant an entry? I think not. -Jmh123 17:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Al Gore III, Merge Noelle Bush. The former has been the focus of multiple unrelated stories. The latter has been written about due to a single, relatively trivial, event. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per nom. Not neutral in the context of these people's lives. Avb 18:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep, both persons are notable as per Robert KS. Callelinea 18:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect. People who aren't Notable by Wikipedia standards except for their relationship to someone famous should not have biographical articles here, because there will never be enough Reliable Sources for such articles. Instead, we'll have non-biographical articles about controversies like drug arrests, with a bit of filler in an attempt at NPOV, but the articles will inherently violate WP:UNDUE.
      It's much easier to be accurate and non-harmful when we cover these things in the article about the famous person. It's also a better use of our resources. People who want to know what some comedian or quiz show was referring to will still end up getting the information, thanks to the magic of redirects. Cheers, CWC 18:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. per Robert KS. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep both - for a moment when I saw this nomination I thought this was a joint article and that the two were dating and was terrified. Otto4711 18:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I can't stand people continually renomming XFDs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep both - albeit a weak keep for Noelle Bush - she has had one series of notable incidents (lumping the original charge and subsequent contempt charges into one series), and other then that seems to be out of the spotlight. Al Gore III has had several run-ins with the law several years apart. The two articles are not congruent - I think that it can be generally accepted that committing several crimes would make a person more notable then committing a single crime. PGWG 19:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Gore, Delete Bush (which sounds like a 2000 election bumper sticker) I do agree with some of the coatrack comments, however, when I saw on the news the other day that Gore III had been arrested, I turned to Wikipedia to find out what he does. I was disappointed - there was nothing about his publication, media work, his other work, etc. It was all contextualized according to Mom and Dad. The article needs work, but he is the publisher of a magazine, writes articles for it and others, and is notable aside from them, both for entanglements (Tipper Gore's current work on mental illness and depression comes from a bout of it she faced after his accident), as well as in his own right (both for his screw ups AND for the accomplishments we really haven't included). It needs fleshing out, but Gore III *is* notable. --Thespian 19:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Everything that is known about Al Gore III's career in publishing is already in the article (which is very little). If you can add some more information to make it balanced, please do. If you can't, please vote to merge it. Kaldari 00:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Gore, Redirect Bush per above. Gore really shouldn't be notable - he's not done anything really noteworthy and notability doesn't get inhereted. However he seems to have a habit of getting in minor trouble, and combined with his familial links he's popped up in the news multiple times. I must concede that notability is established. Miss Bush, however, is another story - this should just be a redirect. ɑʀкʏɑɴ &#149; (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, unfortunate notability but notability nonetheless. --Dhartung | Talk 20:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep both. Both completely notable and neither "does harm" per the BLP. VanTucky (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep both, notable. Everyking 22:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep WP:BLP should not be constantly used for the deletion of any controversial article Recurring dreams 23:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree. I'm getting sick of the over-citation of BLP, especially as those citations tend to be a matter of opinion and are very rarely substantive. Lurker (talk · contribs) 16:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong redirect per nom. At present neither subject deserves an article in any encyclopedia or biographical dictionary based on accomplishments/exploits to date. "...embarassment they have caused their relatives who are prominent politicians" would be the textbook definition (if such existed) of coatrack biographical activity. Bush isn't notable as a repeat drug abuser (amongst millions without WP articles), and Gore isn't a notable repeat intoxicated driver (amongst tens of thousands yearly without WP articles). Perhaps a link to the Prius page. Because of his son's driving exploits the tabloids all had a good laugh at Al Gore Jr's expense (and virtually all advertised news sources are tabloid these days). Nobody here has any clue who AGIII is yet; he hasn't done anything worth noting. Ditto Noelle Bush. A statement about what people think an encyclopedia should contain. BusterD 23:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect. Neither of these is a biography, just a place-holder to say "Al Gore's son/Jeb Bush's daughter got busted." Tom Harrison Talk 23:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the deletion nomination, although technically correct, gives the wrong reason and suffers from recentism. It is incorrect to say "non-public figures who's primary reason for being mentioned in the media is due to the embarassment they have caused their relatives who are prominent politicians" for Al Gore III. I first heard of Al Gore III before any of the recent events, because he became famous as a child when he was involved in a car accident, or rather, he became famous because of the effect this had on his father and mother. The article itself says "He is best-known for being mentioned in an emotional vice-presidential nomination acceptance speech by his father" - this is not "causing embarassment", indeed far from it. I think the ideal situation is to mention the son and the car accident in the Al Gore article, and to not bother with mentioning anything else. The "embarassment" of the later car incident and other incidents, whatever the outcome should rightly be ignored by history. History books are far more likely to mention the car accident and the emotional speech Gore made, than the later incidents. Wikipedia, by using newspaper coverage as its "notable sources" is failing to provide encyclopedic coverage and is looking at living people through the distorting lens of media coverage. Carcharoth 00:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep Gore, no opinion on Bush. This is the 7th nomination of Al Gore III with no new arguments presented, so nominating it in hopes of a better vote this time is inconsistent with AfD policy. As to the merits: The references in the Gore article indicate that he's been the subject of multiple, non-trivial stories on different topics over a period of a decade or so, which I think makes it reasonable to have an article on him. If his two run-ins with the law were his only claim to fame I'd say merge, but they aren't. --Delirium 00:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both - the Noelle one adds nothing to Wikipedia, while most of the information that needs to be on Wikipedia for Al Gore III is already at Al Gore:

      "On April 3, 1989, Gore's six-year-old son Albert was nearly killed in an automobile accident while leaving the Baltimore Orioles' opening day game. Because of the resulting lengthy healing process, his father chose to stay near him during the recovery instead of laying the foundation for a presidential primary campaign. Gore started writing Earth in the Balance, his book on environmental conservation, during his son's recovery. It became the first book written by a sitting Senator to make The New York Times bestseller list since John F. Kennedy's Profiles in Courage."

      The missing information can be added to Al Gore without merging, as it can be rewritten to avoid any need to preserve the original GFDL contributions at Al Gore III: (1) "mentioned in an emotional vice-presidential nomination acceptance speech by his father during the 1992 Democratic National Convention." and (2) "This was discussed in his father's 2006 book, An Inconvenient Truth and in the 2006 documentary of the same name." - the rest is tabloid fluff. Carcharoth 00:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect both. We do not have enough info about either person for anything like a biography. (BTW, the listing of previous AfDs is incorrect. The first is a duplicate of the sixth. The actual first AfD was not an AfD but a VfD, and it's archived in the Al Gore III talk pages. Never mind, I've fixed it; it was just a mistaken redirect.) --Allen 00:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both They are only notable for their relationships to well-known political figures. They have only been noted for their minor problems, well maybe major for them but minor compared to lots of other people's. Steve Dufour 01:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep both - Both are notable. Also, these need to be nominated separately as the closing admin has little chance of determining consensus regarding either since the discussion intertwines the keep/delete/etc. reasoning behind both articles. If the person nominating the article draws the appearance of partisanship into the debate, then they might want to let others nominate the article for AfD. Also, I'm not happy to see that this is Al Gore III 7th nomination. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment they should totally hook up. their kids would be libertarians. ~ Infrangible 02:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Smerge to the articles on their respective fathers, or failing that, Redirect without merging. It's a violation of WP:BLP (specifically, the section dealing with "undue weight", WP:BLP1E) to have an articles like these. The only dubious claim to "notability" for either of these people arises from an accident of birth, and since they are only notable within the context of their fathers, all relevant info can be included in their fathers' articles. If (after due deliberation) the editors of Jeb Bush and Al Gore do not feel that the information should not be there, then it shouldn't be anywhere. I find the example of people like Billy Carter and Roger Clinton unpersuasive, since those were presidential relatives, and neither of these people are in the immediate family of a president. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In case my prior comment was unclear in any way: These two articles are unfair to their subjects since they contain only information about (relatively minor) legal mishaps, thus focusing a disproportionate amount of attention on what is in all likelihood a fairly minor aspect of their lives, since their legal problems are really the only parts of their lives that are documented in reliable sources (because both are non-notable). If we had an article here for every American who liked to get high once in a while... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, keep in mind that this isn't really the Gore article's seventh AFD nomination. Two of the prior noms listed above were speedy procedural closes because some guy didn't understand AFD and kept re-nominating it right after the last nom had closed, and several of the others were no-consensus closes, which don't indicate much one way or the other in the way of opinion. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 05:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure from where you got that Al Gore III "contain[s] only information about (relatively minor) legal mishaps", since only a minority of the Gore article is devoted to his legal mishaps; the largest part discusses his (widely publicized) car accident. --Delirium 08:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing that's three sentences in length is "large". The section about the car accident has almost as many sentences about his father (two) as it does about him. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Al Gore and Jeb Bush respectively. Neither Al III nor Noelle has done anything to bring themselves to public attention other than violating driving and/or drug laws, which risks having Wikipedia place undue weight on the subjects' involvement with lawbreaking. Noelle is 30 years old and the article doesn't even say what her occupation, if any, is; Al III works for a magazine so obscure it doesn't even have an article in Wikipedia. And being the victim of a car accident which one's father mentions in various books is not in itself a claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 08:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. On the contrary, being a victim of a widely publicized car accident is itself a claim to notability. --Delirium 08:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case shouldn't the article be about the accident?Steve Dufour 09:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No. The only reason the car accident was widely publicised was because he was Al Gore's son. Hence the information fits perfectly at Al Gore, which it already does. Anyone searching for "Al Gore III" will get our article on Al Gore, and can read there the moment the effect that this part of the life of Al Gore III had on his father and mother (though the effect on his mother may be at his mother's article). The rest of the life of Al Gore III is either unknown, or tabloid fluff. Hence no separate article. Possibly leave a redirect to discourage recreation, but even that is not really needed. Carcharoth 09:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge both per WP:BLP and the proposed WP:PSEUDO. These are, indeed, pseudo-biographies - both exist principally to detail individual events in their subjects' lives, and their relationship to their more notable relatives. As a side point, I invite everyone commenting on this AfD to leave their comments at WT:HARM, as the discussion there is directly pertinent to this. WaltonOne 11:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:HARM is a somewhat controversial proposed policy, and really shouldn't be cited in deletion discussions right now Lurker (talk · contribs) 16:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It should not be seen as an argument with the strength of a guideline. But it can serve as explanation/examples for the related WP:BLP issues, and certainly as an illustration of why an editor believes the articles need to be redirected/merged/deleted. Avb 23:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to closing admin There has been a canvassing for sympathetic opinion on the talk page of the proposed policy under WT:HARM#A_Relevant_Debate. VanTucky (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment No canvassing; WP:HARM is being discussed as a possible guideline and has been advertized as such, attracting both proponents and opponents. FWIW, the AfD is also mentioned at WP:BLPN. In fact, this AfD was catalyzed by a BLP dispute, a BLPN report and an RfC regarding Al Gore III. Avb 23:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Both are coatracks of minorly notable people, who are notable for being children of politicians who drink and drive. Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff they should be deleted and any real content directed to the notable politicians. --Rocksanddirt 15:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, excuse me., but when did ArbCom rulings on single issues suddenly trump WP:Notability? These individuals both meet the notability requirement in spades, and their bios certainly are not just collections of tabloid material. VanTucky (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:NOTE: "Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events7. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability.". In addition, you say that their bios are not just collections of tabloid material. Well, let's have a look, shall we?
    • Al Gore III: the sources are all newspapers or news websites. They are not all tabloid, but the events covered are all the "human interest" stories that don't make any lasting impact. A lacrosse injury. A marijuana arrest and conviction. A scrap of information about the work he does. A comment he made about his father's political plans. And finally a traffic offence. None of these would have been reported if he hadn't been Al Gore's son. This is most definitely a collection of human interest stories, of the sort that help newspapers when they are having a "slow news day". The only thing of lasting interest that might conceivably appear in (say) a history book is the car crash that nearly killed him when he was a kid. And that would appear in the entry about his father, which we already do. Apart from that, Gore III should be allowed to remain a private individual.
    • Noelle Bush: again, the sources are all newspapers or newspaper websites. The event covered is the sort of "human interest" story that doesn't make a lasting impact. A prescription drug offence. There are a couple of quotes and that's it. We learn nothing about who she is, and that is quite correct as she should be allowed to remain a private individual.
    In other words, if these people pass the notability requirements, don't think "oh, that's OK then", but stop and think "is this really the sort of material that Wikipedia is proud to be producing". Of course not. As I said before, delete both. Carcharoth 19:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When the latest Al Gore III arrest news story broke, I thought to myself, "That isn't the first time he's been busted for drug possession after a traffic violation, is it?" I went to Wikipedia and confirmed my memory: there's a real arrest pattern here, one apparently notable enough for major news outlets to cover. To the extent that Wikipedia is a resource that one can go to for collected, concise information, and to the extent that it serves this purpose well, Wikipedia should be proud of well-referenced articles like these, yes--it is precisely the whitewashing of the encyclopedia under the pretense of BLP and HARM that it shouldn't be proud of. I don't recall anywhere in the notability guidelines there being anything about history-making articles being notable while human-interest stories not be. Robert K S 21:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if this trait is a natural consequence of or an overblown reaction to the "do no harm" policy, but either way, adherents of a delete per BLP policy seem to conflate any media attention to negative events as an evil violation of our admonishment to not print tabloid material. Events in the lives of notable people, which the subjects of these bios patently are, that happen to reflect negatively upon them (at least in the light of boring, bourgeois morality. seems to me most people couldn't give a shit if some politician's kid is busted for drug violations) are not sensationalistic gossip. They are verifiable events that deserve balanced encyclopedic attention. It also seems as if a double standard is being applied here. If this material was part of a much more important individual's bio (Al Gore for instance) it would not only be included, it would be adamantly defended as part of preserving NPOV. VanTucky (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "under the pretense of BLP and HARM" -- Why would anybody pretend? I mean, what underlying motivations do you suspect?
    "anywhere in the notability guidelines there being anything about history-making articles being notable while human-interest stories not be." -- most delete/redirect/merge proponents do not mention non-notability as the (main) argument. I personally feel these people are somewhat notable. But the WP:N guideline can never trump WP:BLP, probably our strongest policy, or any other policy for that matter.
    "It also seems as if a double standard is being applied here." The argument is that we have insufficiently diverse material to write a real bio instead of a WP:BLP1E type incident or series of similar incidents. The same argument implies that "more important" people can be recognized by the fact that reliable sources will provide sufficiently diverse info for us to write a true biography. Avb 23:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to VanTucky, you seem adament that these people are notable and that the articles are biographies about these people. In fact, if these events had not happened, there would be almost nothing to say about them. The reason? They are private individuals, they are non-notable, and we have little information about them outside of these incidents. Hence these articles are not balanced biographies, and never can be. If something else had happened that day, the news would have been pushed off the main pages, and got buried. And the NPOV argument doesn't work either. If this was an incident in Al Gore's life, the incident might get a very, very brief mention, but probably not even that - this is what due weight means. NPOV doesn't mean "mention everything" - it means give everything its due weight. Now in the case of Al Gore III, the events publicised in the newspapers are similarly only a small part of his life, but as that is nearly all we know about him, it comes to dominate the article. Which violates NPOV. This leaves only two options: (1) Find out more about him (violates 'original research' and his privacy); (2) Realise that we can't write a biography and delete the article. Carcharoth 00:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    These are not, even in the most generous definition of the term, "private individuals". Private individuals is you and me, people who received no public attention. These people have received such attention, and if they do anything more notable in the future they will continue to receive attention. If you or I performed these same actions, there would be zero attention in reliable sources. They were notable before these controversial acts, and they would be notable without them. They aren't Daniel Brandt for christ's sake. VanTucky (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure you understand what is meant by "private individual"? It does not mean "someone who has never received media attention". It is indeed possible for private individuals to get media attention, in this case because they are the children of high-profile politicians. You or I could equally get media attention if we were involved in an incident that received a lot of media coverage, or if we started dating a celebrity. However, we would still be entitled to a degree of privacy. It is the very essence of the biographies of living people policy that people who are thrust into the limelight due to birth, or some one-off incident, should not be over-exposed on Wikipedia because we have the manpower to record minutiae from newspapers and incorporate it into what is supposed to be an encylopedia. There does come a point when the line is crossed, and the person becomes a celebrity or famous person in their own right. Princess Diana crossed that line at some point (though she was already notable due to being a member of the British aristocracy). At what point did Kate Middleton cross that line? In these two cases, the coverage is insufficient to justify an article. Princess Diana eventually got to the point where people were writing biographies about her. Kate Middleton is probably best covered as a section at Prince William. The section exists, but she has her own article as well. The insatiable appetite people have for information can be a double-edged sword sometimes. I've just been creating a stub at central retinal vein, and frankly, that has been more interesting and worthwhile. Carcharoth 01:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the Wikipedia definition of "private individual" can be laid out and shown to be clearly different (and indeed substantially more strict) than the U.S. law definition of "private individual", then you may possibly have a point, and in which case, a great number BLPs should be examined for deletion. Robert K S 09:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to Robert K S, Wikipedia can certainly be used to get background information on notable people. But why use it to get background information on a non-notable person? If the son of Joe Bloggs down the street gets busted for drugs, the newspapers are unlikely to report it, so you can't look for an "arrest pattern" there. If there is a pattern here, then a responsible newspaper will cover that in their original story, not put out a short teaser that stirs people to go looking for the history. And no, Wikipedia should not be a resource for "collected, concise information" if in so doing it distorts readers' views of who a person is. And all this stuff about "major news outlets" is silly. If something really newsworthy happened, that item would have been dropped quickly. Just being reported in a newspaper, even a major, reputable one, is not enough. Newspapers have pages to fill, and papers to sell, and on any given day there will be serious stories and some not so serious stories. It should be obvious that stories like this are not real news about events that will have lasting impact, but just 'human interest' stories (I could use stronger words, but I won't). Carcharoth 00:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "If something really newsworthy happened, that item would have been dropped quickly."--let me just say that this is POV to the utmost. It utterly neglects the true fact that the AlGIII's arrests have been reported widely and not at all in a tabloid fashion. The statement is both neglectful of WP:V and violative of WP:CBALL. "...stories like this are not real news about events that will have lasting impact, but just 'human interest' stories...": This statement represents a huge can of worms. It throws out WP:V as the threshold criterion for Wikipedia inclusion. It says that the real threshold for Wikipedia inclusion is "impactfulness", a subjective criterion that would need to be pinned down first, if such a thing would even be possible, and requires crytal-ballish hindsight and foresight. Robert K S 09:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Widely reported? In the USA, maybe. Not this side of the pond. I'll ask you the question directly: Do you think it is OK to build incomplete (and impossible to complete) articles on a living person from scraps of factual information in various news sources, rather than to comprehensively cover the thoughtful, critical analysis of a person's life, published by independent commentators in reliable sources? Writing about a person is a complicated business. If it is left to "anyone can edit", then a bias towards the immediately available sources, such as news reports, appears. News reports are not intended to be the basis on which to write about a person's life. Any reputable biographer will never rely totally on news stories, and indeed will often avoid them and use the primary material he is being paid to find. News stories may be a starting point, but they should not be the end product. Wikipedians cannot carry out original research, but in the cases of living people, often the only available sources to expand on the bare essentials are news reports. Judging how to present all the material is a form of original research, in my view - it is extremely difficult to give things their due weight, and getting that right often needs further research, something Wikipedians often cannot do. The more considered analysis often has not been published yet, and in some cases only appears after the subject has died, or even years after the subject has died. Until that point, Wikipedia articles can only be collections of reported facts and news. When there is widespread coverage and lots of available information, the result can be OK, though even there, as in Jake Gyllenhaal (a featured biographical article), the article can feel strange in places (compare to something like Laurence Olivier, where it is possible to step back and put the life in context, something that is not possible with a living person). But when there is a lack of information, the result is often horribly imbalanced, as in these two cases. Carcharoth 11:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which side of the pond do you think I'm on? :-) I do think it is OK to build incomplete BLPs in Wikipedia. For most living persons (and dead persons) a "complete" biography (whatever that's supposed to mean) is impossible, and for dead persons, primary sources--yes, court records, news articles and other contemporary, timely sources--are considered the strongest types of sources. What you're suggesting is that everything on Wikipedia should have to be processed through the filters of some historians' analyses before it ends up here. I don't think that's either a viable or desirable standard for Wikipedia, as it is usually not possible for most persons, living or dead, and it may involve reinterpretation of the facts that lends itself more to distortion than clarity. Robert K S 12:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You could be in the middle of the pond? :-) Regarding completeness of biographies, I agree that there will be incompleteness for some people, but the crucial thing is whether this is because the sources have been lost or were never there (historical people), or because a private individual has not published the information or revealed it. For historical people, I agree, primary sources are good, and Wikipedia should use them for fact checking, along with analysis by historians. For living people, such fact-checking tends to be done through newspaper reports, as digging out primary records for living people is really not good (as you imply). I will say though that accounts of living people should be filtered through some intermediate analysis, coupled with references to specific things to fact-check the essential points. When there is no analysis, and limited available information, warning bells should ring. Where the line is drawn on all these issues is probably where we disagree. For many people, a really small stub just to give the bare essentials of who they are, with no accompanying newspaper dramas, might be acceptable, but keeping such articles in that state would be impossible. I think it may eventually be necessary to recognise that newspapers are rather unreliable sources for information on living people. They are reporting news, not writing biographies. Fact-checking, fine, but critical analysis, no. A short sentence stating what happened, yes. A paragraph giving opinions and reactions, no. Carcharoth 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The immediate family of heads of state are notable. Immense amounts are written about them--almost always for political motive one way or the other, but WP covers politics. To the extent the material is in the mainstream press, they are public figures. Almost-heads of state, I suppose it depends. If there is enough material and interest, then it goes under the general rule. Every presidential candidate is well aware of what will be involved for his family--that they will henceforth be public figures. Governors taking a major national political role and related to heads of state--again, if there is the coverage. No one at this level can really have a private life. DGG (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll paraphrase/repeat what I said above: It is indeed possible for private individuals to get media attention, in this case because they are the children of high-profile politicians. You or I could equally get media attention if we were involved in an incident that received a lot of media coverage, or if we started dating a celebrity. However, we would still be entitled to a degree of privacy. It is the very essence of the biographies of living people policy that people who are thrust into the limelight due to birth, or some one-off incident, should not be over-exposed on Wikipedia because we have the manpower to record minutiae from newspapers and incorporate it into what is supposed to be an encylopedia, not a newspaper archive. Carcharoth 01:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't get it. Is Gore III trying to avoid attention? We know he gave an interview in which he talked about his father's political plans (or lack thereof). Furthermore, doesn't a large proportion of the U.S. population already know who he is? To delete the article in the face of that seems to me like denial of reality. There are actual borderline cases, but these two are not borderline by any stretch of the imagination. Everyking 04:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • He gave an interview where he talked about his father? Now, shall we put that in the article about him, or the article about his father? I wonder... Yes, a large proportion of the US population may know who he is, but when they search for him on Wikipedia, the article that should come up is the one about his father. The son is not independently notable. If this changes, then he will warrant his own article. Until then, his article will be no more than a collection of news stories of dubious worth. Carcharoth 10:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Some contributors to this AfD have, wittily yet seriously, characterized these articles as WP:BLP1E infractions, the single incident being "an incident of birth". Many, in the spirit and almost to the letter of BLP1E, see them as marginal biographies on people with no independent notability that give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect is usually the better option. Cover the event, not the person. An overlapping argument: These articles are not proper (neutral, balanced) biographies. I don't believe this argument has been countered and would like to see someone explain why they are. Without a convincing refutation, and if the articles are kept, we may want to rename them to solve at least this problem. Examples: Al Gore III (health and law related incidents) or Noelle Bush (problems with the law). If you think that sounds silly, I think you are right; this is probably because you instinctively feel such articles are simply unencyclopedic. But it's better to name them accurately than to grace them with titles Wikipedia reserves for biographies. Or in wikispeak: it's better to present them as a POV fork than as an article on the main POV, thus giving undue weight to some facts by not placing them in the context of these people's lives. That's right: we're missing the main biographical POV: a description of the lives and doings of the people. Let's stop pretending these articles are it. To wrap it up, this argument assumes that the current articles are neutral descriptions of news items about these people (as argued in their defense by many keep !voters); it says they are mistitled as neutral biographies. Avb 07:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "If you think that sounds silly..." This doesn't sound so silly. If the problem with these articles is really that they are determined to be unbalanced BLPs of marginally notable persons, then the articles should be changed to reflect the actually notable summaries of events. The problem is that all this really effects is a policy-flaunting bypass of BLP that could be applied in far too numerous instances. Better to create balanced biographies of these people. The AlGIII article is certainly more balanced in this respect than the Noelle Bush one. Robert K S 10:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the face of it, the AlGIII article does appear more balanced, but not really. Throwing in details of his school and university doesn't really remedy the fact that we don't have much to say about him at the moment. What possible reason (other than mere curiosity) is there is say where AlGIII was educated? There was media coverage in the UK over where Tony Blair sent his children to school, but that should be mentioned briefly in a section in the Tony Blair article, and wouldn't justify writing "biographies" on all his children. At the end of the day, writing about living people takes care and sensitivity. It should not involve scraping together tidbits of information from different news stories, putting it all together, and calling the result a "biography". Ultimately, if someone doesn't get a biography written about them, then Wikipedia shouldn't have a biography about that person. And if you have an article about a living person, based entirely on news stories and where there is no true biographical coverage (by which I mean an attempt to put the events of a person's life in context, rather than just merely report the facts), then we should be honest and put a disclaimer saying "this article has been patched together from lots of news stories because no true biography has been written yet - so this article might not be a very balanced view of this person". Does this begin to get through to any of the people who think it is OK to build articles up from scraps of information in various news sources, rather than look for thoughtful, critical analysis of a person's life? Carcharoth 10:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, that disclaimer would violate NPOV. Your post suggests that you are voting for deletion because you don't like the article's tone. Perhaps you should follow Wikipedia policy and edit the article instead. Lurker (talk · contribs) 13:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That was the point I was making. The article will always violate NPOV because we can't write a balanced account of the lives of these people. If the article survives, I would edit the Al Gore III article and replace it with #REDIRECT [[Al Gore]]. Carcharoth 13:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wouldn't that be confusing inasmuch as it would give the impression that Al Gore is Al Gore III rather than Al Gore, Jr.? I'm not advocating this course of action, but at least redirect to some appropriate section of the article. Robert K S 13:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • You are right, I meant Al Gore#Family. Carcharoth 14:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If the article survives AfD, replacing it with a redirect will be showing open contempt for consensus, and your edit is unlikely to last very long. Lurker (talk · contribs) 14:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • So explain again how there is consensus here to keep the article in its current state? Failing a redirect, I would edit the article down to the following:

                      "Albert Arnold Gore III (born October 19, 1982) is the son of former United States Vice President Al Gore and Tipper Gore and the grandson of former United States Senator from Tennessee Al Gore, Sr. He is best-known for being mentioned in an emotional vice-presidential nomination acceptance speech by his father during the 1992 Democratic National Convention."

                      And rebuild from there. Incidentially, look at CNN's 1996 bios of the Gore family, and note "The Gores are very protective of their family's privacy. The following are culled from..." - CNN were forced to do what we are doing, scraping around different sources to put something together. Difference is, they did a better job of it. Problem is, those bios are 11 years out of date now. Carcharoth 14:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wikipedia is respected because of the intellectual types who volunteer here as editors. There are lots of other places on the Internet for political activism and celebrity gossip. Why not take these things elsewhere? Steve Dufour 14:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Al Gore III. His notability is clearly demonstrated by the article, he is known for more than one thing, and has had some significant political impact. Delete Noelle Bush. (I'd say smerge to Jeb Bush#Family, but that doesn't exist.)Smerge or redirect Noelle Bush to Jeb Bush#Family, now that Carcharoth has created that. The article doesn't demonstrate that anything other than her arrest is known, nor does it demonstrate any political impact. In fact, I'm tempted to speedy delete it under G10 has having no purpose other than being an attack article. GRBerry 15:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC) (Updated for Noelle since the smerge target has been created.) GRBerry 13:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia has articles on Jeb Bush's other two children, all the children of Presidents Ford, Johnson, Nixon. What makes any of those notable? Both Al Gore III and Noelle Bush should remain also. Callelinea 16:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing with presidential children isn't relevant in this case, since neither Gore nor J. Bush are presidents or ex-presidents. If you look at vice-presidents and governors, the vast majority of the children for which we have articles are notable in their own right, for things that aren't connected to their celebrity fathers. As for J. Bush's other children, we probably shouldn't have articles about them, either. Jeb Bush, Jr.'s is particularly bad; the only real facts of note are two minor scrapes with the law (being caught having sex in a car with his girlfriend in high school, and being drunk outside of a nightclub). To be blunt, there's a whole lot of crap in the "Bush family" category of articles. I mean, do we really need an article on Timothy Bush? That one doesn't even cite any reliable sources, and a big part of it is speculation about how Some Dude thinks he might have been illegitimate because his middle name was unusual for the time. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    At least Timothy Bush's article doesn't talk about his drinking habits, although as a blacksmith in the 1700s we could guess that he might have had a beer to cool off sometimes. :-) Steve Dufour 04:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may well be that other Bush family articles need to be deleted or smerged. Based on what each of the prior posters have said, they probably should consider nominating more articles in this group for deletion, or just finding someplace useful to smerge the lot, eliminating BLP problem content as they do so. Timothy at least isn't a BLP issue; it just fails WP:NOR. GRBerry 18:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and revise Al Gore III to reduce emphasis on recent arrest/drug problems. He's involved in a publishing enterprise (Good Magazine); notable even if it's just a stub for now. Redirect Noelle Bush to Jeb Bush. Alcarillo 17:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge Both to their parents' articles, while greatly condensing. Cut back to a paragraph. If their names were Al Jones III and Noelle Smith, the articles about people who had car accidents or drug issues would have been promptly deleted. They are coatracks to punish the parents for the sins of the offspring. If they seek public office, go on a joint nationwide Bonnie and Clyde crime spree, or become noted humanitarian aid workers, then the articles can be recreated. Fail WP:BLP. Edison 19:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Neither article violates wp:blp or wp:npov, but both people are simply not notable, notwithstanding their being children of notable people. Startups are not considered notable in themselves, so Gore's involvement in one is not either (yet). If either has a demonstrable impact on their parent's political careers, then add it to the father's article. Cmprince 23:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Maybe they should be deleted. But we can't tell really, because they're being treated as identical when they are not. -Amarkov moo! 04:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've prepared a new section at Jeb Bush#Family to which Noelle Bush can be redirected (following the decision here). I've already redirected Jeb Bush, Jr. there, but I've left George P. Bush (the eldest son) as a separate article, as he has been politically active (speaking at the age of 12 at the Republican National Convention, and has spoken on Hispanic issues and campaigned during two presidential elections. Carcharoth 09:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meta-Comment. This !vote has produced some very useful discussion. Some of the arguments made here deserve to be picked out and used in our ongoing discussion of BLP policies. CWC 15:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep As per Robert KS and others above. DES (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I've been aware of the Al Gore III debates for a long time, but never really convinced of any side's arguments. Until now. I have to admit Carcharoth's comments are very persuasive. But Robert K.S.'s remark is also quite valid: if we follow Carcharoth's suggestions, we will have to delete many BLPs. It's evident that much more discussion needs to take place, particularly on whether we should really be raising the bar on what BLPs to allow. --C S (Talk) 17:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would not need any raising of the bar. Just picking the existing bar up out of the dirt and putting it back where it was intended to be. Steve Dufour 17:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If part of the reason for wanting to keep these articles is that deleting them might hurt WP's traffic I'd like to add my vote to the side that says WP would be better off in the long run without that kind of traffic. Steve Dufour 02:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ??? Nobody has anywhere made a traffic argument in this thread. It's completely irrelevant one way or another, anyhow. Even if Wikipedia weren't traffic agnostic (it doesn't sell advertising so ROI/click-through isn't a motivation), these articles would constitute such an insignificant fraction of the traffic that...  ??? Robert K S 14:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even if nobody has made that argument, it's a very important one. Obviously all this arguing and edit warring creates a lot of traffic. Many IPs only show up to engage in ahem, discussions, about BLPs. If we were to not allow articles like this one, imagine the consequences!! There would be a lot of bored Wikipedia editors, I'll tell you that. --C S (Talk) 16:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Or we might find time to work on more worthwhile articles. :-) Steve Dufour 17:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have argued in favor of WP's extensive Pokemon coverage in the grounds that kids who come here to talk about their favorite Pokemon characters might learn something about something else in the process or they might even get involved in more "intellectual" topics as they mature. I don't hold out the same hope for people who come here to talk about, for instance, "Is Hillary a lesbian?", most of them anyway. Steve Dufour 21:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect both Neither are very notable and neither even warrant mention in the articles they are being attempted to be redirected to. Maybe a sentence or two at most, in which case a redirect might make sense. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, perfectly notable in his own right. If the content itself is an issue then it can be cleaned up, not deleted outright. —Xezbeth 08:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Al Gore III, where notability is clearly established and BLP and NPOV are satisfied by the presence of coverage for multiple parts/events of his life, but redirect Noelle Bush to Jeb Bush#Family (without merging). I think nominating the clearly better article for Al Gore III with the more questionable one for Noelle Bush was not appropriate as the former does not have NPOV and BLP problems, whereas the latter does. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete all - not notable. Also, WP:Coatrack. Many people lose parts of their spleen or go to drug rehab, and do not merit articles on Wikipedia. The fact that these people received press coverage (which would be used to assert the notability of a normal joe) is because they are related to famous people, and it could be asserted that the amount of coverage received would itself be driven by a WP:Coatrack phenomenon in the press. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete All -Are you kidding??? Of what significance are these people? What significant accomplishments have they made? Really, would they have articles in the Encylopedia Britannica? As of yet, these individuals have just committed minor, youthful indiscretions. If they had been children of schoolteachers they would not have received the media attention or the wikipedia biographies that they have received. Perhaps they are like many young children of the famous and successful that cannot handle the stress of following in the foot-steps of their successful parents. If we allow them to have articles, we are little different from the gossip-mongering tabloids or Murdoch. Dogru144 01:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did anyone notice: no reference for the crack cocaine allegation about Noelle Bush? This is a clear violation of wikipedia policy. Dogru144 01:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We are not Encyclopdia Britannica. If we start using them as an inclusion/exclusion criterion, we will become completely redundant to them. As for your other point: "if they had been children of schoolteachers" ... well, they're not. Let's not speculate on what could have, might have happened had certain things been different. I agree with you on the Noelle Bush article (well, actually, we still need a redirect) because a "youthful indiscretion" is all that it covers; however, the Al Gore III article provides more general biographical information. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Well, let's skip the analogy to Encyclopedia Britannica. Tell me what is significant about the doings of AG III's life that warrants an article. So he's an associate publisher of some so-far obscure start up magazine. Does every publisher or associate publisher have (or warrant) an article? Hardly not. Dogru144 01:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. Every publisher does not warrant an article. In fact, the absolute majority don't. Why? Because they have not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. That is the standard (the standard of the notability guidelines) I use to judge the inclusion-worthiness of a subject. I could try to judge on the basis of the subject's accomplishments, but that would be a completely subjective judgment as different people rate accomplishments differently. I also consider the more subjective criterion of: is the article solely about a single incident in the individual's life that's not likely to have relevance to their life as a whole? That criterion requires a degree of subjectivity, but nowhere near as much as judging the worthiness of accomplishments. The Noelle Bush article fails this second criterion (and maybe even the first), but the AG III article does not as it covers more than just a single incident/accident of little relevance. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You say significant coverage. I say tabloid. He only gains coverage from his father. If you want to mention the incident, it only belongs on a page about his father. Being an arrested person whose dad is important is not notable. NobutoraTakeda 03:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Notable individuals. Badagnani 02:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to User:Black Falcon. I am baffled. I appreciate and completely concur with your above statement. Now, as this applies to the subjects, they have not done anything of significance, have they, that warrants an encylopedia entry. I would think that we have no dispute here. If controversy arises, such as silence by parents, or lenient punishments, these are matters that warrant notes in the articles re the placating or string-pulling parents. Again, there is no agency of action by these two old children. Dogru144 02:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I noted above, whether a subject has "done anything of significance" is a subjective standard which lacks grounding in policy. When it comes to notability, Wikipedia should reflect the judgments of those who publish reliable sources; we should not inject our personal views into the matter. If others consider a subject notable (i.e., if they write about them), then so should we. As editors, it is our job to reflect notability, not to give it or take it away. Our personal evaluations of the significance of accomplishments should not affect the inclusion or exclusion of articles. The organisation of content is a matter of editorial judgment, but is distinct from a decision to keep or delete an article. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete if they were important then it is sufficient to list them on their parent's page. Until they are famous for themselves and not for their DNA, they do not deserve their own page. NobutoraTakeda 18:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see Wikipedia:Notability. The concept of notability is distinct from that of "fame". Black Falcon (Talk) 23:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Its a fact that they aren't either, only their relations are. NobutoraTakeda 01:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Al Gore III has "been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" (quoted from WP:BIO). Ergo, he is notable. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You mean he was covered in a source based on his father was, which makes it more tabloid than verifiable or contributing anything of notability. DNA doesn't make you notable. When he accomplishes something that a normal person who isn't connected biologically to someone famous would be considered notable for, then you can make a page devoteed to him. NobutoraTakeda 01:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree. Those media stories were because he is Al Gore's son. Carcharoth 01:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Black Falcon has it right, Al Gore III is notable, even if it is because he's "that son of Al Gore who repeatedly makes the news getting busted for driving violations and drug possession." Wikipedia editors should have the task of evidencing (or failing to evidence) notability on the basis of the quality and verifiability of sources, not judging notability invalid based on their preferences. And that's the crux of it. Robert K S 02:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • NobutoraTakeda and Carcharoth, in what way does it matter why he was covered? The simple fact is that he (and not just his father) was. Though it might be nice if this world was more meritocratic, the fact is that DNA does matter and it does lead certain people to being notable. Genetic connection alone doesn't prove notability, but coverage in reliable sources (irrespective of the reason) does. NobutoraTakeda, "accomplishment" has no grounding in policy as a notability criterion. It is not our role as editors to judge the value of accomplishments (per NPOV and NOR), but rather merely to reflect the judgments of others. Black Falcon (Talk) 02:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • A reply to both of the two above, why they are reported does matter. It seperates Tabloid from legitimate, verifiable information. If we put this guy as notable for alleged crimes that get coverage for a day because of his father, then why don't we add criminals with a history of crimes? They did the same things so they deserve to be just as notable by your standards. Tabloid does not make it more notable. NobutoraTakeda 03:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The analogy ("they did the same things so they deserve") again draws a connection between actions and notability that I do not think exists. Notability is not deserved and it shouldn't be awarded or taken away by editors. In my view, if others consider a person worthy of note (i.e., notable) for whatever reason, that should be good enough for us. I suspect our disagreement stems from a general difference in how each of us defines "notability". Black Falcon (Talk) 04:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Notability comes only from actions or what purpose the object serves. Simply existing does not grant someone notability. His alleged notability is based on his existence as a child of a politician. You define notable as anything that people have heard of. No, thats "common". Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia of common things. It is an encyclopedia of notable things. Things should impact history, not glamour magazines, to be considered notable. NobutoraTakeda 16:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                            • "Notability comes only from actions or what purpose the object serves." Actually, notability comes from having been noted. Robert K S 16:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete, non-notable people with no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 19:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy delete an article with 8 sources? Speedy deletion is reserved for cases where "reasonable editors will agree" on the deletion. This is clearly not such a case. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:CSD says that speedy deletion applies if there are no claims of notability. There are no claims of notability about either of these people. They are not notable. QED. Corvus cornix 02:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:CSD also states that speedy deletion should be reserved for cases where "reasonable editors will agree" on the deletion. This is obviously not the case here. If one disregards "son a former vice president" as an assertion of notability, your interpretation may be conform to the letter of A7, but certainly violates its spirit. Considering that notability is proven by the presence of coverage in reliable sources, deleting an article with 8 sources for failing to "assert" notability seems more than slightly questionable. Black Falcon (Talk) 03:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Black Falcon, are you considering yourself a reasonable editor? :P NobutoraTakeda 03:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reasonable? Heavens, no! I think "omniscient" and "infallible" are much more accurate terms. ;) By the way, your question poses a dilemma: If I'm reasonable, I would recognise and be willing to admit when I'm being unreasonable. If I'm unreasonable, I would not. So, if I think I'm right about this article and am reasonable, I would maintain that I'm reasonable, in which case you would think I'm unreasonable because you think I'm wrong about the article. On the other hand, if I think I'm wrong about this article and am reasonable, I would admit that my insistence on keeping it is unreasonable, in which case you would be led to think that I am reasonable since you think I'm wrong about the article. :p And, no, I'm not related to Donald Rumselfd. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • LOL. My stance is this: Al Gore's son is mentioned in the headlines (yes for keep). That is notable (yes for keep). Why was he mentioned: scandal (hmm). Where does the scandal come from: daddy (no for keep). What were the headlines really about: daddy's son does something wrong and thus tarnishes daddy (no for keep). The items belong more on his father's page than his, because he is notable for tarnishing his dad's image (if he does). NobutoraTakeda 17:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Notable? We have a acquired a low standard of notability indeed. If they were not related to siginificant political figures these two people would not cause a ripple in very small social pond. This is nothing more than social gossip; the kind a propos for US Weekly or the Star, but not an encyclopedia. How many people have had a drug problem or problems with the law; do all of them need to be covered by Wikipedia? No, not now and not ever. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am a little confused by your comment. I largely agree with you as regards the Noelle Bush article, but you also seem to apply it to Al Gore III? You write that this is content worthy of US Weekly or the Star, but the sources for the article include USA Today, CNN, and The New York Times. Those are hardly mere gossip pages. Black Falcon (Talk) 05:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • At the end of the day, making the sources the arbitrator of content is losing editorial integrity. We have to filter some of the information out there, and the way the information is filtered is set out at WP:NOT and WP:BLP. Only after that filter is applied, do we even need to start considering notability, sources and verifiability. And the content covered by sources can vary widely. Not everything published by CNN, USA Today, and the New York Times is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. You have to look at the content itself, as well as the sources. Stepping back and looking at the overall picture, it is clear to many in this discussion that the stories on Al Gore III are part of the "this story will sell papers" type of editorial decision. Society gossip. Tabloid material. Call it what you will. But the other, even stronger argument, is that it is not possible to write a biography about someone who pops in and out of the attention of the media because he is someone's son, for the obvious reason that the coverage is not really about him, but about "Al Gore's son". It doesn't matter what his name is, or what his job is, all that matters is that he provides a story "because he is Al Gore's son". Please see WP:NOT#NEWS. Carcharoth 09:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "making the sources the arbitrator of content is losing editorial integrity"—How do you reconcile this with WP:V, which states in plain language what the Wikipedia threshold for inclusion is? This is the crux of our disagreement. As I see it, failing to make reliable sources the arbitrator of content is what enfeebles editorial integrity. Robert K S 16:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Carcharoth, I agree that we must filter out some content, but it's a good sign that something's wrong when the New York Times is equated to The National Enquirer. Did the NYT and CNN write about Al Gore III because it would help sales? Probably, though any guesses on our part are pure speculation. Then again, newspapers are businesses, so every editorial decision they make may be for the purpose of helping sales.
            • I mostly agree with Robert KS. Making ourselves the arbiter of notability undermines editorial integrity. Yes, we should have some discretion over what content to include in articles. However, I do not believe we should have the same discretion to delete articles on notable people or to keep articles on non-notable ones. We, as editors, should not dictate notability or non-notability. We should not attempt to award it to people who are not notable nor to deny it to anyone who is. We must only reflect external views and judgments as expressed in published, reliable sources. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Don't news articles and events like that belong more in Wikipedia news? Just because its in a big time paper does not make it news worthy. Big news papers can still have tabloid style reporting. Remember, their first concern is to make a profit, not tell the most important information. NobutoraTakeda 19:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, if the only thing being reported is a single incident (as with the Noelle Bush article), then quite possibly (depending on the quantity and depth of coverage). That's why I favour redirecting that article without a merge. However, the information presented in the Al Gore III article is not limited to a single news incident. He has been the subject of continuing coverage in reliable sources. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, he has not been the subject of continuing coverage. He has been the subject of sporadic and incomplete coverage in both reliable and non-reliable sources. That's why there is so little to say about him. And to reply to Robert K S, Wikipedia's verifiability policy is not saying that anything with reliable sources should be in Wikipedia. It is saying that anything in Wikipedia must have reliable sources. Do you see the difference? And our "What Wikipedia is not" policy is one of the policies that keeps unencyclopedic material out. Verifiability alone is not enough to keep unencyclopedic material out. But really, we are going round in circles here. There is a murky line somewhere when someone passes from being a private individual to being a public person. I don't think notability really gets to grip with that, as someone can receive media coverage (making then notable by the standards you are applying), but still essentially be a mostly unknown and private individual. Anyway, I think we should just stop here and leave someone to close the discussion. Carcharoth 20:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I think you have an overly demanding definition of "continuing" (which I take to mean "not one-time"), but this is probably not the best place to start a discussion about that. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 03:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Zombo.com[edit]

    Zombo.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    • KEEP IT! Because Zombo.com is Super Cool, and everyone is always welcome to zombo.com. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.182.209.61 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete based on the lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" No results found through a search of google news archives Corpx 16:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, has clearly expired its notability period + per nom. haz (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, if a reliable source has deemed it an Internet Phenomena than add it to the list, otherwise, delete. Burzmali 16:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete If I didn't know any better, I'd say it looked like a creator of a small website came on here and called his website a internet phenomenon due to his/her oversized ego. On second thought, I don't know any better because no sources whatsoever have been provided.--danielfolsom 16:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It really is/was an internet phenomenon, and not only that it's actually pretty funny too. But the sourcing is very poor --some parts are supposedly copied verbatim from emails sent by the site's founder. And the transcription constitutes a copyvio, especially since that's the entire content of the whole site. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, even though you can do anything at Zombo.com. I'm kind of sad, really, this is one of my favorite old-school internet memes. Apparently finding adequate sourcing is unattainable, even for Zombo.com :( ɑʀкʏɑɴ • (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, I never liked it much myself, but other people did. Unfortunately none of them were reporters for reliable sources. The only place I can think of possible coverage would be one of the defunct internet magazines. --Dhartung | Talk 20:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP!!! I just found the site today and had NO CLUE WHAT IT WAS! Wikipedia was my only source. PLEASE, do NOT delete it!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.183.185.133 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. A piece of Internet history. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, per The user formerly known as JackLumber and also out of the principle that it has already passed one nomination; a second one is probably not necessary. If something passes, why not just move on? By the way, I do agree with Andrew above, however, that more sources should be added. Take care! --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked and couldnt find any sources. If you can find any, I'll gladly withdraw this nomination. Corpx —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Here's what I came across thus far (of course I'm not sure how many are reliable or whatever): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, etc. Plenty more on google, but 24 is a nice number. Anyway, I am not too sure about at least half of these, but there seem to be enough references on the net to at least demonstrate notability. I hope that helps. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you should read WP:RS on what qualifies as a reliable source. Corpx 04:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not necessarily saying these are reliable by any means, but the large number of them does suggest that the Zombo deal must be fairly influential. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia guidelines are based on reliable sources, not google hits. Anyone can make a site and spam some url and chances are that google will index it. This does not prove notability Corpx 04:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but some of those links are more descriptive and I only covered the first two pages of Google results as it seemed there were even more beyond that. Take care! --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been going through each of those links and not a single one of them is from a source that is reliable by Wikipedia standards, even though I do like the blog with the guy wearing the luchador mask. If they feature it on Good Morning America tommorow, we'll talk. otherwide.... see below. Trusilver 06:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Misty watercoloured memories I actually voted to keep this last time. But that was January 2005, a whole two and a half years ago, before many of our current policies and guidelines even existed, particularly those involving reliable sources for articles. Consensus can sure as heck change in 31 months. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment  :*( But I like it... ~ Infrangible 03:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. I like it too, but that doesn't make it notable. Resolute 04:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No assertation of notability. No objective and reliable references. Trusilver 06:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Article's a mess in its current state, giving undue weight to the lyrics or whatever they are. No assertion of notability & zero reliable references. Doesn't look like there's much to be found, either - I'm active on two of the sites linked by the Great King above, but none of them fall under WP:RELY. Article probably unsalvageable if that's the best we can find. MrZaiustalk 13:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I guess you can do anything at zombo.com, but you can't do anything at wikipedia.org. SlapAyoda (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I suppose it's useless to point out the absurdity of keeping the deletion discussion about this entry rather than just letting it stay on the Wiki? Anonymous (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.163.0 (talk) [reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Anas talk? 12:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BAPTiZED BY FiRE[edit]

    BAPTiZED BY FiRE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Notability questioned. Per WP:MUSIC, does not meet notability guidelines. None of the members of the band have been in any other band that is notable. Lead singer is son of Dee Snider, however notability is not inherited. Band does not have album, has not been in rotation sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit - They do not have an album that has been released, except for a 7 song EP, no info on it. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've spent some time trying to research this band as exhaustively as possible, and I've had no luck finding multiple non-trivial sources. In fact, everything I've found comes from less than reputable sources and they all seem to center around the lead singer being Dee Snyder's son. Trusilver 21:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wynn Wagner III[edit]

    Wynn Wagner III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This appears to be a vanity page, created by the guy himself, who is in my opinion not-notable enough to earn a page in his own right. However I would redirect this page to his software Oliver Keenan 16:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Redirect per nom. Lurker (talk · contribs) 16:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article makes a number of claims that would contribute towards notability if verifiable, including his book (it ought to be possible to find reviews of it somewhere) and his work as a singer. I recognized his name when I saw it because I was a regular user of BBS systems when they were popular. --Eastmain 20:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect. Weak Keep Wynn and his software was indeed very notable in the online community back in the late 80's and early 90's (I recognized his name as well), but Wikipedia:Notability is about lasting notability, which does not seem to be the case here. If you (Eastmain) feel differently, perhaps you could improve the article to the point that it could be kept?
    • The discussion has convinced me that it is possible to keep if improved. Mrand T-C 11:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:N points to WP:NOT#NEWS, which states long-term historical notability of persons and events. To be completely honest, I would love to see the article kept purely from "interesting person in history" aspect, but I was under the impression that isn't what wikipedia is about. Mrand T-C 02:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I had hoped this was policy, but haven't seen anyone really asserting "long-term" as a qualification for notability. I hope the impotance of that criterion can be upped here at Wikipedia, because we are getting pretty overloaded with pop-culture trivia (e.g. Chongalicious, which survived an AfD). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep - the article is not sourced, but it does assert his notability. Tag for sources and verification seems the best idea; after all, if the guy really was a country singer, radio personality, BBS coder and Catholic bishop, that all seems to be worth a page on Wikipedia. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I've found enough pages to be convinced of the Opus and religious claims, though I did not find any evidence of the music claim. Notable enough, I think, though it's close to the line. If we keep it, note that he has authored one book and co-authored another, though a whois search reveals the publisher is probably him or a relative. Tualha (Talk) 02:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete all. --Coredesat 06:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Maguire II[edit]

    Michael Maguire II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article is part of a series created by the same author, User:Azthetik, covering several New Zealand bands, their members, their albums, and singles. Not only do they probably fail notability criteria and WP:OR, but I believe deliberately factually incorrect information was introduced, and perhaps all these articles were created for purely promotional purposes (example: The Perfect Lie is listed as being #1 on the charts in New Zealand, and a Google search for the band Jeopardy Theory + the song title returned no hits other than Wikipedia). Eliz81 15:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following interrelated pages because of their relation to the first article and having the same creator (and many already tagged for notability):

    Bands:
    Lex Pistols
    Jeopardy Theory

    Albums & singles:
    Album No. 1 (Lex Pistols)
    Don't Steal What You Can't Afford
    Visions (Jeopardy Theory album)
    If There's Only One Me...Then Who Are You?
    The Perfect Lie
    My Demon

    Band members:
    Michael Maguire III
    Dillon Ackroyd
    Tyler Richardson
    Jeffrey Jaxson

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    London Mail Processing Plant[edit]

    London Mail Processing Plant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This place is extremely non-notable. I really doubt someone from Australia, for example, would want info on this plant. Delete GreenJoe 15:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Forget Australia, I doubt anyone from Canada needs info on this plant. Resolute 16:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No inherent notability for post offices! Corpx 16:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It's a mail processing plant, like the other 20 or so in Canada. Existing in southern Ontario does not make it more notable. --Charlene 16:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Being a mail processing plant in southern Ontario does not make anything more notable. Bart133 (t) (c) 17:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. An article about a Canada Post processing plant that doesn't link to Canada Post? Strange. It is less than 3 weeks old but was created by a London postal worker and none of the other 20 major postal stations currently have their own article. To change my vote to keep, it would have to demonstrate with sources why the public or people with passing interest in postal systems would know/care about this (heritage building, site of notable strike action, major regional employer, etc). My 'So what? Who care? Prove it" test. Canuckle 17:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Re comments above: notability is not established by something being well-known, but by it having been the subject of multiple, independent articles by reliable sources. Which incidentally this article fails... hence delete ;) EyeSereneTALK 18:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete with a userfy. Iknowyourider (t c) 19:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ==WTF== Header disabled because it messed up the formatting of the entire AFD Corpx 19:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep, you are all idiots. If there is no other Postal palnt in Canada with its own article, DUH ya think maybe a few suggestions for improving or adding material would boost the F'n ego of a paltry postal worker, and hey, it wasn't about notability as such, it was just an article that was going to be improved upon and edited as I got more information. I was in the process of gathering information on all the postal outlets to increase the knowledge of the Canada Post main article so take your finger out of your misguided holier than thou Butt and just say, "here's some more information that makes a major article complete" Why don't you go over to Commons and delete the boring Canada Post Tags galleries I am putting up while you are at it, idiots. WTF WayneRay 18:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]
      Hey, don't "go postal" on us Mandsford 02:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is nominated for deletion based on the lack of notability from independent sources. It has nothing to do with any of the things you just said. Corpx 19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does it have to be that notable, it's an explination of a Mail Plant that is one of London's larger employers, they dont work at the post office so why should they care if there is more information. How about sayiong here are some tips on improving the article instead of just dumping on it. That's all the material I could find and It is in chronological order and that's the plant, bare bones. I have been there for 15 years and it's important to us at work. Thanks for the encouragement (right) WayneRay 19:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]
    It has to be that notable because that's what Wikipedia's policy WP:NOTE says. --Charlene 21:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. One tip may be to consider changing the article's focus from a building to the history of the service in the area, with sources. Another is to keep a civil tone when requesting collaboration and comment. Canuckle 21:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, Wikipedia is not an employee-of-the-month award and there isn't any notability here no matter how dedicated the staff may be. If there is a desire for an ego-boost there are many other free webhosts that are not encyclopedias. --Dhartung | Talk 20:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. —Canuckle 23:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Non notable plant.--JForget 23:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Weak keep I've considered the author's comments, and I conclude that this is intended as more than just an article about a local post office, perhaps with a description of policy and operations. Part of the reaction by the people posting is that the article is titled about one location, and the postmasters are listed. I stand by the statement that we can't open the door for articles about every post office, nor every traffic accident (reference to 2007 French Alps coach crash). Perhaps this one can be moved to the author's User Page and retooled. In addition, I say forgive the outburst... if you're new to AfD, it can be a rude surprise. If you've been in AfD awhile, you recognize that tensions can run high. Mandsford 23:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete; mail sorting plants are not notable. Bearcat 07:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentUser WayneRay, please see WP:N for a clarification on the policy regarding notaility.Tomj 23:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Battlefield 1942 mods (5th nomination)[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    List of Battlefield 1942 mods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    When this page was nominated about 4 times before, there were always people saying "keep" without looking at the facts. First of all, only a few mods actually are notable enough to have their own wiki pages, and most if not all of them have nobody playing them anymore. Mods tend to be much less popular than games themselves, and usually die out much faster if there are no updates. Secondly, besides this page being a collection of external links and/or references, it hasn't been cleaned up at all (even though previous "no consensus" and "keep" votes made an agreement to), and nobody is willing to. I'm sure that this could be solved by a short explanation of the mods, a few external links and "see also"'s on the Battlefield 1942 page itself, and doesn't need its own list article. As for the list of BF2 mods, it's basically a stub with all broken links and no encyclopedia value.-- Zxcvbnm 15:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also nominating: List of Battlefield 2 mods

    • Keep if it has survived FOUR nominations before, I don't see how things could change now...keep on principle. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even read what I wrote? The principle is completely invalid. It doesn't matter if it was nominated 4 times because it still violates Wikipedia rules. This could easily be replaced by Category:Battlefield_1942_mods. People like you, who don't give a reason to vote Keep, are the ones who let this article pass through before. Part of the reason it stayed up is because the mod creators registered on Wikipedia and Keep-voted to keep their (non-notable) mods in the list.--Zxcvbnm 17:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, you are bordering on a personal attack, so please keep it civil. Secondly, I welcome you to view any other AfD that I have commented on (it's not a !vote, but rather a discussion), I have NEVER ever responded "keep" just because. Don't you ever say people like you because you are assuming something that is completely false. Now, back to the topic on hand. When I compare the category to the list, the list is put together well, it looks like an article. It's just not a line by line of mods. It actually has substance whereas a category just has a few mods listed alphabetically. The overall setup of the list is very well put together, and that is why it probably is still around. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 18:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Update. I went and looked through the old AfD's for this article (yes...all 4). The article has been improved dramatically since it's first AfD. Originally, the AfD's were getting a "no consensus" outcome, but now, the most recent one was a "keep". In addition, there are a TON of reliable sources that establish notability for these mods. They are an almost constant topic in PC Gaming magizines. Half Life and Half Life 2 each have a "list of mods" article, and they have both gone through AfD before (Half Life 2 went through twice), and they all came out with "keep" outcomes. This is where you cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS right? Well I'm not trying to compare them per se, but rather show you that this type of article is worthy of being in wikipedia, as it follows policy, and they are notable. This article has been going through AfD's for over a year now, I think enough is enough. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 19:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? Personal attack? Since when did I insult you? Just because these mods are notable, doesn't mean that this list should exist. I'm not saying that the mods are bad or that they're not notable, but this is about an unimportant list article that just won't die. If you're going to vote "keep," at least try to get it up to your standards after you're done.
    WP:NPA states to comment on the content, not the editor. You stating "did you even read what I said" is your assumption of me not reading something before commenting on something. Also, the "people like you" comment is a blatant personal attack, so please watch your comments in the future --sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondly, the "substance" you refer to is merely a summary, which can be moved to the main Battlefield 1942 article. Your point is moot simply because, though the mods are notable, the article is not merited.--Zxcvbnm 02:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Category:Battlefield_1942_mods serves this purpose. If the mods are notable, they have their own article and a category should do the job. Maybe add a section about mods at Battlefield 1942 Corpx 16:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The existence of a category does not automaticly mean an article has to be deleted. Mathmo Talk 07:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete What Corpx said. Spellcast 17:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep it has survived four nominations the most recent one even with a "keep" vote rather than a "no consensus." Many reliable sources.Frank Anchor 21:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that some of these mods are notable and I've played several of them, but a list of them which adds no other info not found in those articles is not needed here Corpx 01:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per User_talk:sumnjim CraigMonroe 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per sumnjim and Frank Anchor. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A re-nomination after keep is in my opinion an abuse of process unless there is new information. I see it as exactly parallel to a reinsertion of unchanged material after a delete decision. I know this is not the policy yet, but it should be. what argument is there against it? If it is asserted that consensus can change, OK, perhaps renominate after a year, but then the burden is on the nom. to show that consensus has changed. An error was made? there should be an equivalent of Deletion Review for that--it should first be necessary to show there was a clear error. There can be no other rational base for a renomination except the hope to get a different result by chance of who is here. Let me ask the nom, did you notify every one who comment in all of the previous discussions? It is reasonable to suppose many of them would still be interested. It is the intention, isn't it, to see the people here represent all of those interested? The previous Afds aren't even listed here. DGG (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a renomination is fine if the nominator believes that consensus has changed. Corpx 16:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Out of the 5 nominations this article has gone through (this one included), the nominator has been the nominator for 3 of them. The burden of proof is on him to show that concensus has changed. He is re-hashing out the same stuff that has been mentioned on every previous nomination. Nominator has presented no new information. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 17:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, basically, I was the nominator for the first 3, when it was a giant list full of broken links. I came back and saw that once all the broken links were removed, it was a pretty mediocre list anyway. But I digress, I swear I'll never, ever nominate this again if it gets a keep vote (which it probably will). I'll try to fix it.--Zxcvbnm 21:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I agree that the category satisfies this article's purposeGomedog 03:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment Gomedog your first edit was after the 5th AFD was posted- this can be a problem for some AFD guidelines, either way cat. and articles are not mutually exclusive. Bfelite 23:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Nothing has changed from the last time. Give it a rest. Come back in a year. Macktheknifeau 15:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To make the previous AfD's more readibly accessible, I redid the page to include the previous nominations --sumnjim talk with me·changes 18:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify, sumnjim included links to the previous nominations in this nomination; sumnjim did not include the votes from the previous nominations in this nomination. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Categories and lists can co-exist, this one provides way more information than a category. —Xezbeth 08:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep, per DGG, with prejudice, assertively. Multiple re-AfDs are an abuse of process. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep, meets wp notability and quality guidelines for inclusion. Bfelite 22:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I've read the article and this AfD. I haven't read the previous AfD's. The article looks fine to me. The only option to keep would be merging it to a main article. But it would be a big section. Reducing the article to a category would remove information that would need to be in a main article. But with the information and the list it seems to stand alone as a article. I will agree it can use some more word smithing. Mark @ DailyNetworks talk 02:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Is this some kind of war of attrition? Does anyone expect to win this debate after, say, 60 consecutive nominations in a row? //Halibutt 02:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep nom has not provided a decent reason for deletion other than "i don't like it" and "it's not popular" ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 04:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And you have not commented on the article, you've commented on the nominator. How is the lack of reasoning provided by the nominator reason to keep an article? David Fuchs 23:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, as the above editor states the nominator fails to impress me with valid reasons for deletion (not to mention the possibility of significant personal bias based on the frequency of times the nominator has nominated the same article again and again for deletion). This article has been found worthy to be kept, and it is a totally different article from the article in the first AfD. If anything, it is only far more clear cut that this article should be kept. Mathmo Talk 07:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MarašmusïneTalk 09:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as long as someone keeps on top of those references. Battlefield 40k for example needs to be removed - being put on a coverdisk is not a claim to notability. MarašmusïneTalk 09:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A cover disk could be one of a mod's reasons for notability, if it has been put on the cover disk you can be sure it will have also been covered to an extent inside the magazine as well. (besides, isn't the cover disk media coverage anyway? just on another format from most) Mathmo Talk 04:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional keep The article is in horrible shape, and is a fansite linkfarm at the moment. If this does not change, it should be deleted as spam. External link #19 (the study by Utrecht University), the CNN article and the Washington Post article make this a notable subject. Other mods were professionally reviewed. Note that the not every individual mod on the list has to be notable: maybe five are, and the others may be listed because the subject (Mods of BF 1942) is notable. --User:Krator (t c) 10:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep Like most articles on Wikipedia this one needs some work, but it follows our policies by citing reliable sources in order to establish notability and verifiability. It has survived four AFDs and continues to be maintained. 16:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Strong Delete This information is better suited to someone's homepage than an encyclopedia. It has no real credible third person information possible. If the mods needed mention, then they could be mentioned on the Battlefield 1942 page. NobutoraTakeda 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [15][reply]
      • comment NobutoraTakeda your first edit was a few days after the this AFD was posted- this can be a problem for some AFD guidelines. Also, valid third-party references for mods do exist. Bfelite 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • NobutoraTakeda is not an WP:SPA if that's what you are inferring Corpx 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Valid third party? Such as? I see only foreign language sources and nothing that makes them seem notable. A mere mention is not notability. NobutoraTakeda 19:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, per DGG. If it looks and quacks like relisting until the 'proper' outcome is achived, then maybe that's what it is. --Falcorian (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete - the votestacking and canvassing going on by some people here is saddening. Look at some of the mods in the list - one was noted as being "original" by one publication. Whoop de doo, that's hardly notable. This will never get deleted, but the reason for that is ignorance and obstruction rather than hard facts. David Fuchs 23:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you recently (yesterday) accused me on my talk page of "vote stacking" and "canvassing" for votes, I can only assume you are referring to me. To tell you the truth, I forgot about this AfD until about 5 minutes ago. Can you provide proof where I am vote stacking or canvassing on this particular AfD? I think a false accusation is grounds for some type of warning in my opinion. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 15:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you think the votestacking here is bad, check out the AFD's on the individual mod articles. Basically, the entire community of that mod made Wikipedia accounts and made "Keep" votes.--Zxcvbnm 03:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is mere guess work on your part to make a claim such as "the entire community of that mod made Wikipedia accounts and made "Keep" votes". I voted keep, yet I've never been part of the modding community. (battlefield1942 related or not) Mathmo Talk 04:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. POV (who decides what mods should be included?), nn, etc. Fin©™ 10:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment surely this should work just like all the other 'list of' video game pages (such as List of free MMOGs); we list all mods that currently have a Wikipedia article. Claims for notability and verification are made on the individual articles. Any list entries without an article are removed. MarašmusïneTalk 10:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The claims for notability are based on the WP guidelines and third-party references such as reviews in magazines and awards. All but a few of the mods were already either deleted or merged in previous AFD, with the claims for notability and verification done here. Bfelite 12:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - The list is really shaping up - well referenced and added prose. As for the AfD nomination, sufficient passage of time by itself is enough to re-nominate after an AfD keep. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Daniel 03:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Plot of Fairy Tail[edit]

    Plot of Fairy Tail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article is a simple plot summary, of which a simple synopsis exists at the base article, Fairy Tail, and should likely be nipped in the bud before it grows too large, per WP:NOT#PLOT and recent AfD decisions. —TangentCube, Dialogues 15:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Merge and redirect to Negativland. Non admin closure. --Jorvik 18:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Hosler[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Mark Hosler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Unreferenced bio of a living person, no claim of notability (band member cruft). Loooking at Category:Negativland, same applies to Tim Maloney, David Wills and Don Joyce, and possibly other articles (not-notable songes, etc.).  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into Negativland - not enough content to be worth an article. Also fails WP:ATT and WP:BIO. EyeSereneTALK 18:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect to Negativland. The band is notable, but its members really aren't individually. --Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • merge and redirect, unless someone can explain how a member of Negativland is notable outside of Negativland and Negativland-related projects. I'm all in favour of subsections on band members within band articles, though. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas talk? 21:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Alarm magazine[edit]

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

    No claim of notability, no references. Is every minor magazine notable?  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Not every magazine is notable (?), but this one certainly seems to be. —Xezbeth 08:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Merge and redirect, Gnangarra 15:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Phillip Winn[edit]

    Clearly non-notable editor for barely notable blog... there is nothing else to make this article noteworthy. -- FamedDeletionist 21:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ooops...redirect :)Corpx 01:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect, founder of a website of deserved but modest notability isn't enough for a bio. --Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as there are zero references of the nontrivial, neutral sort. He runs 3 of the external links, and was a guest on the 4th. He's a hole in the ground. Bearian 21:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I remember running across his "A Basic Citizen's Definitive Electronic Freedom Guide" back when the Web was going mainstream, his W6 site was a bigger deal in those days. The Web is a much bigger place these days, and his original site has sort of been lost in the crowd, but his status as a blogging pioneer and co-owner of Blogcritics is enough for me. --Groggy Dice T | C 07:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 19:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Patient (My Chemical Romance)[edit]

    The Patient (My Chemical Romance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    No assertion of notability made for this fictional character. Unsourced article is a mess. Gilliam 20:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Appears to be original research, non-notable either way. GassyGuy 22:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Merge to either MCR or the appropriate album.--JForget 22:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    South Street Burger Co[edit]

    South Street Burger Co (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Fast food chain with only 11 locations. Gilliam 19:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Their website is so slow and so incredibly difficult and intensely frustrating to navigate that it's impossible to even confirm that basic fact with the company, let alone with reliable sources, which are lacking. Only three are mentioned on the website - well, maybe the other eight are, but waiting for wobbling postmark images to load and having no idea where to find a site map, I'm not going to spend an hour trying to navigate it. --Charlene 04:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per lack of significant coverage by independent sources. I dont think early McDonalds would've qualified for an article here either. Corpx 16:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral I do think the page is week, and its notability being called into question is correct. Deleting it because the corporate website is slow, is however, absurd. (Larek 19:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Delete as Corpx says, first you've got to get famous--or at least well-known. we are not an advertising medium for developing a business (or a career).DGG (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, an April 2007 press release touts the opening of their third location. They may have franchise contracts in place for locations 4 thru 11, or they may not. A topic relying on future notability is not yet notable. --Dhartung | Talk 20:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Dhartung. Note that all three of their restaurants are in the Greater Toronto Area; the subject is not a national chain yet. --Metropolitan90 08:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki 15:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mettle[edit]

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

    Notability issues, seemingly a band with very little success, playing locations don't imply notability. Neither does "one cassette" released. Google search turns up zip (including searches which include location, names of the members or years of creation/splitting up) the one source quotes seems a generic rock site with no obvious mention of the subject that I can find, which contributes therefore to lack of verification regarding success/notability. SGGH speak! 18:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    7-on-7 Shootout of the South[edit]

    7-on-7 Shootout of the South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Prod on July 2nd with this comment: "This spammy page lacks any assertion of WP:ORG notability." Google hit [17] shows a range of mentions which suggests a wider deletion debate may be appropriate. My listing is neutral. SilkTork 18:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There are articles on 6-man, 8-man and 9-man football, usually played between small schools that can't field an 11-man team. I would vote to merge this one into an article about 7-man football, but there isn't one.. however, there's apparently a Texas 7-on-7 championship and this is more of the same. Author should research 7-man and then add this promo article into that. Mandsford 23:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I initially speedied this article under CSD A7/G11, but restored it when the author requested a second chance. The prod was a basic formality. I've since removed the prod since the subject may be better served by this AfD. — Scientizzle 00:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "7-on-7 Shootout of the South" gets decent Ghits, including 4 Google News hits[18]. The subject may indeed merit an article. — Scientizzle 00:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete non notable event Giggy UCP 04:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, non-notable event that make no claim to notability. Burzmali 15:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Minor sporting event Lurker (talk · contribs) 16:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Notability has not been established despite three years since last attempt to delete, and does not appear likely to be. Daniel Case 17:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Daria Klotz[edit]

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

    Non-notable musician, no verifiable sources (no sources at all) fails WP:BAND - Bigdaddy1981 18:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - as she passes the Google test: [19]. I searched her sans soccer, but she may be the same woman who was a big college soccer player. Either way, she's notable. The article, on the other hand, is a huge mess and needs lotsa work. Bearian 22:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off, there is no google test (see WP:GHITS). Second off, she miserably fails it: 525 is a very small number. The Evil Spartan 14:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral - mentions in NY Times and NPR, but they're fairly trivial, IMHO. The Evil Spartan 14:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: see Talk:Bliss Blood/delete for an old deletion discussion that includes this article. (I have to wonder what it means to be "one of the most important ukelele players" in NYC - how many can there be altogether?) Tualha (Talk) 02:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete, simply because the article is three years old and still has no meat on its bones. If she's so notable, why can we say so little about her? Tualha (Talk) 02:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - After a detailed search, I could only a few WP:RS's with material such as up coming appearance. Her photo appeared on page B1 of the April 10, 2000 New York Times, she sang a sentence on the April 30, 2000 National Public Radio show ((Singing - "How can you face me after what I've gone through all on the count of you tearing my heart in two. Have you no conscience; how could you be so bold? Why have you grown so cold after the lies you've told."), and played the Uke at the July 5, 2002 Joe's Pub presents the Second Annual New Uke, New York Ukulele Festival at 425 Lafayette Street, East Village, New York. That is not enough material from which to write a Wikipedia article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I believe this article highlights a bigger issues concerning inclusion policy that we do not have a set answer to yet. That is, is notability for the English Wikipedia limited to English language sources? I personally find the delete arguments slightly more persuasive. Just because something is on a Wikipedia does not make it notable (or else we wouldn't have a deletion process now would we?) And Hoary's comparative statistics on Japanese hits is a good argument as well. And I can't help but feel the websources sited do not meet WP:RS, but I cannot tell for sure because I only have a rudimentary grasp of Japanese. I'd suggest those interested in keeping the article should work to find better, reliable sources that clearly establish notability (expanding the article wouldn’t hurt either). I'm not sure if this article could survive another AfD if the article isn’t improved. That said, I cannot ignore the significant majority "keep" supporters, even if I ignore the anon. I am not going to try and change policy here if we have a significant number of users that feel foreign language sources and interwiki notability are enough for inclusion here.Andrew c [talk] 01:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Azusa Hibino[edit]

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

    Minor model, not many google hits, non of them being Reliable, fails WP:BIO, prod removed for no reason, Delete Jaranda wat's sup 18:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Naturally, citing this essay just by one of its many acronyms (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill advised"MightyAtom 01:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - 116,000 google hits for her name in Japanese. Articles on ja and zh wikipedias as well. Neier 11:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Naturally, citing this essay just by one of its many acronyms (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill advised"MightyAtom 01:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it seems to be the norm for AFD nominators to write "not many google hits" when in fact what is meant is "not many google hits for the romanized version of ... in English pages", I prefer to add the relevant comparison information when necessary. Neier 23:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's possible that the gallery is making this look worse than it is. The photos are marked as DVD covers with a fair use rationale of "identification of the subject matter accompanied by critical commentary", but that's not what's happening here. They really should be pulled. I don't have a strong opinion on the article itself. Dekimasuよ! 12:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the fair use gallery of the article. Jaranda wat's sup 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:JNN (reversed). The Evil Spartan 15:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Naturally, citing this essay just by one of its many acronyms (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill advised"MightyAtom 01:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per lack of "significant coverage from independent media" Corpx 16:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, plenty of information in Japanese, though a decent translation to of her credits to English wouldn't hurt. Burzmali 16:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, per Burzmali.Callelinea 18:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • She's photographed in bikinis, etc., and her photos appear in Japanese mags; likewise for squillions of other girls. NN, delete. -- Hoary 14:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment she has an entry in the Japanese Wikipedia that is pretty well written, and not up for deletion. Shouldn't each Wikipedia have articles on subjects that the other languages have? 132.205.44.5 23:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep She is a major star and model in Japan, that warrents an article. Meateater 08:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. International encyclopedia etc. —Xezbeth 08:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. While she might be notable enough in Japan to merit an article in the Japanese Wikipedia, I doubt many people outside Japan have ever heard of her. By the way, Jaranda, please create the AfD page properly - it didn't have the standard links at the top, including the one that lets you reach it easily from the daily log. Tualha (Talk) 02:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an international encyclopedia, if its notable enough for the Japanese wiki then its notable enough for here and every other language. —Xezbeth 12:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's certainly true if something is sufficiently notable to deserve an article in ja:WP it is also sufficiently notable to deserve an article in en:WP. But the mere fact that an article has an entry in ja:WP does not imply that it deserves to have one. ¶ So, putting ja:WP aside, is this teen notable? Above, it's claimed (without presentation of any evidence) that she's a "major model". I then pointed out that she gets about one fortieth of the number of ghits (in Japanese script) that the not-stunningly-notable Kadena Reon gets. Nobody has yet had anything to say about this. -- Hoary 12:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm inclined to disagree. For example: I would be very surprised if any other Wikipedia carried an article on my hometown, Caldwell, New Jersey. Some English speakers (principally those from northern NJ) are interested in Caldwell; people from other countries, even English-speaking ones, generally won't be, unless they have a relative there or something. (Actually, Caldwell might not be the best example of my point; Grover Cleveland was born there. Anyway...) Likewise, an article on a relatively obscure Japanese person, though worthwhile on the Japanese Wikipedia, is not likely to be useful on others. Does anyone know of an essay or guideline addressing this point of local notability? I couldn't find one. Tualha (Talk) 12:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to point out that inclusion criteria are significantly different among the different Wikipedias. The vast majority of stubs on en would be deleted on de.wikipedia.org.-Wafulz 16:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Minor figure with minor contributions and nothing critical performed by her or in response to her. If she needs mentioning, it can be in response to an event, magazine, corporation, or whatever she may have been associated with and not her own page. NobutoraTakeda 18:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [20][reply]
    • Delete - yes, the English Wikipedia can be read worldwide, but that does not mean that all articles in English are germane to all articles in Japanese or any other language. Certain articles will only have some significance in given countries and not all others. This individual would seem to lack the notability to maintain an article; however, should this change I would support an article. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was withdrawn. The Evil Spartan 15:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Leonor Rosser[edit]

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

    Article make significant claims of notability but fails to back up with any sources, google search provides little if anything to confirm. Notability tag has been up for 8 months Daniel J. Leivick 18:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nomination withdrawn, revised google search parameters show evidence of notability. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep, Very notable on children Spanish television. I would like references added. But the subject of the article is notable.Callelinea 18:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be the cousin of WP:JNN. If you can't prove it or say why, then it doesn't help.
    I think that is an indication she is not notable. 68 is not very many, I get 26 and can assure you that I don't come close. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - because, of course, she has 68 ghits. The Evil Spartan 14:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. If you google for leonor origami -wikipedia you get well over 15,000 hits - evidently her stuff is usually referred to as "Origami by Leonor", so searching for Rosser misses a lot of references. I don't have time to actually follow any of these hits but it looks like she's pretty well-known in the kiddie circuit. Tualha (Talk) 03:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Free Freedom[edit]

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

    Likely non notable group, notability tag has been up for 8 months no sources provided Daniel J. Leivick 17:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, well intended and got nowhere. Not notable. — Coren (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Kurt Yeager[edit]

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

    Notability not asserted or established. Tag has been up for 8 months Daniel J. Leivick 17:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment The original ed. is no longer active; I've notified the last editor who has worked on it. DGG (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm the last editor who worked on it, but all I've done is cut out blatent copyright violations from the article and a bit of copy editing. The article was created by a user who was copying and pasting information from Galvin Electricity Initiative into a few new and existing Wikipedia articles. My assumption was that the user was part of the organization (if I remember correctly, the user name matched up with someone in the organization). So far as notability goes, if you look at one of the older revisions, there is a little more about this individual's notability. However it is directly from a corporate bio, so it would certainly be better if there were more independent sources. At a quick glance at his biography on the Galvin web site, what may make him notable is this line: He has authored more than 200 technical publications on energy and environmental topics and chairs the World Energy Council Study on energy and climate change [22]. But without more research, I can't really speak to whether the publications are substantial or if the study he chairs is notable. ScottW 23:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor correction: Based on username, the user who created the article could be affiliated with a marketing group that was working with Galvin Electricity Initiative[23]. ScottW 23:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The organization might be notable but he's not. This article reads like his resume. Tualha (Talk) 03:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Frank Lohan[edit]

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

    Article created by SPA. Notability tag has been up for 8 months no improvement. Only hint of notability is through his brother. Daniel J. Leivick 17:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Can't say much more than the nom here. Delete - fails WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, no hint of notability, and claims to minor local prizes do nothing to help. — Coren (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Notability is not inherited, and there is very little here for him to stand on his own right. Resolute 04:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep Hurling has some importance in Ireland. If he indeed played for Clare, the winner of the all-Ireland championship hurling team competition in 2006, he reached the top level of competition in his sport and passes WP:BIO. --Charlene 05:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete: Lohan has very faint notablity, but that notability does exist. However, the article does not really have much quantity or quality, and I don't see the potential for it to have much more information added in the near future. 71.197.197.100 00:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral I did a simple google search, and found quite a few places that mentioned that he was indeed an all-star in hurling in varous years. Could not find anything specific that spoke about medals, but The "all-star" claim is not in question, that is easily verified. Take that info as you wish. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 16:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ☒N Strong Delete this is patent vanity article. Being the brother of a notable athlete does not entail inherited notability. VanTucky (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- Normally I'd say keep, as per Charlene, but I am distantly related to the Lohans, so don't count me. Bearian 20:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom Oliver Keenan 22:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Need more be said? ShoesssS Talk 13:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Rlevse 17:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mutt (humans)[edit]

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

    This page has no sources. As well, there are thousands of racial slurs and they don't deserve pages of their own. Suggest deletion or IF it can be backed up it can be moved to "List of ethnic slurs" page with other words of its ilk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Gallagher (talk • contribs) 2007/07/03 12:36:43

    • Delete. Non-notable racial slur. Realkyhick 16:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, possible merge with list of ethnic slurs. It's certainly a real term for someone of mixed ethnicity (I've personally been called it enough times to know) but it's also a term for someone who's acting shady (New York Irish seem to use it a lot). It's dual meaning should at least get it's wiktionary updated (I'm not active there).«»bd(talk stalk) 16:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm a Canadian who would need to be see sources to be convinced by this claim: "One notable exception is in Canada where the term generally is not considered in any way offensive but indeed is a point of pride with many given the multicultural make up of the country. It may also be used as an affectionate term." Canuckle 19:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not a very compelling slur. I mean, isn't it good to be diversified in your DNA makeup, otherwise we'd all be hemophiliacs with 11 toes. ~ Infrangible 03:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless reliable refs are presented (Forums are not reliable), if presented, consider merging per Bd.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There are such non-blog references as Fox News [24] (scroll down to "No One Has a Sense of Humor Anymore" about a black school board member starting a firestorm of criticism by using the term to describe hinself and others of mixed racial background. This case was also discussed in a college paper at[25], and in the Chicago Sun Times at [26]. The use of the term in a separate case to describe mixed race was discused at a college paper at [27]. It is also discussed at [28] . RollingStone magazine discusses it at [29] . The article now has several article from reliable publications where the use of the term is at least mentioned, and one incident of a public official using it which led to controversy with national coverage. Edison 20:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - this is an apt entry into the dictionary, but it is not an article; there is no basis for an article. It is a label nothing more. Attempting to stretch into multiracial individuals is a more significant topic that goes beyond the word. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - this is a great case of a dictionary definition not really explaining any context required by WP:WINAD. Not to mention the sources, which might be good enough for wiktionary, are not good enough for wikipedia. The Evil Spartan 15:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 19:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Thrill Is Gone (album)[edit]

    The Thrill Is Gone (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable album by non-notable artist, per WP:MUSIC. I should have piggy-backed this on the AfD for their other album (result: deleted). Closenplay 14:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. If the band is not notable, certainly the album is not notable either. Shalom Hello 16:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The fact that I am a Michigan alum with The Victors as my ringtone is very coincidental. I have never heard of this group and stumbled on this AFD. The band would likely be described as notable. The first page of the google search on the band yields non-trivial publication such as [30] and [31]. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete I see no evidence that we ever had an article on the band; there is not history of an article at that title. We ought to have an article on the band first. The band may be notable on the evidence that TonyTheTiger found above, however that evidence doesn't argue that the album is itself notable. So I'd say delete, but a solid article on the band could easily lead me to a DRV opinion to restore this article. GRBerry 17:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Were there a solid article on the band I wouldn't have put this up for AfD. But there isn't, so I did. Closenplay 01:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I am a believer that any original studio album by a notable artist to be important enough to deserve an article, but there is no notable artist to connect this too, yet. Fails on that basis. Cricket02 07:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nur für Deutsche[edit]

    Nur für Deutsche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Separate articles for every German slogan during WW2 are not needed. The bulk of this article is already in Racial segregation (which contains a specific section for the Nazi period) - any remaining content should be also placed into that article and this article deleted. 52 Pickup 12:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Redirect as per nominator. No need to duplicate stuff in various articles as it only makes updates more painful. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak keep seems to be somewhat more complicated than the nominator suggests. The slogan is at present not even mentioned in the article on racial segregation, and the article on the phrase includes information that would not fit in the general article on segregation (e.g. subversive uses of phrase by Polish partisans). --Javits2000 15:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - contains information not present (Partisan use) in proposed redirect article and which would not be appropriate in that article. The "similar signs" bit needs to be rewritten or deleted; however as it just consists of three random examples of similar racist prohibition signs. Bigdaddy1981 20:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep The article seems to contain significant information, and the phrase appears to have been a common slogan. DGG (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Redirect merge/redirect was the consensus, merge into Michael Jackson singles discography wasnt appropriate as there isnt the necessary information available, the Michael Jackson article already includes a summary of this in the section Michael Jackson#2003–2006: Trial, acquittal, and aftermath. Redirected to that section directly Gnangarra 15:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I Have This Dream[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    I Have This Dream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Just going through my watchlist, and came across this once more. The sources are fine, the article is written to an acceptable standard, but fundamentally the article is silly because the single never happened! Delete, the article can be reborn if there's further news...... Petesmiles 11:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So this is actually the third discussion - thanks all! - Petesmiles 11:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Although WP:CRYSTAL warns against this sort of thing, the Katrina association as well as ongoing attention to Jacko personally means pretty substantial news results for a single that may never be released. --Dhartung | Talk 11:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect to Michael Jackson singles discography (or failing that, Michael Jackson). Unless it's released, this is just a footnote in a Michael Jackson biography, not a notable subject on it's own. It is pointless for an unreleased single to have its own article (perhaps when release seemed imminent, but not now that release seems unlikely at best.) Closenplay 14:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC) EDIT: see below for !vote change Closenplay 11:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect per Closenplay. Add a sentence or two describing the single in Michael Jackson singles discography, and recreate this article if the single is ever released or canceled. Burzmali 15:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote changed to merge and redirect to achieve consensus. --Dhartung | Talk 20:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have boldly merged and redirected the article. Precious Roy 20:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP&Comment to Roy - NO! Please do not insert all that information into the Michael Jackson article, it was moved to its own article for brevity, and because it was notable. There seems to be an almost haphazard need by people on this site to arrange and sort to the point of obsessiveness. There is absolutely no need to remove this article, it documents a time in history and can be sourced. It is notable, and is certainly not being wholesale inserted into the Michael Jackson article with minimal discussion.--Manboobies 23:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - it seems that lately there has been a rampage of users advocating a "lets delete all song articles related to Michael Jackson which weren't smash hits" approach to editing. It has got to stop somewhere. This article covers a speculated song, which WAS in the media, and therefore I believe that it is notable. Also, the idea that it be INSERTED into the Michael Jackson article is ridiculous. Apart from that article being horribly segmented as it is, what it doesn't need is more text! There is already ENOUGH!! that's why there's an article for this, and that's the second reason why this article should stay. Paaerduag 09:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It's not about deleting all of his song articles, it's about deleting this one article about a song that was never released, and as such is non-notable. The only press the song generated seems to come from two sources: a press release from Jackson's spokesman and a brief interview with the guy who runs the record label. Closenplay 11:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Since the Michael Jackson Project will apparently resist any attempt at merging it into "their" article, I change my !vote to delete. Most of the mergeable information in the song's article is already in the MJ article already. Closenplay 11:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect, or delete. From the article: "whether or not it will eventually be released remains unconfirmed". WP:CRYSTAL says future events should be included only if they are almost certain to occur. That is not the case for this release. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 10:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was DELETE. While on a cursory glance, it would appear as if there is no consensus here. However, the three individuals leaning toward keep did not comment on the nom's reasons for deletion, but instead only focused on notability. This article is unsourced (one of the article standards) and has POV/advertising issues (another article standard is NPOV). This topic very well may be notable enough to deserve an article, however this particular article is not it. Feel free to recreate this article, if you do it following wikipedia's guidelines and policies (make sure it is verifiable and neutral). Andrew c [talk] 01:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Complete Baby and Toddler Meal Planner[edit]

    The Complete Baby and Toddler Meal Planner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    No sources, written like an advertisement. High on a tree 11:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC) (Note: Author is a book publicist by his own account.)[reply]

    • Delete per nom - unreferenced advertisment. Shalom Hello 13:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. Certainly there are some claims to notability in there, but these really need sourcing and I don't know enough about the subject to gauge these.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have foud that most such books fail to acount for the additional 2-3 oz./day of protein they eat off the floor (bugs, toenail clippings, etc...) ~ Infrangible 03:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nom, Shalom and, I think, Infrangible. Bearian 21:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge with redirect. While I'm not generally a fan of articles on this type of book, an updated edition of this book ranks 48 in book sales at Amazon.co.uk [32] & the publisher section there claims over a million sales and lots of relevant press reviews. Certainly needs references for the claims but that's true for many articles. Alternatively, the material could be merged into the author's page, Annabel Karmel, retaining the redirect. Espresso Addict 00:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep This book has sold a heck of a lot of copies over a long period of time. Nick mallory 12:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Espresso Addict and Nick mallory, you may both be right about the notability of this book, but notability was not the reason for this AfD. The problem is that the text is completely unsourced, written in an advertisement style (and quite obviously intended as an advertisement). If someone would come up and rewrite the article in a neutral, well-referenced way, I would be happy to withdraw the AfD, but during the last 12 days, no one seems to have cared enough. Regards, High on a tree 23:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I have too little understanding of the popular book publishing market to source the claims properly, and the sheer numbers of hits on Google all copying the same info sourced from the author/publisher are a bit offputting. The author does have a bio at the bbc [33] which supports some of the marketing claims. Espresso Addict 00:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Extremely notable book, and references are far from hard to find. A simple Google News archives search brings up several, including the statement that the book, as of 2005, has sold over 2 million copies. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GRBerry 17:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Soldier (party)[edit]

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

    So far as can be determined from the article, not a real party. Of course, considering the complete lack of sources, the phenomenon described might not be real either. Morgan Wick 09:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Only one person seem to have been elected to a high enough position to be notable (Joseph McNamara per Ontario general election, 1919), but his article was deleted. Burzmali 16:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep This shows how tremendous the impact of WWI had on society, that people would state their veteran status on ballots; this was the same for all countries that were in the war since 1914 (no one named, no one forgotten)I've extended the stub & put a 'unreferenced' template--Victor falk 01:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep If it's probably true and just needs a reference or two, I'm willing to give it time. It seems like a notable topic for its time and place. Shalom Hello 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tetris & Dr. Mario[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Tetris & Dr. Mario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    A compilation cartridge with minor changes to their gameplay and design. No proper redirect target. Delete. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Is there a notability guideline for video games? Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not significant ones, I don't think. However, it is agreed that if the article is redundant to other articles (for instance, the gameplay sections could just be c/ped from Tetris and Dr. Mario), it should be redired or deleted. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. There is not a need for an article on a compilation cartridge. The articles at Tetris and Dr. Mario more than sufficiently cover these games. Resolute 04:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. All the information is redundant and there is no logical redirect target - it would be impossible to pick either Tetris or Dr. Mario. It's a pretty unlikely search term, too. ɑʀкʏɑɴ &#149; (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep The difference with this cartridge seems to be that the games were originally released for the NES, but this was a compliation of them for the SNES, like Super Mario All-Stars, with some new content. If we can't keep it, mentions of the compliation should be merged within the Tetris and Dr. Mario articles. Nate 22:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge relevant content to Tetris and Dr. Mario, and presumably redirect although I'm not sure where (flip a coin?) Confusing Manifestation 23:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep or Merge If we decide to merge it, I'll merge it into the Video game Dr.Mario, but it really is a fine article, there is no reason to delete it.

    • Keep There were changes to the actual games, enough to justify a seperate articles. I don't want to play the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS card, but we have plenty of articles on other compilation games. Lrrr IV 04:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and delete. I don't see small changes to a few games as enough to justify a seperate article. Other compilations exist: which leads me to believe, are they all necessary? A good percent of compilations are usually direct ports, or ports with minor changes. Notable information should be put in the Dr. Mario and Tetris articles, then the article should be deleted. I think the same should apply to other compilations. RobJ1981 04:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The games of the compilation are significantly different from the individual respective Gameboy games. I think that makes it unique enough to get its own article.--Kylohk 13:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How? The article doesn't even mention any significant difference between these versions and the original versions. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if there is a significant difference, why is it important enough to have its own article, rather than just a section in the article on the original game? (e.g. there's just one Breakout article, despite there being a few different versions) Confusing Manifestation 00:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is Nintendo game, there are differences between these versions and the original versions. Vald 13:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, like there are differences between the 20th anniversary version of a movie. But it doesn't get its own article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MarašmusïneTalk 16:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as its a separate game. The differences might be minor, but they're enough to warrant a separate article rather than a footnote in some other one. —Xezbeth 08:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Minor differences do not warrant being a separate article. If the differences are minor, then guess what? The majority of its content will be redundant to the two articles it's based on. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would have said that if it was a redlink, but the current article would have proved me wrong. I'm not sure what the problem with the current article is; its clearly different from the two separate games, is reasonably detailed, and has happily existed for two years with no problems. —Xezbeth 09:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Dr. Mario (video game). Tetris is about the game in general, not the SNES version. This way, it will be in the similar vein as how Super Mario Advance was merged to Super Mario Bros. 2 (and et cetera; I believe YOU were the one to merge them as well, A Link to the Past). Hardcore gamer 48 09:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge - I agree with Hardcore gamer 48, The Dr. Mario article seems like the best place for it. It's already mentioned on List of Tetris variants, so there's really no other place for it on the Tetris article. (Guyinblack25 17:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • keep Wikipedia isn't paper, and the subject would merit inclusion independent of the existence of other articles. This is a port of two NES games to the SNES, so it is not simply a combination of two existing articles, plus it has new game modes, etc. — brighterorange (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I repeat (a million times) - where is the notability here? Having a couple new modes doesn't change the fact that you could actually just copy/paste most of the content from the Tetris and Dr. Mario (video game) articles. Most of Tetris & Dr. Mario is redundant to those articles, and there's no disputing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What does copy and pasting have to do with notability? Are you talking about some other quality like uniqueness that (AFAIK) we don't have policies/guidelines about? This is a popular title published by Nintendo. Might we somewhere have a list of SNES games that wants to link to this? Maybe it's a Player's Choice game, having sold over a million units? I understand the desire to avoid duplicated content, but this game is notable on its own and the content is not a strict duplication. At the very minimum, it needs to be a merge and redirect so that the incoming links have somewhere to find information on the release. — brighterorange (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It sold a million copies. It has a couple new modes. How unique! - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Surely a million copies makes it notable? There are only a handful of SNES games that sold as well. — brighterorange (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • A handful, right. Anyway, you've given ONE assertion of notability, which changes absolutely nothing. You still haven't explained why one different mode warrants a collection of two games to have its own article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per Hardcore gamer 48. -- Jelly Soup 20:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Dr Mario. Notability itself aside, there simply isn't very much content for this article. The game itself isn't the issue; the article is. And this article could never grow beyond a stub. And its material will never be significant beyond its connection to the two parent games. And, frankly, I find it very hard to believe that most readers would even think to search for this specific game combination. They'd be far more likely to simply search for one of the parent games. Bladestorm 19:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 kept - obvious POINTy, bad-faith, and snowballable nomination. Will (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List_of_Farscape_episodes[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    List_of_Farscape_episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    WIkipedia is not a place for plot summaries or episode listings. Recent deletions of similar articles on Buffy and Angel demonstrate this policy Irishjp 14:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep — Of course Wikipedia is a place for plot summaries and episode listings, we are trying to build a comprehensive encyclopaedia here. This page is encyclopaedic and this nomination appears to be pointy. Matthew 15:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Episode listings of broadcast television shows are generally considered acceptable per established consensus. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep - First off, both Buffy and Angel have episode lists. Second, going by his tone of the discussion at the harvey's Point AfD, an AfD on an article that this nominator wrote, this Farscape AfD looks and smells like an exercise in point-making. Tarc 15:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep WP:POINT, bad-faith Will (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas talk? 21:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Atul Kasbekar[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Atul_Kasbekar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Nothing terribly notable about this article, lacking in details and sources. Has a promotional air about it. Irishjp 14:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep I think he's notable enough, it just needs better sourcing. The Kingfisher calendar is a fairly big deal and is covered by the media each year, somewhat anagous to the Sports Illustrated swimsuit special. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral - http://firstbollywood.com/2006/12/kingfisher-swimsuit-special-calendar.html confirms that he is the photographer for the calendar, but the calender itself doesn't seem to be notable enough for an article. Burzmali 15:03, 10 July 2007
      • I think it probably could have an article. There's lots of press for it, like this article in The Hindu, national newspaper of India. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The photographer is definitely notable; the article needs some references though. Loads of media coverage in India[34][35] including non-trivial mentions such as [36][37]. utcursch | talk 02:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, seems fine to me. Lacking references is not (or at least should not) be enough to delete an article. —Xezbeth 08:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete --Eyrian 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vild[edit]

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

    Lacking notability; the entire series of books lacks notability. The other related articles are already on their way out on AfD; please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neverness Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

    The result was procedural close; article was already deleted via WP:PROD. —Kurykh 04:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric Scheibeler[edit]

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

    Amway distributor who sued the company and was on Dateline once. Insufficient to make him notable, see WP:BLP1E. NawlinWiki 14:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 including KSEY; the current content of that article does not describe what it actually is. --Coredesat 06:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wolfe Ford Dodge and several others[edit]

    Wolfe Ford Dodge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    A series of articles have been created by Espn1230 (talk · contribs). All appear to be promoting non-notable businesses, radio station, and related individuals. There are no independent references and google searches turn up nothing to suggest notability for any of them. The user's name indicates a conflict of interest. Nearly all were marked for speedy deletion, most were deleted, and some were then recreated. I wish to include all of them in this AFD. The articles include:

    PCock 13:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • A very speedy delete. Sounds like vanity spam to me. --Fightingirish 14:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all except KSEY, which apparently is a real on-air radio station. NawlinWiki 14:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy the lot of them. Recreations and obviously nonencylcopedic content. KSEY is a bit of an outlier as it does appear to be a legitimate broadcast station - however none of the information presented in this article meshes with the information on the official website for the station and I am inclined to believe what is here is largely invented. It ought to be rewritten from scratch. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all per nom. I don't see how KSEY has any more merit than the rest. --Evb-wiki 16:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all. According to the Web site of KSEY-AM's sister station, KSEY-FM, "KSEY AM is a full service Hispanic station with studios in Wichita Falls, TX." That doesn't sound like what's described in KSEY. Deor 16:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is valid. KSEY has not been re-registered on radiolocator.com/FCC files are not reflecting format/ownership change. KSEY/Wolfe Ford-Dodge is infact pioneering in its setup of the actual full time ESPN on air studio located on the showroom of the dealership. I am not the author, but reviewed and edited it after I became aware of article. Feel free to rewrite it with less fluff (I am not a wikipedian, but I edited the article WAY down after review, but the facts are undoubtly accurate. Search Times record news John Wolfe jack ingram KSEY or vernon daily record same keywords, there were also some in the fort worth start telegram a few years back.--John Wolfe. --
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In The Know[edit]

    In The Know (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Pretty unneccesary, considering we already have an article for internet slang. LiamUK 13:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non admin closure. --Jorvik 18:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Stranger (magazine)[edit]

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

    A speedy delete request was made on this page as blatant advertising. I don't see it, but am setting up this AFD to get a wider view. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. CitiCat 13:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - Again, could you please tell me how exactly this page differs from one like this. This page is not intended as advertising. If you can explain to me what I would have to change I will do it! Fourfourcandles 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I don't think it should be deleted, instead it should be made more neutral. I can see why someone would have thought it was advertising. LiamUK 13:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no independent non-trivial coverage, thus currently fails WP:CORP. --Huon 14:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep, I was able to add one source to this very easily, but I couldnt find an ISSN. John Vandenberg 14:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have now added some more references. I will add some more to this tonight. Fourfourcandles 16:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no significant coverage; no reason to add to the bloated The Stranger disambig page. VanTucky (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "no significant coverage" - what exactly does this mean? Fourfourcandles 23:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The requirement that subjects receive significant coverage in reliable, independent sources per the policy outlined in WP:Notability VanTucky (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, I understand. Tell me, would a page such as this one satisy the correct guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact_Magazine_%28UK%29 Fact are one of our competitors. We could quite easily create a page similar to that if it wouldn't be deleted. There are no links, other than to Fact's website, on that page at all. All we want to do is set up a page so that the other wiki pages that are linking us (in album reviews, for example) can actually link to another wiki page (our wiki page) rather than a 'red link'. Thanks for your help. -- Fourfourcandles 23:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - In my opinion, this article should not be deleted. I am currently completing an article Cornish media] which I started a couple of months ago, which is trying to encompass all media in Cornwall - which has a great diversity. The background to this magazine dovetails nicely with other aspects of print media in Cornwall, and, as such, should be kept intact. Tinminer 10:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I cleaned up the article and expanded it with footnotes. There are sufficient reliable sources to write a Wikipedia article on the topic. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep magazine has received coverage on regional level from print and broadcast media, is distributed nationally through at least one major print-retailer, as attested in the references in the article. DuncanHill 10:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Cornwall list of articles for deletion. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Peacent 02:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Nobel School[edit]

    The Nobel School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Speedy delete The article makes no claim to notability for this school, nor is it implicit in the article, which is merely a list of subjects taught. Jack1956 13:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. It having 1200 pupils could be an indicator of notability. LiamUK 13:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment All the schools in the area have that sort of number...being a well populated area does not make the school notable. Jack1956 14:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete, no claim to notability, A7. Burzmali 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Delete'. The school is potentially notable (see the following webpage [38] but if the authors can't be bothered to write a decent article then it's best to delete the current entry and wait until someone can do the job properly. Dahliarose 15:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep The article claims notabilty by pointing out that this is a high school, and therefore inherently notable. In the same way articles about countries need only point out that the subject is a country to claim notability, which is self-evident. Greg Grahame 16:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The school is in the UK so it is called a secondary school not a high school. There is no Wikipedia guideline which states that either secondary schools or high schools are inherently notable. All schools have to conform to WP:N. The article as it currently stands makes no claim for the school's notability.Dahliarose 16:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, the article makes no claims to notability, no famous alumni, no historical significance and no architectural significance. Callelinea 18:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Directory information only. It might be notable --like many other things--if someone were to do the work to find information and write a sourced article. It can be re-created when that occurs. DGG (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It's a list of subjects taught at the school. MetsFan76 21:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or merge into an appropriate article. SamBC 02:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Peacent 02:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of songs that have reprises[edit]

    List of songs that have reprises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Delete - if I am understanding the purpose of this list correctly based on the definition at reprise, this is a list of songs for which the recording artist later recorded a brief alternate version of some sort. This would seem to be a directory of loosely associated topics. The items on this list tell us little about the songs themselves, nothing about the practice of writing reprises, nothing about how the songs on the list bear any relation to each other and nothing about music in general. Otto4711 13:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Another pointless list. -- Magioladitis 13:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Might possibly have a chance of being a tiny bit closer to useful or interesting in some vague way if there were any information about the reprises. Maybe. Propaniac 14:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Listcruft extrodinaire. Pedro |  Chat  14:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per the above. The article leaves us to guess what the inclusion criteria are and that is never a good sign for a list article. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NOT - Loosely associated list. Corpx 16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as loose list and as the ten thousandth "List of Songs That..." articles. Useight 20:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Man, I can't stand them song lists no more. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete What the hell is a reprise? The article doesn't tell me, and I don't care to click on reprise to find out. Mandsford 23:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Just get rid of them all. People should start looking at List of films featuring _random subject_". There are a handful. Bulldog123 00:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy keep, obviously notable as international footballer. NawlinWiki 14:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bjørn Helge Riise[edit]

    Bjørn Helge Riise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Completely pointless page with no references, just seems to be no point in keeping it Chaza93

    Strong keep How exactly is it a pointless page? It gives his date of birth, position, history of clubs, relation to John Arne and information on his international career. He's certainly notable enough as well, being a professional footballer who has been capped for Norway and played in the UEFA Cup. Maybe it could do with the odd reference but so could many other articles on wikipedia. Sir-Nobby 19:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but needs reliable sources Recurring dreams 13:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep. "Pointless page" is not a reason for deletion. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep and rebuke nominator. This is not only a professional footballer in a professional league (which gives autmatic notability but its an international footballer!--Vintagekits 14:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep I am dusgusted at this nomination. Pathetic reason to delete an article. Mattythewhite 14:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep Not only is he professional, but also an international! Number 57 14:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas talk? 22:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Brian Boxer Wachler[edit]

    Brian Boxer Wachler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This is a likely vanity page. Dr Wachler is an accomplished physicion, but not of encyclopedic note. Jddphd 22:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr. Wachler is just as worthy of encyclopedic reference as Dr. Robert Maloney, another ophthalmologist of similar stature in the field, whose page is in Wikipedia. Dr. Wachler's work is also referenced in both LASIK and keratoconus Wikipedia pages. scubadiver5 23:25, 8 July 2007

    Strong keep Pioneer of a particular form of LASIK surgery, profiled in USA Today, several newspapers as well as several medical journals.--Ispy1981 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep seems notable enough on google/news search; needs some reliable sources though Recurring dreams 13:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep on its own merits, ignoring any comparison. I reduced the list of publication to those in a few top-ranking ophthalmology journals that show he is a recognized expert with Lasik. This is a formidable record. Even without it, popular knowledge & interest in the work of a physician is enough, if the media references listed were actually sourced. DGG (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I'm not competent to review Wachler's ophthalmological achievements, but his work as an expert for the various news services listed seems sufficient to justify an article. Sourcing needs work, however. Espresso Addict 23:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added an external link to the doctor's website which has a video media center for reliable sourcing of media references. scubadiver5 19:10, 10 July 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.

    Strong keep. a review of both Google News and Google Scholar clearly indicates this individual is notable. Dr. Jay Grossman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjaydds (talk • contribs) 19:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cassius (hardcore band)[edit]

    Cassius (hardcore band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    No Sources, rant about town there from Seth slackware 14:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nominator withdrew nom. Even if not outright keep per the aforementioned rationale, the debate is closed as no consensus, defaulting to keep. —Kurykh 05:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Condemned (band)[edit]

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

    Very un-encyclopedic, more of a promotion page. Article that is being used as homepage and is being maintained by 1 user (band member?). The band might not meet WP:Notability (music) (except for disputed point 4) Emmaneul (Talk) 19:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Could you suggest some ways to make the article less un-encyclopedic? Mojowibble 19:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete - Counts as advertising and Original Research. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. INBN 09:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Non-notable. Most "references" are just metal fansite reviews of their demos, not WP:RS. Precious Roy 09:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clean up. Full clean up and rewrite of the page. Remove many images. That the most of the references are from fansites I think is normal in Death Metal. -- Magioladitis 13:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, thank you for the input. I'll modify the article accordingly. Mojowibble 18:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, I've updated and re-writen the article. Is it up to scratch?Mojowibble 18:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and clean-up. This death metal band is well established enough. After the clean-up I think the article must stay. Nips 19:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - There seems to be a problem distinguishing trivia from encyclopedic topics. There is no accomplishment or notability here. Where does it end once started? Should every group that ever played be mentioned and why? I always look for an impact on society at large, rather than appeasing the interest of a small group in a given location in the world. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to the comments above. I'd doubt if a death metal band would ever make an impact on society at large. Even the most popular acts are outside mainstream musical tastes (and the associated media). There are articles on wikipedia for other bands in the UK and Ireland of similar stature as regards their accomplishments, why should this band be treated differently? Whilst some of the other groups the band have played with may be unneccessary in the document, they do note at the acheivements of the band, a non-notable band wouldn't have had the opportunity to share a stage with the likes of Cannibal Corpse or Obituary etc. Mojowibble 14:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I took a stab at going to each source and review individually, and left intact what I perceived to be reliable sources, i.e. not fan sites or promotional sites, etc. I removed quite a bit, but I believe this band still has enough 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability per WP:Music. Cricket02 15:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would now say Keep. Article has been cleaned up and looks good now... Emmaneul (Talk) 16:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 paraphilia unless a more appropriate target exists; if it does, feel free to retarget. --Coredesat 06:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Erotic death[edit]

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

    This new article (created July 5, 2007) is just not notable enough, is poorly written, and poorly sourced. Bearian 01:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Nom added (was here) WjBscribe 15:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

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

    The result was Delete. Peacent 02:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jared Abruzzo[edit]

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

    Not in "fully professional league" per WP:BIO Truest blue 04:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, never made it out of the minor leagues, nothing particularly noteworthy about him -- lots of players were once considered great prospects but never panned out. NawlinWiki 14:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete never made it past AA. Corpx 16:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No longer in the Rangers organization, may not be actively playing organized ball at this point according to this. Caknuck 15:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete although he could have been a contender. Bearian 22:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. —Kurykh 05:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    LRgen[edit]

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

    Reason - The links do not longer work, and there are no other sources. Maybe the company which created LRgen ceased operations. -- Neo85 (talk · contribs · logs) 09:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I noticed that the website goes down from time to time. This appears to be an occasional issue rather than a long-standing one. This article should not be deleted. This issue will probably correct itself. --DevinCook (talk · contribs · logs) 10:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Great # 8 23:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pan Lei[edit]

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

    my prod was removed because the person was "going out on a limb" and thinking that no one would put in a 300 year old poet if he wasn't notable. Well, two things to say about that: 1) It could be a non notable poet that was simply a favorite of the article's author and/or 2) if the poet is notable, nothing is said about it in the article. In fact, nothing is said about the poet at all except the barest of facts. As far as we know, Pan Lei existed and we know when he existed. Sheer existence isn't enough to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 02:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It has been around for more than a year. How much longer do we wait? I think it has been long enough! Post card Cathy
    I think it will be a lot easier to get information from someone who knows more about this with a tag on it. I'm posting a notice on WikiProject China, as well. Chubbles 23:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I added the English language refs I could find. There are more refs in Chinese, but my Chinese skills are not good enough and some are inaccessible without a subscription.--Danaman5 03:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With the changes that have been made to the article, I drop my push for deletion - it does seem this poet is notable. Cathy
    • Keep - Notability has been shown since listed for AfD. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. Yawn. Do deletionists take the time to research things before tagging them... uh.. nope! Psssst. hey. There's this new invention called Google Scholar & its fatter & dumber buddy, Google .. but don't spread that around... deletionists might run out of things to do... Ling.Nut 15:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete unsourced, no WP:RS provided Gnangarra 15:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Post-symbolic communication[edit]

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

    New word, original research, synthesis of ideas in a way that is dubious, vanity page. Don't attack me because this is my first edit with this username. I had one but lost my password. This isn't a vote or poll, arguements only.YVNP 20:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep I think the author could find sources to refer to, but if he/she doesn't, then this needs to be postsymbolically forgotten. BTW, your old password was <removed content>. Mandsford 23:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cleanup - The largest proponent of this seems to be Jaron Lanier who, according to his cv (http://www.meetthemediaguru.org/cvJaron.doc), seems to be a fairly prolific article writer, who invokes plenty of articles about his ideas. I think that with some clean up and figuring out which articles about his work are WP:RS, this could be a decent article. Burzmali 20:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment ~ Infrangible 03:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Saying someone will find sources eventually doesn't count. When someone does then the article will be recreated. Jaron Lanier wrote a few articles a year ago but that just means he supports it. A big problem is that the article is a synthesis of lanier's idea and unrelated ideas Lanier was probably not aware of and does not prove they are related outside of a few similarities(plus examples are not notability as any thing can be an example of anything). The biggest problem is that no sources or proof of notabiltiy have shown up have shown up for a year and a half. And even with clean up it will still be merged with the Jaron article. It fails WP:OR (specifically the synthesis rule.) and WP:ATT. YVNP 10:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Dude, everything I say counts. Mandsford 00:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentBut still thats to long to go without a single source for notability, proof the examples are actually examples outside the authors own opinion, or even proof that Jaron Lanier's doesn't belong on some page about non symbolic communication ideas in general(espicially virtual reality).YVNP 11:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 03:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Smart_rock[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Smart_rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Does not meet notability requirements, unsourced, original research. EDIT: Someone recently took a lot of the utter cruft out of the article, but I still do not believe it meets the notability requirements. Although googling "Smart Rock" turns up a number of pages, none of these seem to be consistent usage (i.e., the usage is coincidental and not used to describe the same music) and none of it mentions Danny Zucker. This article is still a strong delete in my opinion.Tommy.rousse 18:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete and mostly nonsense and original research. PCock 14:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongest delete possible Just after seeing the "half-god half man sex machine" thing, I scrolled down at the bottom and discovered no links, no verifiable sources, and nonsense. Delete per PCock and Precious Roy. bibliotheque (Talk) 14:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete, nonnotable, unsourced, neologism. NawlinWiki 14:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete, google turns up enough hits to make it look like a emergent genre, but there just isn't enough objective documentation to support an article. Burzmali 15:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Daniel 03:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Klordny[edit]

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

    Delete - article is about a fictional holiday with one major appearance 30 years ago, and a group that took its name from the fictional holiday. Prod removed without comment. There do not appear to be any reliable sources that attest to the notability of this fictional holiday either within DC Comics continuity or the real world. The real-life group information is "sourced" by a blog entry and a link to a yahoo group, which do not pass WP:RS. Otto4711 12:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per "Concepts hypothesised in fiction are only notable if commented on by third-party sources" as an editor put Corpx 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There's also this FAQ Also, whatever happens to this, the same should be done for the entries Pule and Durin's Day --202.160.44.201 06:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Well, I'm not sure what you'd consider "reliable sources" for this article - what's a reliable source for a fictional holiday? And I can't help it if the Klordny APA group chooses to have a blog and yahoo group mailing list for their communication - why not, they're very easy to use, so do you penalize them for that? Other "third party" sources for Klordny the holiday include numerous mentions on the web, message boards, and usenet over the years, indicating familiarity with the holiday even if its only major appearance was 30 years ago. Admittedly, these would be considered "self-published" and thus "unreliable", but this is not an attempt to show any kind of factual knowledge but rather how it's a generally known and accepted term/phrase/holiday within the comics community. See examples from 2006, 2006, 2006, 2002, this wordie.org entry, this comic series proposal which would have explained where the Klordny festival came from, this Dec. 2003 review, this 2007 quiz, the Usenet Oracle (who got it wrong), etc. It also appeared in a Legion comic in 1999. Klordny the APA is in the Michigan State University's Comic Art Collection, in this profile from 2007, this cover from this guy's archives in 2005, this list of APAs from 2002, the Comic Art Of The United States Through 2000 bibliography, and dozens of Usenet articles dating back to at least the early 1990s. -- Wizardimps 08:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you should read WP:RS on what qualifies as a reliable source. Corpx 08:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did read it, which is why I agreed these are all "self-published" sources and thus "unreliable". However, that would make them not usable when considering factual content. These examples show that the word and concept of this fictional holiday have been generally known and used for years, and I would submit that the fact that people know about it, write about it, and have written for a magazine by the same title (regardless of its content) makes it notable. This fictional holiday has a 30-year history in print (predating general use of the internet) and on the internet. -- Wizardimps 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I strongly disagree. Just because people write about something on the internet does not make a topic notable. Corpx 16:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll remind you that the Amateur Press Association (APA) named after the holiday existed since the early 1980s, a decade before the internet was open to the general public. But now what? Obviously neither of us has changed the other's opinion and nobody else has commented. Do I lose on a 2-1 vote? -- Wizardimps 20:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Not enough WP:RS independent of the topic to write the article. The source of this holiday is DC Comics, which makes DC Comics not eligible as an independent reliable source. Also, any other source contribuing to the facts of the holiday are not independent from that holiday. Even if Klordny (magazine) is notable, it does not make Klordny (holiday) notable. Adding to the article the fact that people know about it, write about it, and have written for a magazine by the same title (regardless of its content) would be original research. Their collective knowledge about the holiday may make the holiday important and famous, but without reliable source material, the topic is not "Wikipedia notable." -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golf at the 1900 Summer Olympics - Women's Tournament

    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas talk? 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sahraoui Scout Association[edit]

    Sahraoui Scout Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Notability: no primary or secundary sources. Juiced lemon 10:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:
    The authors of the article don't give any source proving existence of Sahraoui Scout Association. They only adduced some scouts activities in Western Sahara in connection with a scout association of Morocco, member of Fédération Nationale du Scoutisme Marocain. The article insinuates that the alleged Sahraoui Scout Association could become a member of the World Organization of the Scout Movement, regardless of the Fédération Nationale du Scoutisme Marocain. That is politically significant, since Western Sahara is currently administred by Morocco, except for a near uninhabited zone.
    This article contain mainly stereotypical informations. Other informations help only to express a non neutral POV. That's why this article will have to be deleted. --Juiced lemon 11:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • speedy keep The proposer of this deletion is a POV editor who changes "Western Sahara" wherever he finds it, to "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic", and I called him on it, so this is a retaliatory deletion nom. I am presently trying to source and verify the info in the article, which had not been questioned until this author, who says Scouts do not exist on the land area of Western Sahara but does not give his own sources.
    This user is trying to inject POV into the article based on his politics. There is no POV in the article as it is presently written. All the present article states is that, in the land area of Western Sahara, there are now Scouts developing. This area has been disputed between Morocco, Mauritania, Algeria, and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic for three decades. Scouting has nothing to do with the political situation, it has to do with children, but he keeps insisting Scouts don't exist there, without citing how he supposedly "knows" that.
    Here's the problem. I have no _web_ sources. My sources are correspondence with a Scout brother I've known since 1989, who lives in the Canary Islands and is working to aid the Saharan Scouts. He is absolutely reliable source, but nothing I can use as "references". I know the Wikipedia community will not like the lack of sources, and the fact that an absence of internationally recognized Scouting is not something that a lot can be written about, but the Wikipedia community will not like the POV pushing either.
    There are several other editors who have also worked diligently to source the article, and make corrections where need be. I ask the community not to delete it, we're working on it, just give us time to get the sourcing right. Chris 12:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, stop your personal attacks: they are still unsourced, therefore unjustified. Even if this association exists, it has not sufficient notability and don't deserve an Wikipedia article. There are not Wikipedia articles for scout associations in Morocco, but only an article for their federation: Fédération Nationale du Scoutisme Marocain. --Juiced lemon 13:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This just needs more sources, not deletion. Regarding the variety of scouting organizations in Morocco, those articles could be created, they just haven't been yet; that's irrelevant to the creation or deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koavf (talk • contribs)
    • Keep, User:Kintetsubuffalo's comments have me believing that this is a bad faith nom. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold on. I don't see clear POV-pushing or bad faith, so please don't accuse anyone of that, Chris. However, I do see an overly rash deletion request. Come on, a one- or two-day ultimatum to improve the article? Maybe if it was nonsense, but there do exist reliable sources in Spanish about "Saharui" Scouts (or however they spelled it), though possibly not on a controversial, national "Western Sahara" level like the article says now. The best solution might very well end up being a redirect or merge, so let's cool it down and find some time to sort this out. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the The Sahraoui Astronauts or Sahraoui Friends of Mars? Would they be also protected to stay in here?
    • I would say speedy deletion is required if no source nor facts are provided.
    • If such a thing exists then possibly in Tindouf, driven by Polisario. Not in Western Sahara.
    • The pro-Polisario people are abusing of the encyclopaedia to build a virtual sahraoui world
    • Wikipedia is becoming like a bin for every cheap propaganda.
    • Lets keep Wikipedia free from propaganda and ideolgical militantism!
    Thanks - wikima 19:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But if you looked at the situation more closely, you'd realize there are references to "Sahraoui" Scouts. There certainly aren't any around to Sahraoui astronauts. And the people involved certainly aren't involved with the Polisario Front. Please assume good faith, and don't use straw man arguments to potentially mislead other editors. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To use straw man arguments is, in itself a straw man arguments.
    • I am talking based on my experience in Wikipedia and with users such as koavf.
    • This is not about good faith, but about people who try to build a virtual world for a republic that does exist only on paper.
    • It is hard to expect objectivity from users who want to fight for the "truth" and the sahrawi people.
    • We are dealing not with encyclopaedians but with militants for a cause.
    • If this article is accpeted I will create the ones about the astronauts and other fictive sahraouis stuff, and will also object any deletion.
    • either we keep Wikipedia a POV free encylopaedia or we leave it for militants of Polisario to abuse it a great platform for their propaganda activity.
    Thanks - wikima 19:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you completely miss the point, blindly push your point of view, and then threaten to violate other Wikipedia policies in retaliation? That's rich. I encourage other editors to just ignore Wikima's comments; I plan on doing the same. — Rebelguys2 talk 20:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • If you have arguments to dicuss then you're welcome. If you are just becoming agressive, then I don't think this is a way to deal with community.
    • I am merely using your logic. Read well and understand if you want to participate. If not leave it, this is collaborative work, not your mind only.
    • Calling to ignore a member because he has different thoughts than yours is stange in the wiki world. Just learn to be open minded, it helps.
    • And if you did not understand: I have other business than to create nonsense articles. What I wanted to say / With other words: I think this article does not make sense as long as it is non sourced. Everyone can tell stories and create/add embloems and logos which are used nowhere in the world.
    • And I think the rule is simple and easy: Is information sourced and presented in an encyclopaedic and nPOV way, that's what wikipedia is about.
    • Is it not, then it should be removed.
    • Think this is not really difficult to understand is it?
    wikima 16:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]


    • comment Western Sahara is disputed territory, i.e. not presently independent. The two main claimants are the Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Front independence movement (and government of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic or SADR), who dispute control of the territory. Since a United Nations-sponsored cease-fire agreement in 1991, most of the territory has been controlled by Morocco, with the remainder under the control of Polisario/SADR. As the international Scouting movement is an educational youth movement, it takes a neutral position on each side's claims, and the existence of Scouting on the land area of Western Sahara does not imply any official position in the dispute. The status of the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, the West Bank/Gaza, and Taiwan are all disputed as well, yet they all have active Scouts. Chris 07:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep now that there is a note about the disputed status of this region.Rlevse 13:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The disputed status of any region doesn't justify articles about associations which don't exist or with insufficient notability, nor wrong or unsourced informations. --Juiced lemon 17:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're being fallacious again. I know someone who deals with Scouts there.Rlevse 02:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 03:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    PlayStation 3 Film 'High Definition'[edit]

    PlayStation 3 Film 'High Definition' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    not notable, bad quality Ysangkok 10:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - and maybe add some information to PS 3. This is not notable alone.--Svetovid 13:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 very borderline case, single independent reliable source from Spanish newspaper. Gnangarra 15:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    European Vibe Magazine[edit]

    European Vibe Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable magazine, 254 non-wiki ghits. No notability asserted, no sources cited. This is also spam, as I caught the contributors to this page adding links to the subject's site en masse. Contested prod. MER-C 09:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • CommentI am new to adding and editing on Wikipedia but I read this magazine every month since i moved to Madrid as do a large number of other students from around the world based in Madrid. We thought the other day it would be good to add it to online versions of magazines and as a magzine in its own right. Someone else from this internet connection must have added the links to the articles. From reading over the guidelines some of these links appear to be incorrect but all point to spanish cities etc. I will try to find out who added these this morning and get them to stop. However i do feel the magazine itself should remain. CREAD 12:18, 10 July 2007
    • Comment Does this magazine have another name in Spanish? Perhaps that's why there are so few GHits? --Charlene 12:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I dont think it does. I think it is known in Madrid as European Vibe Magazine. it is aimed at the English speaking community of madrid 14:34, 10 July 2007
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm confused. Nowhere on European Vibe's official site can I find any mention of a print magazine (although an online "magazine" is part of the site). Nor can I find any evidence elsewhere that there exists a magazine as described in the article—the worldpress.org reference included in the article identifies European Vibe as an "online entertainment portal." Are there any reliable sources that establish the offline existence of this thing? Because just as a Web site, it certainly doesn't look notable. Deor 03:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I spoke to someone at European Vibe who says their designer is looking to upload to their site a new page with magazine stats, their media pack and distribution points. However, he said to me that all the articles from the printed magazine are available in .pdf from each section. They emailed me the media pack with stats, circulation etc. Did not think it was right to add to page as it contains advertising prices. I understand (from experience) that some of the universities give the magazine out in their welcome packs to students and the magazine has over 200 points of distribution across Madrid. The magazine will be launched in 3 more cities in Spain over the next few months. I think the magazine should stay as it is definitely growing and used as useful resource to English speakers in Madrid, and one of very few English language magazines in the Spanish capital. CREAD 11:23, 11 July 2007
    • Question, does this magazine have an ISSN? John Vandenberg 12:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment They have a Deposito Legal which is what you require in Spain to print/publish a Magazine and are in the process of applying for a ISSN code. 14:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. This may become notable in the future, but at the moment a locally distributed free magazine with no secondary coverage in reliable sources seems to me to fail WP:N without question. Deor 13:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if their original content has been republished as claimed, that should be sufficient for Notability, though I would like to see some cites to support this.
    • Keep seems to be a legit publication with a non-trivial readership. Could use some clean-up to be more encyclopedic, but not delete worthy. Dhaluza 09:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I have checked and there are lots of forum conversations about the piece that 20 minutos picked up on and translated. Plus the online version of the 20 minutos article has a direct link saying they have seen this article from European Vibe Magazine CREAD 17:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. This is a second keep !vote by a single user. Deor 01:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Forum conversations are not reliable sources for WP purposes, nor are passing mentions in other publications. I'm not disputing the existence of this magazine; I just don't think it meets the criteria for notability. Deor 02:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the source based Notability requirements are appropriate for this type of subject. If the magazine has a non-trivial readership, this is prima facia evidence of notability in the sense that people take notice. Dhaluza 11:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep I'm familiar with this magazine, it's distributed around Madrid for the English speaking community. The problems with the links was probably an oversight or faux pas by whoever was editing the web page. StingerC 17:59, 14 July 2007 — User:stingerc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Wesk Keep The 20 Minutos (non-trivial Spanish newspaper) article may be considered a reliable source. [39].--Kylohk 14:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep, based on the arguments of people personally knowledgeable about the magazine, and per sources now given - but guys, if you have knowledge of the magazine, it'd be swell if you could add even more to the article. I'd like to find out more about it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Anas talk? 22:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Toshiedo[edit]

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

    Prod removed, definite WP:COI and lacking in verifiable notability. The Rambling Man 09:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - meets notability. --VS talk 23:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Keser[edit]

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

    Previously listed as a speedy and contested - questions being asked over notability --VS talk 08:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep as meeting WP:BAND, though major rewrite needed...the article feels like PR, mainly because large parts of it are written as a list of bullet points aimed at satisfying the WP:BAND requirements. DMacks 13:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, I think it got flagged up in the early stages as I saved it when only 1 paragraph was complete! Can you offer more feedback on how I can improve the article? The intention was not to list it as bullet points but more to summarise without too much padding. Thanks, Keser —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 20.133.0.8 (talk • contribs).


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

    The result was delete nothing to merge. Jaranda wat's sup 01:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Boobytrap (Robotech episode)[edit]

    Boobytrap (Robotech episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    In accordance with the current vogue for removing episode summaries, I am nominating this, which is, AFAIK, the only summary for a Robotech episode. Simon Cursitor 08:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was redirect to List of Trailer Park Boys characters. The article still doesn't argue for any real-world significance. Arguing that someone will fix the original research is not a remedy for an article that is entirely original research.-Wafulz 18:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Randy (Trailer Park Boys character)[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Randy (Trailer Park Boys character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    2nd nom - still not notable per WP:FICT. See talk page for another editor's reason for re-instating article. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep. Major character on a popular Canadian television show. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't seen the show in quite a while. The article isn't clear enough for the lay reader why he should be considered a major character on the show. Can you expand on that? Canuckle 23:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he's listed as major in the list of characters. Having seen quite a few episodes, I would tend to agree. When I saw Patrick Roach on Canada Day, the swarming of fans around him would indicate to me anyways the popularity of his character. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: WP:FICT says that major characters are covered in the article on that work - in this case, Trailer Park Boys. Only when an "encyclopedic treatment" of a character (which this is not - WP:OR and lack of references) has caused the section to be too long should it get an article of its' own. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've failed to realize what an Encyclopedia is supposed to be about. Articles exist on topics not because there's not enough room on one page. Articles exist to cover subjects. You have to look beyond what "WP:FICT" says. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: So you have no sources that say he's a main character and why? Just his listing as same on the show's article and what you've seen with your own eyes? Canuckle 17:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can find one, if need be. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources for meaningful out-of-universe content should have been the first thing done in creating this article. So, yeah, you need more than one. Canuckle 19:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree this article needs sources. However, lack of sources is no reason to delete an article. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Lack of notability is reason for deletion and this article never even explictly claims that "Randy is a major character" let alone has a source for that claim. So it's an unsourced unencyclopedic treatment. Canuckle 22:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    After doing some research, he is not normally considered among the "main three characters", but is more of a supporting character. However, I feel his notability is determined by being a character that appears in most or all episodes. For example, Ned Flanders is quite notable, but probably appears in a smaller % of Simpsons Episodes than Randy on TPB. I put in some references, but since I haven't watched every espisode (and certainly not chronologically), I would be too tedious to complete the sourcing. From what I do know though, the facts in the articles seem to be correct. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral due to WP:OR concerns. Lots of assertions made with no citations. Corpx 08:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is this back? We had an earlier AfD and the consensus was redirect. Nothing in the article ahs changed, so this hould not need to be reconsidered. Speedy Redirect & protect. Eusebeus 09:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Earl Andrew. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability, which per WP:FICT, is how to determine which characters are major. Jay32183 21:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just added some sources. Care to check them out? -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My assessment is based on the article after the edit to which you are referring. I stand at delete. Jay32183 22:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Earl Andrew. Same goes with the other TPB character articles. --FrankCostanza 01:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Canuckle 23:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Jay 32183. It fails WP:NOR. GreenJoe 02:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOR is not a reason to delete an article, Pete. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, since WP:NOR does not allow original research, if an article consists of only original research, then it is a reason to delete. However, that was not my reasoning, so the "per Jay32183" confuses me. Jay32183 04:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • None of this article is original research anyways, since all of it can either be sourced through episode synopsises or through actual episodes themselves. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • However, the article still lacks secondary sources to establish notability or provide any real world context. Jay32183 04:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, seems fine to me. Any OR can be dealt with independent of AfD, as this is not cleanup. —Xezbeth 08:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete if his character mattered, then it would be sufficient to list him on the Trailer Park Boys page. Unless there is critical, third party review of how his character is special and that analysis is independent of Trail Park Boys as a whole, then he does not deserve his own page. NobutoraTakeda 18:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [40][reply]
      • That's also not a valid reason to delete a page. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes it is. The character has no notability beyond the subject discussed and does not deserve to be in a page seperated from the subject. Only characters, like Hamlet or similar characters who are discussed as seperate from the subject deserve to have their own page. If the character is needed to be in Wikipedia then the place is only on the page discussing the show and not on his own. NobutoraTakeda 19:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Major character from a significant show. - SimonP 21:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • merge. We have an article on Ned Flanders - but I think we should not. Randy is certainly at the same level as Ned Flanders, importance-wise, when you compare the two shows. However, I agree with NobutoraTakeda that, since Randy is unimportant outside the context of the show, there should not be a separate article on him. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps we should put Ned Flanders of AfD then? Anyways, it's been 10 days, shouldn't this be closed? I'd do it, but it's a conflict of interest. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy delete g1 nonsense, g3 vandalism (excuse for link to blog attacking Wikipedia). NawlinWiki 14:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yowie hunter[edit]

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

    topic may be valid, but this page looks like a WP:HOAX or something...only link is to a self-declared WP vandal's myspace page, created by user who seems to be spamming same link to many other pages DMacks 06:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was redirect to List of Water Rats Characters; Non-admin closure. John Vandenberg 02:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Helen Blakemore[edit]

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

    Non-notable - fails WP:FICT. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Just in case that last bit was completely serious, deleting an article actually saves no space, it merely goes invisible. Someguy1221 01:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect Per Someguy1221 - Changed vote. Didnt notice his comment. Twenty Years 01:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per Someguy1221.Garrie 01:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect non-notable fictional character. —Moondyne 02:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as per Someguy1221. Capitalistroadster 03:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as above comments SatuSuro 10:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as above. Does WP:SNOW apply here, since it seems to be fairly uncontroversial? Lankiveil 11:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Redirect as above. Magioladitis 15:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cultural references to The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock[edit]

    Cultural references to The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Very trivial listcruft. A list of mentions isn't very notable (even if it's sourced). I had prodded this, then it was removed. The reason given was The Cultural references to The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock article was created to capture references to T.S. Eliot's poem "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" (of which there are many.) The most important ones are incorporated within the poem's article itself but the list is long and so it was moved to its own page. Frankly, I've seen that used as a reason (or excuse in my view) many times with these culture lists. If it gets too big on the main article: condense, don't just move it to a new article. A new article just spreads the trivia issue even further. RobJ1981 06:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - non-notable trivia. I mean:
      • Bob Dylan possibly references the mermaids in the last stanza in the song Desolation Row in the verse about T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound.
      • The Rush song "Open Secrets" (from 1987's Hold Your Fire) includes the line "That's not what I meant at all" (cf. "That is not what I meant at all").
      • The coffee shop named "Prufrock's" attached to The Perry-Castañeda Library at The University of Texas at Austin.
    Seriously now. --Haemo 06:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's exactly what counts as trivia Corpx 16:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The question that editors have to ask is what do these cultural references add to the topic of The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock? They add nothing to an understanding of Eliot's creation process, the critical reception at the time, the influence on other English-language poems, the current literary scholarship on the subject, etc. All they express is that the poem is well known and that sometimes other people quote it. Well, we already know that, and the introduction to the article on the poem makes that clear (from that article: "one of the most anthologized 20th century poems in English" and hey, that assertion is cited). I was one of the people to add to this list of trivia (The Paper Chase one) as one of my first Wikipedia edits, so I realize I'm part of the problem. Now I say delete to actually come to a solution. -Markeer 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, returning any non-trivial references to the main Prufrock article. The sheer number and range of pop culture references does seem relevant to understanding the poem's popular reception, however a couple of examples would make the point. I don't see much mileage in retaining the redirect. Espresso Addict 00:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I have references by multiple, non-trivial sources. But that doesn't mean I'm notable and neither is this. Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Trusilver 18:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 03:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Biblical people in Christianity[edit]

    Biblical people in Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Originating editor has not explained what this page is intended to achieve. It adds nothing to the encyclopedia. Fayenatic london (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete feels suspiciously like a WP:POINT or WP:CFORK violation, though I'm not sure of what. Redundant to List of Biblical figures. Great quote: "According to some Christians, Jesus is a main and central key figure in the new testament". cab 06:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per all above. This subject is covered better in other articles. --Metropolitan90 07:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The list of is not able to explain what biblical people as a group are. I started the article, because there was no lead article for the Category:Biblical people. Maybe, someone is able to englighten the article... -- Bapho 09:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I could understand a list of Biblical characters not in Christianity, but this is the default. --Charlene 10:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete redundant to other articles. Categories don't necessarily need a header article. Hut 8.5 13:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, what next? "Football players in the National Football League"? NawlinWiki 14:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Absurd. Greg Grahame 16:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - We already have lists of prophets in the Bible, and List of Biblical figures identified in extra-Biblical sources, most of whom have their own articles. All the other significant figues also have their own entries. This article only includes a few of the (arguably) better known individuals, and with no apparent purpose or criteria that is actually followed. ◄Zahakiel► 16:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, purposeless list, redundant to other articles. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Although the title was definitely worth a chuckle, it is a redundant useless article. --Hemlock Martinis 18:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Haven't got a clue what the aim of the article is Jack1956 18:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I almost suggested redirect--but what's the likelihood of someone searching for that here. Cruft, potential POV magnet. Blueboy96 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Completely redundant, both literally and theoretically. This is practically patent nonsense. VanTucky (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This is like "historical people in history books" or "Quran people in Islam". It has nothing to say and says it. Mandsford 23:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The scope of the title makes it redundant. --Stormbay 23:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete origional research--SefringleTalk 03:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom and cab. Carlossuarez46 18:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to List of Biblical figures — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor falk (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 July 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 delete. Redirecting can be done editorially. Daniel 05:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Life on neutron stars[edit]

    Life on neutron stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Unsourced original research and speculation. Note: there was some kind of squabbling in the history of this debate by a few inexperienced users. MER-C 05:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Seeing as this allegedly originated from two notable persons, it's remotely possibly notable (although probably better to merge to one of said person's own page). It would have helped if the page's creator had actually named which books this theory originated from so that what is not original research could be easily verified. Someguy1221 06:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as rank speculation. Concepts hypothesised in fiction are only notable if commented on by third-party sources. Article essentially consists of original research. Tree Kittens 06:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hmm, I seem to recall something related to this in a book by Larry Niven (in a commentary section, not in a story). This source [41] may be reliable, but I'm not sure. I can also find something that indicates Hans Moravec may have covered the idea. So I'm not convinced to keep, but I'd like some exploration of the issues before deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 06:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This article is clearly speculation in nature. It consists of unpublished facts and theories. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If reliable sources or notable people have commented on the speculation, would it not be best to mention this in passing in articles like Neutron star or extraterrestrial life rather than have an article on the speculation? How could we be expected to find reliable sources to contradict the assertion that life on neutron stars is plausible? How could we make the article neutral without introducing original research of our own? Tree Kittens 06:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. A reliable source on xenobiologic speculation would likely clearly label this theory as just that, speculation. And so there is (hopefully) no need to insert original research to make clear there is no evidence for this. Someone would just have to locate an actual source first. Further, the novels that allegedly sparked this theory (according to the article) are fiction, so that makes it pretty clear too. Someguy1221 07:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But if that speculation exists, and if third parties are discussing the speculation, it's notable speculation (and I don't know one way or the other at this point, so I'm not voting). Something doesn't have to be true to be in Wikipedia: we have articles on fan death and many ancient myths. This isn't scientifictopicsonlypleasepedia or geekguysapprovepedia; we cover what's been noted by reliable sources, not what we know is true (which in itself would be original research). --Charlene 10:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free to say what these reliable sources are. Tree Kittens 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And if no xenobiologist has commented on it? Then we're not allowed to say it's unlikely because that would be original research. We're not even allowed to say that no xenobiologist has commented on it, unless another reliable source has said so, because that too would be original research. We'd just have to put up with the absurdity of it. Tree Kittens 07:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't think a solution can be provided without knowing what the sources say yet, if they actually exist. Someguy1221 07:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You're absolutely right. I'm new to this process, so do excuse my over enthusiasm. Best regards Tree Kittens 07:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per "Concepts hypothesised in fiction are only notable" by Tree Kittens - Lack of notability for this concept Corpx 08:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Jreferee's findings below Corpx 18:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, but add additional sources to better show the influence, reception of this fascinating theory. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, unsourced, speculative, fictitious, etc. No one would put forth a serious work devoted to the possibility of life on a neutron star - anything that can be found will be a work of fiction or a tongue-in-cheek joke. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, while the presence of life on a neutron star may be unlikely, it has been used as a literary device by Robert Forward. Use by a single author isn't likely to be notable, but a quick search of Amazon turns up at least a half dozen books that cite Forward's use of the concept as an example. They use it to illustrate the extremes types of alien life that have been imagined by Science Fiction authors. Burzmali 16:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I don't consider the extent of general discussion significant, even if it were inserted in the article.. We are, by the way, permitted to engage in the necessary research of sources to se if it is discussed or not. The website given as the ref does not seem operative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 Jul 2007 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Dragon's Egg.  --LambiamTalk 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Dragon's Egg. Someguy1221 22:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Actually, one of the many interesting ideas suggested by Robert L. Forward, but not limited to him, so I don't think it should be redirected to Dragon's Egg. Speculation about what life could exist in high-gravity, whether Jupiter or a neutron star, is one of those concepts developed by scientists turned science fiction authors. Mandsford 23:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Dragon's Egg. As it is now, it depends on one academic website, not functioning right now. If we find a source, it should be a paragraph in that article; if there come to be several sources, we can separate it off again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Original research. Only source is self published. --SmokeyJoe 03:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep An archived version of the source is available here: [42]. It is no more and no less speculative than its parent subject, exobiology. --Victor falk 07:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That page is no more notable than a blog. Just because it is hosted on a university domain doesnt imply notability. Corpx 07:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source has been misunderstood. It is not about life on neutron stars at all, but the issue of scale in physics as it relates to thestrong force and other fundamental forces. The comment at the top about the possibility of life is a throw-away remark to set up an analogy to explain this. The author is not actually asserting the possibility. Has anyone found a reliable third-party source for the article? Tree Kittens 08:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find this inconsistent with the last two paragraphs, which make arguments about the speed of evolution in the enviroment of a neutron star. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • His allusion to the "speed of evolution" is an illustrative example of how forces at different scales cause certain types of event to happen more quickly. He is using the evolutionary time-scale as a descriptive and pedagogic analogy. If this source is accepted as reliable for this topic however, maybe we can look forward to articles on Civilisations on neutron stars, and Evolution on neutron stars... By the way, does anyone know the author of this essay? Have any other sources been discovered? Tree Kittens 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          The essay was course material for an undergraduate physics course on how physics has been used in the creation of science fiction[43] by Dr. Terry Boyce, while he was Honorary Associate Professor at the Physics Dept. of Hong Kong University.[44] He retired in 2004.[45]  --LambiamTalk 22:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You drive me to incivility; but I shall simply quote the paragraph:
            Since the time scale for strong-force life (typically 10-21 s) is only a minute fraction of the time scale for electromagnetic-force life (typically a thousandth of a second), we expect evolution to proceed that much more rapidly. The origin of life would then take not 1 billion years, as on Earth, but one billionth of a year - about one-thirtieth of a second. This seems a short time to us, but it would allow billions and billions of interactions for each of the complex nuclei, allowing entire civilizations to evolve faster than the human eye can wink. The individual members of these civilizations would be about 10-13 m in size and would live for about 10-15 s. For communication, they would probably use gamma-ray photons at a frequency 1010 times greater than that of visible light photons.
          Please do not cloud our discussion further. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I am sorry to have bothered you. I was making a perfectly valid point, with which you are perfectly entitled to disagree. In my humble opinion your large quotation largely supports my point especially when read in the context of the whole essay. I have no intention of "clouding our discussion"; quite the opposite. It would be good if people would say whether they regard the source as meeting Wikipedia's standards for reliability. Identifying its author would be a good start. Failing that, another source would help. Best regards Tree Kittens 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete — Speculative topic with no peer-reviewed scientific publications to provide credibility. — RJH (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete – Purely speculative essay, apparently inspired by Dragon's Egg. Merging with or redirecting to Dragon's Egg is acceptable is as alternate action. --EMS | Talk 19:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete Nonsensical drivel at best. Agree with ems57cva as an acceptable outcome, if it would placate the author. Jgassens 20:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Original research devoid of reliable sources, not much more to say. Trusilver 18:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - After a quick Google books search, I found at least four novels that address this hypothesis. With a little more effort, it is very likely that there are more reliable sources. The topic easily meets Wikipedia:notability. Comment: The novel Dragon's Egg is only notable if commented on by third-party sources. However, Dragon's Egg itself counts as a reliable source for this topic in determining Wikipedia notability. Notable hypothesis, speculation, and hoaxes still receive Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not censored merely because someone finds a hypothesis or speculation objectionable. Some references:
    -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You address the notability of the topic, but the concern is that the contents of the article is original research – which is a very different concern. You added all these publications as references. But are they sources for the contents? Can the various claims made in the article be verified from these references?  --LambiamTalk 19:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless someone can demonstrate that this isn't an original synthesis/analysis. The books themselves are primary sources. This would only seem to be either notable or not OR if there's any RS material discussing it. SamBC 21:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. It can come in another life if something notable is found. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gnangarra 01:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Nineham[edit]

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

    Nineham is essentially a functionary in a very small (but notable) political party in the UK. While his party is notable and contains notable persons, this notability does not transafer to Nineham.

    He fails Wikipedia policy for notability for politician which determine that only those politicians "who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." or are "(m)ajor local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. Nineham is neither. He is also not a noted political philosopher (nor even a leading theorist in his own party) but writes pamphlets for his party and articles in his party's paper. Just about every non-junior member of this small group does this.

    He is also not a noted union figure nor a noted extra-parliamentary figure - all he does in that regard is sit on a steering committee of an extra-parliamentary group. Bigdaddy1981 05:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Non notable political activist. Entirely fails Wikipedia criteria for politicians. Nick mallory 07:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete. Turned up a couple of news stories (in leftist media) quoting him, he has been published and does seem to be an important political organizer in left circles in England. Not outlandishly far from the notability bar, but I agree with nom that he does not make it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Unless his band gets AFDed, His name would survive as a redirect to the band by WP:BAND. This would be an inadequate representation of this person who is now more of a politician. I would delete without his band info.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment my understanding was that Nineham drummed for the June Brides for 1 year and on none of their albums (I might be wrong and he might have drummed on Eight Million Stories) that doesn't sound like that makes him notable as a musician either. Bigdaddy1981 22:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Marginal, but his association with both the band and the party makes him notable enough in my opinion. —Xezbeth 08:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Assuming this is the Chris Nineham from the Stop the War Coalition, the Military Families Against the War, Globalise Resistance, and organiser of the conference against Third World debt, there is enough WP:RS material to write an article on him. That makes him Wikipedia Notable, even if his is not notable (e.g., famous or important) as that term commonly is understood. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    States that have suspended or cancelled their recognition to the SADR[edit]

    States that have suspended or cancelled their recognition to the SADR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Article was tagged for speedy; it doesn't meet any speedy criterion, but does appear to be a POV fork of Legal status of Western Sahara. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Sr13 03:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Kyle Laidig[edit]

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

    Extremely detailed article w/photo about a 16-year old "influential freelance amateur photographer", created by a single-purpose account (see Special:Contributions/Fetuslord), sourced to a MySpace page. 19 GHits, all trivial. [47] Fails WP:BIO. cab 05:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete -- why not a CSD A7? Iknowyourider (t c) 05:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ☒N Delete clearly the vanity article of a non-notable individual. Article may assert notability, but it doesn't verify it in any reliable sources, trivial or otherwise. VanTucky (talk) 06:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, fails WP:BIO. Zero results in Google News Archive or Google Books. --Dhartung | Talk 07:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I'd speedy it for no credible assertion of notability, but let's let the AFD run its inevitable course. NawlinWiki 14:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete At best, WP:OR. Fails WP:BIO. Eliz81 15:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Absolutley classic case of somebody knocking up an entry about themselves in which they purport to be something great. No place on here whatsoever. Keresaspa 15:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per my notability tag; sorry I was too lazy to list it myself. I hope the editor will branch out, though, because he is a fairly good writer. Dekimasuよ! 00:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfy as it's probably WP:AUTO and should have been nominated for moving to the user's page. Bearian 22:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete (speedy delete?) per the comments above, fails WP:BIO and most other guidelines as well. (jarbarf) 03:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 03:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of television characters who are single fathers[edit]

    List of television characters who are single fathers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Delete per WP:FIVE which says that Wikipedia is NOT a trivia collection and this article is a collection of trivia about fiction (with the interjection of more trivial details from TV_Single_Dads) Corpx 05:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment, here is the diff with the suggestion that I followed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TV_Single_Dads&diff=50531787&oldid=50531701 --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it hasnt, and I dont think it will either :) Corpx 16:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 16:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Strong Keep ...not because it's a "dumb list" as some suggest, but because (as Sumnjim points out, there's already an article called "TV Single Dads". Hopefully, Sumnjim's observation isn't going to trigger a July 11 nomination I spoke too soon. It appears to be a coincidence (not being sarcastic here) that these two articles were created independently of each other, and nominated for deletion independently of each other on the same day. Keep because single fathers who are primary custodians are a non-traditional family arrangement that exist, and only more recently being portrayed on television. Mandsford 00:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. BTW, single dads have been portrayed on TV for decades. See The courtship of Eddie's father and My Three Sons, for goodness sake. -- Ssilvers 04:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete the article is a poor attempt to recreate (the not wonderful) TV Single Dads. Contrary to the article, the first divorced tv father well predated 1990; The Odd Couple's Felix was divorced with two kids back in the 1970s - lack of full custody not negating fatherhood, and other than Ssilvers' citations, there was Flipper, Eight is Enough, and even The Brady Bunch which afterall is "a story of a man named Brady, busy with three boys of his own..." Carlossuarez46 18:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Wryspy 16:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Per nom. Weak list of trivial info.--Bryson 18:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yes, I realize there are several delete votes here, but that was before the article on the band was re-created, so those are technically invalid votes now. Personally, I see no need to keep this discussion open if the nominator has withdrawn, so I'm closing it. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Age Eternal[edit]

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

    Non-notable album by non-notable band (their article has been deleted twice). Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Precious Roy 05:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per lack of notability for the band Corpx 05:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nn. Iknowyourider (t c) 05:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per lack of notablility. The album is not considered notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per lack of notability Mark E 09:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    *Delete does not pass WP:MUSIC --sumnjim talk with me·changes 12:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, nonnotable album. NawlinWiki 14:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, because Amazon.com link provided in article shows that it is notable enough to be sold by a major online distributor. I would, however, suggest that some reviews be added. In fact, I did a simple dogpile.com search and found a rather large number of reviews, which seemed to give the album pretty high scores. I have adjusted the article accordingly. Please re-examine it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Selling through Amazon is proof that the album is in print, that's about it. Anyway, Metal Blade is certainly a notable label. The thing is, if the band is not notable enough for its own article, then the album isn't. I follow the dictum—notable band, notable album. Precious Roy 17:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment, perhaps the same problem with the album article was what was wrong with the band article, i.e. that the band would have been notable if the editors had added more references? --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, Im not so sure this is a non-notable band. The article has been speedied twice, yet a quick look on google indicates that may have been due to the state of the article rather than the notability of the band. John Vandenberg 15:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I changed my vote from before. The record label which has released their album, Metal Blade Records has released albums for GWAR, Goo Goo Dolls, Slayer, and quite a few more famous bands. Because of that, they pass WP:BIO --sumnjim talk with me·changes 19:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep only if an article is made on the band. Otherwise, delete as non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC) I took the liberty to re-create the article on Middian; take a look at it and expand it if you want. If nothing else, they seem to at least pass WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nom withdrawn Band's article establishes notability. Precious Roy 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedily deleted by User:Jinian. NawlinWiki 14:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mobisite[edit]

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

    Non-notable neologism. Also, seems spammy. Sent to AfD because a prod was removed by page creator. Iknowyourider (t c) 04:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete The creator himself/herself admits that he/she coined the term. Corpx 05:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete, admitted protologism and attempt to astroturf. --Kinu t/c 05:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete This is clearly a word that has recently being coined. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete. Wikipedia is not for popularizing things; it's for things that have already received non-trivial independent third party notice. --Charlene 12:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in a day --sumnjim talk with me·changes 12:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete with redirect to hendiatris Gnangarra 01:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tripartite motto[edit]

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

    All google hits are Wikipedia mirrors. The article failed to explain (to me) what it even is! Giggy UCP 04:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per WP:NEO - ". 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" - Article fails to establish any secondary sources, so its WP:OR Corpx 04:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NEO. The lack of verifiablity is also a concern here. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to hendiatris. There are some in-passing Google Books returns, but it doesn't seem to really be a defined phrase, just one that has been (possibly independently) used descriptively. To that end, most of the article is synthesis. --Dhartung | Talk 07:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, because it concerns factual, familiar, famous phrases, but I agree that sources should be added. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Should probably be merged somewhere, and google isn't very helpful with this one, but I don't think it should be deleted outright because of that. Give it a chance for references to be added or for it to find a new home in another article. —Xezbeth 08:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep merge with something (hendiatris? motto?), as xezbeth xez.--Victor falk 15:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete - only assertion of notability was being signed to Enja - when they actually were not. Neil ╦ 14:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Joint Venture (music)[edit]

    Joint Venture (music) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    My prod was contested because I didn't do research when I prod'd it. I shouldn't have to do research. The article didn't, and still doesn't, indicate whty the group is notable. It simply states it existed, what the current status is, and what albums were released. It doesn't indicate sales of albums so we know whether or not they sold well or sat on the shelfs. We don't know if they won any awards, had sold out concerts, etc. In short, we don't know if they were local favorites at the pubs or sold out at arenas or something in between. Only source listed is their own website. This article fails on many levels. Postcard Cathy 03:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My point is that they might have recorded the albums but if they sat on the shelfs - or even possibly sat in the discount bins - and never sold, I don't care what record label they were on - it was an unsuccessful band. Sales are more notable than recordings. Add to it respect from others in the music industry. None of that is indicated here. Postcard Cathy

    PS Don't forget the only source is their own website. AFAIK, you need outside sources as well.

    Trying to clean-up, etc. the article and found that the discography listed was for a different Joint Venture. So the group in this AfD does not have any releases on Enja. Precious Roy 10:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even that doesn't argue for deletion. Apart from the discography, there's only one paragraph; if it's about the wrong band, it should be replaced by a paragraph about the right band. Capmango 16:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NawlinWiki 03:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which notable label is that? And WP:BAND suggests using redirects for "early bands". Precious Roy 17:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for figuring out the label. Ahuga appears to be Widmann's own label[48] and doesnt appear to have many other artists on the books[49][50]. I dont think the suggestion to redirect for "early bands" applies here, as this duo was together for seven years and produced at least five albums which are still available for sale today[51], and at least one was reissued in 2005. Note that this article exists on the German and French Wikipedia as well. A proper merge to Götz Widmann would a reasonable outcome. John Vandenberg 00:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - notability not established by article (external links are to the band's own site or broken) EyeSereneTALK 18:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All music guide is a directory. Being listed there does not grant notability Corpx 16:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I neither stated nor implied that it did. I was merely replying to user:EyeSerene's comment that the link was broken. Precious Roy 16:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No assertion of notability, fails WP:RS. Also delete related article Götz Widmann for the same reasons. Caknuck 14:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Anas talk? 12:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    SafeRidesUSA[edit]

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

    Non-notable organization, actually selling "gift cards" for use with taxis. Website shows that this organization hasn't really developed into anything at this point.[52] CitiCat 03:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • ☒N Speedy Delete While think it sucks to have to delete a non-profit trying to prevent drunk driving, this subject patently fails notability guidelines per a lack of any sources, trivial or siginificant. VanTucky (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, but not speedy. Very noble cause, and a very good idea, but noble is not equivalent to notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per lack of notability. There is a lack of significant coverage for this article. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, all the operating Safe Ride(s) programs I found in a search are limited to a specific city, university campus, or time period (e.g. New Year's). No coverage of this group, fails WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 07:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete without prejudice should this worthwhile cause ever receive third-party independent notice. --Charlene 12:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Surely there's some article about the welcome concept of providing free rides for the inebriated as a deterrent to drunk driving accidents (as many different organizations do after New Year's Eve) and this one can be merged into that. Nice idea for a company, but Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Mandsford 00:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Reliable sources can't be found in the internet, imply that it is not notable. Also, most of the paragraphs aren't even related to the organization itself.--Kylohk 10:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Antonio Inoki versus Renzo Gracie[edit]

    Antonio Inoki versus Renzo Gracie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    I originally proded the article because I don't think one fight at one event really is that notable. Still don't even though the author made a case for it on my discussion page. He suggested a possible merge which I think is the best option. Peter Rehse 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have appended the comments: I removed your tag for deletion, as I believe the fight is notable enough to include. The Gracie family has always been opposed to the work tradition in professional wrestling, so the fact that a Gracie fought in a work is notable. I also added one source (another is needed to verify that, in fact, the fight was a work).

    I do agree that the article should probably be merged into Antonio Inoki's own page, and into Renzo Gracie's own page, with the other fights on the card being incorporated into perhaps a new Inoki Bom-Ba-Ye page, or into the pages of the individual participants of them. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do this, being primarily a wikipedia user rather than editor (hence my lack of account).

    • Comment: Was Inoki vs. Gracie that notable? Not really. Was Inoki Bom-ba-ye, the TV special this fight was a part of? Yes. This event began the tradition of combat sport supercards airing on Japanese television on New Years Eve, which every year is the biggest night for TV viewership in the country. Inoki Bom-ba-ye lasted for three years, but similar events by PRIDE and K-1 continue the tradition, which still garners at least 15% share of televisions turned on that night. hateless 04:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete this type of article is more appropriate for wikinews. Per, WP:NOT, "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article.". I think this qualifies as exactly that. Corpx 04:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. A single professional wrestling match is not notable. --Charlene 10:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge, because of notable participants, i.e. a legendary mixed martial artists versus a legendary wrestler. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per Charlene's comment, and also that a lot of the article is just a list of the event itself - which should be moved to its own page. --SteelersFan UK06 15:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, info could be included on both of the participants' respective articles. A separate article on one match? Definitely not needed. Nikki311 20:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I am perplexed as to why this has a separate article? Surely a mention on the respective wrestler bios is enough. Darrenhusted 22:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, I've never seen a Triple H versus Shawn Michaels page or The Undertaker versus Kane page, so why have this? Davnel03 20:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions.Peter Rehse 07:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Anas talk? 13:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Intrevention[edit]

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

    This article was created by a single purpose account and has been orphaned and tagged as non notable for some time. I can't make heads or tails of it and no expert has responded to the request for help placed by another editor some time ago. Google doesn't come up with anything, it is a possible misspelling of intervention, but I don't know how that fits in with warehousing. Either some one can improve it during AfD or it should probably just be deleted. Daniel J. Leivick 03:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Dicdef and a poor one at that.--Ispy1981 03:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Dicdef and looks like nonsense. Oysterguitarist 03:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Nonsense, WP:WINAD, etc. Also don't see any proof that this is a real definition of either intrevention or intervention; all 56 GBooks hits are clearly using it as a misspelling of intervention. [53]. On the basis of having so many GBooks hits, maybe redirect to intervention after deletion? However, I don't see the fact that it's been in the (non-subject-sorted) Category:Articles needing expert attention for x months to mean anything at all; does anyone really look through that category besides statistics bots? What's the likelihood that a business expert is just gonna happen to click through all the way to 'I'?cab 03:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually added the expert-review tag on July 3, and announced it here. So it hasn't been on the category for months. I would have preferred a longer waiting time for the expert review, before sending the article to AfD. But still, neither to the expert review nor to the AfD there were any responses that clarified the subject; so probably it's only nonsense in the end. --B. Wolterding 17:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Dicdef. WP:WINAD. Bart133 (t) (c) 04:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It is clearly stated that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is about an actual word. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Either this is misspelled, and ought to be rewritten (and perhaps added to intervention); or else it is jargon being defined by other, even more impenetrable jargon. In the latter case, it might just possibly be a stub with potential, but the existing page is so free from context that it approaches unintelligibility. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete origional research--SefringleTalk 20:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to intervention. This seems to be a cost-accounting topic, which would make it worthy of an article, if it could be sourced. However, I could not find any mention of the term in several accounting books, and Google is no help. So I would say delete as unverifiable, except it would make a nice redirect, since it is a plausible typo. --Ginkgo100talk 01:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or redirect---my wife asked me about this article before it was up for AFD because I work for one of the big 4 firms... I couldn't find anything on this term and have never heard it.Balloonman 02:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Wryspy 16:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    TV Single Dads[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    TV Single Dads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics and much Original Research. Article starts with the dubious statement; "The TV Single Dad show is a genre". I have tried to find sources confirming this is a notable genre in television, but there are only 32 unique Google results for this term, most of which are for tvdads.com (a site which this article may have been created just to promote). Also, the examples (24, Desperate Housewives, Skippy the Bush Kangaroo, Steptoe & Son, etc) are so loosely connected they violate WP:NOT#DIR. Article was nominated for deletion last year, with no consensus. Masaruemoto 02:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong delete, definitely a loosely associated list, original research, unverifiable, etc. etc. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, because there appear to be enough notable TV shows that fit in this pattern to justify an article, if as the nominator Masaruemoto suggests references can be used to show that it is not original research. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - It's a huge stretch to say that this is a definable genre; most of the shows don't even match the characteristics cited in the article. — Laura Scudder ☎ 03:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete looks like original research and would be hard to verify. Oysterguitarist 03:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Nowhere near a complete list, original research and, although it doesn't fit the broad definition, a smearing of BS. Single dad is a subgenre, at best.--Ispy1981 03:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Given the number of shows that have been created, you could fit a decent number into nearly any category. Doesn't make them notable. Resolute 03:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Shouldn't the article nominated have a tag on it? I just went to the article TV Single Dads, but did not see the AfD tag on it. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would hardly call it a compromise. It was a suggestion by another editor (which I disagree with). I also dont think articles that focus solely on trivia cant be improved much Corpx 17:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I figure if someone suggested it, why not give it a try? :) --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep A similar article is nominated for deletion today as well, although it appears to be a coincidence, not a conspiracy. However, single parent families are a fact of life, and Wikipedia has a strong pro-television bent to it, with articles on nearly every facet of TV. This is no less worthy than articles about episodes of Everwood, and makes more sense than same Mandsford 00:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Wryspy 16:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Say, that is a keep vote above you isn't it. -MrFizyx 19:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Per nom. Fails WP:NOT and WP:NOR.--Bryson 18:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Guyz Nite[edit]

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

    This page's claim to notability is the use of one of their songs in a trailer for the film Live Free or Die Hard. Trouble is, I can't confirm that this is true; rather the contrary. The IMDb FAQ for the film does not mention the song being in a trailer, and two blog posts seem to indicate a not-very-notable marketing connection at best. ([54], [55]). --Ginkgo100talk 02:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak delete On the basis of I can't find anything notable about the band other than the tenuous Die Hard connection, which is falsely attributed in the article. According to the NY Times article here, the band made a "tribute" video, using pirated clips from all three previous movies. Fox decided not to sue and, instead, let them use material from "Live Free or Die Hard". The article mentions POSSIBLY that the video will appear in the future LFODH DVD, but that's it.--Ispy1981 02:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Not being sued is not much of a claim to notability, and the DVD connection is a crystal ball. --Ginkgo100talk 03:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Good points. I changed my vote.--Ispy1981 03:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Ispy1981. Oysterguitarist 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per lack of notability/media mentions Corpx 05:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Being a new Wikipedian, I'm not exactly sure if I can vote in an AfD made for my own article, however I am searching for a youtube link to the trailer and will post it if found. GreyTwilight 05:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Youtube links dont generally establish notability. If you can find reliable sources that published articles about the band, it'll establish notability Corpx 05:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to Wikipedia guidelines, nobody "votes" in an AfD. We just submit "recommendations". User:GreyTwilight should feel free to submit a recommendation as long as it is supported by a good justification, and for full disclosure, preferably the recommendation should also include the statement "I created this article". --Metropolitan90 07:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be no reason why anyone should not be able to participate in these discussions. We all have to start at some stage in our time as editors and some learn fast. So, welcome! :) --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Even if their video ends up on the DVD, that's a rather tenuous claim to notability. If anything, it would earn the band mention in the movie's article (in the DVD section). Precious Roy 08:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, because having a title song in a blockbuster film seen by who knows how many millions on TV spots is definitely notable. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Agreed, except it's not the title song for the film. Also, I watched every trailer I could find (about 7 on YouTube alone) and none of them used that song. Precious Roy 16:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Question for Le Grand Roi. Did you happen to see the NY Times article I presented? Neither the song nor the video are used in any promotional material for any of the films nor do they feature in LFODH. It was basically a tribute song to the films.--Ispy1981 20:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment The TV spot in question that features the song was released recently, after the release of the movie, and therefore may not be addressed in the NYT article or IMDB. GreyTwilight 21:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment If that's the case, then I would suggest delete with option to restore if IMDb or another reliable media source makes a mention of it. YouTube is not reliable enough because there is no guarantee that a given video was not fan-created. (Is "delete with option to restore" done often?) --Ginkgo100talk 01:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Their one-and-only claim to notability is pretty tenuous and unsourced. Besides, even if true it wouldn't pass WP:MUSIC on that alone anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. —Kurykh 04:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of songs about drugs[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    List of songs about drugs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    One of the last WP:NOT#IINFO-violating list of songs about on wikipedia. Here is the list of songs about graveyard: [56]. List of songs about fecal expulsion. It existed Bulldog123 02:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. "List of songs about fecal expulsion" existed? Really? No s**t! (Sorry, I had to do it...) Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete, definitely indiscriminate, uncontrollable, hard to verify, you name it. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 02:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete Per WP:FIVE, which says WP Is not a trivia collection. I definitely see this article as a collection of trivia. Indexing what's mentioned in a song's lyrics is trivia. Corpx 02:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete trivia and it would be hard to verify. Oysterguitarist 03:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Impossible to maintain, trivial, and the topic is much too broad. Also, a lot of redlinked bands; these lists seem to be a haven for them. --Bongwarrior 03:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. If you think it is impossible to maintain, don't work on maintaining it. If you think it is trivial, work on something that you think is important. Redlinks are not bad. This is useful to the people who study songs, disc jockeys, drug takers, anti-drug fanatics, etc... It is tagged as being uncited. The purpose of tagging things as uncited is to improve the articles and lists, not to ultimately get them deleted. I strongly believe that removing all these song lists is a big mistake. I see nothing wrong with lists of information like this. I do not think policies or guidelines about what constitutes trivia are a productive way of spending our time. Everyone thinks something is trivia. Someone else will think the same information worthy of study. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete Trivia, not supported by reliable sources. Fails WP:ATT and WP:NOT. --Charlene 12:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Unlike the "songs about killers" AFD, this one seems to me to be a delete candidate. Firstly, many songs are claimed to about drugs, and verification of false positives/true negatives seems to be particularly difficult. Secondly, this list would be almost infinitely long - there must be thousands of songs written about drugs or drug-taking. All in all, therefore, I would go with delete. Batmanand | Talk 12:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Does not pass WP:NOT for being an indiscriminate list. Unable to be maintained as every day there is a new song about a drug. FYI, it appears the previous AFD, although the result was keep, a lot of the people used WP:ILIKEIT for their reasoning for keeping, which is not a valid reason for keeping an article --sumnjim talk with me·changes 12:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Listcrufty trivia Lurker (talk · contribs) 15:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NOT#INFO, WP:OR etc (same comment as for List of songs about killers below EyeSereneTALK 17:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Drug addiction is a problem, and drug culture has been a traditional part of a lot of popular music. Parents and educators need to be aware of which songs, and which artists, make veiled references to narcotics abuse (or, on the contrary, against drug abuse). If you like censoring Wikipedia today, trust me, you'll want to screen your kids' music when you're parents. Mandsford 00:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete suffers the same problems as the other "songs about" lists: how much about the subject must the song be, and who tells it is at least that much? Also, "drugs" is quite wide, even limiting it to psychoactive drugs, as suggested in the article, "drugs" includes alcohol, nicotine and caffeine. Carlossuarez46 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per delete arguments above. "About" is vague, subjective. Cannot be applied objectively and consistently. Wryspy 16:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete First of all, who needs these kinds of lists? Second of all, this could be a very controversial article, some people may think a song refers to "drugs" and another doesn't. Also, it would be very, very difficult to verify, pretty much the only way you could do that is to ask the writers of the song etc. Because no one except them know the intent of the songs. Of course some songs are obvious, but we still need to verify, which is hard in this case --♫Twinkler4♫ (Talk to me!) 03:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 02:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Parker Core Knowledge Charter School[edit]

    Parker Core Knowledge Charter School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    no assertion of notability Chris 01:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment My experience with "non-notable" schools is that they can all be proven notable to some degree. This one appears to lack notability. I will watch with interest. --Stormbay 02:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, as it is written now. No notable alumni, no historical value, no architectural value claimed in thr article. Callelinea 03:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ☒N Speedy Delete no verification or proof of notability is present, or obtainable from a cursory Google search. The content is basically a placeholder without any distinguishing characteristics. VanTucky (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete agree with above. Tiggerjay 06:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as above, but probably not a speedy deletion candidate. Eusebeus 15:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete almost no information. (Schools are not subject to speedy deletion.) DGG (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per DGG. If a school can be summed up in a couple of sentences, then it probably isn't notable :) MetsFan76 21:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect to Parker, Colorado in an effort to stave off recreation and encourage development where it makes sense to do so. (jarbarf) 03:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda wat's sup 01:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of songs about killers[edit]

    List of songs about killers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    It is a "cool" list, but that's about it. Here is the list of song about graveyard: [57]. WP:NOT#IINFO. Note, this is the second to last list of song about not recently nominated. Bulldog123 01:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong delete, definitely indiscriminate list of loosely associated topics. Lyrics in general aren't very concrete evidence, so a song could in theory be about X, when it's really about Y, Z, or even nothing! Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Because of the detail of the list, I would have voted "Strong Keep", but part of the reason so many killers are listed is that a band called "Macabre" seems to crank out songs like a musical version of Jay Robert Nash. Moreover, if "Stagger Lee" has been covered by ten bands (including the "Greatful Dead"-- thank heaven that a Deadhead did a redirect), no need to list the title ten times. Gotta disagree with the idea that the songs here may have a different meaning or that this is an "indiscriminate" list. Unlike most subjects for song, evil people aren't referred to with any subtlety at all, and often the name ends up right in the title... thus, it's not hard to figure out what "The Ballad of Jeffrey Dahmer" is about. So, clean it up, but this is a keeper. Mandsford 02:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 02:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete This is pure trivia and WP is not a trivia collection. Indexing songs based on what's mentioned in their lyrics is trivia. Corpx 02:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not if the songs are an outgrowth of a form (the murder ballad) that has long been studied by folklorists. -MrFizyx 17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep per Mandsford --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete trivia. Oysterguitarist 03:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep per Mandsford. I see nothing in the cited section of NOT that is directly relevant to this list:
      1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. NOPE.
      2. Plot summaries. NOPE. This section talks about articles, not lists. No list fulfills this criteria.
      3. Lyrics databases. NOPE. This section talks about lyrics and source text. These lists don't contain lyrics, they organize subject matter around themes.
      4. Statistics. NOPE.
      5. News reports. NOPE.
      All of these AFDs about song lists are pushing NOT into new territory. I think the effort is very counter productive. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though, it really isn't meant to be taken this literally. Obviously every case can't be in one of those categories. The writers knew this. Like the Constitution really. Bulldog123 04:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that this list is actually quite useful - it is the kind of thing that I might potentially want to look up. Obviously, it could be better referenced, but nonetheless I don't think this is trivia, so I cannot see why to delete. Batmanand | Talk 12:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete delete delete, first of all, you can not use WP:ILIKEIT as a valid reason to keep an article,this is indiscriminate in the purest sense. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 12:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not "ILIKEIT". One of the criteria for the inclusion of lists is that they are actually useful, and not arbitrary/trivial. IMO this list is not. An opinion is not the same as an unqualified emotional response. Batmanand | Talk 12:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had to run out for breakfast quick because so I was unable to give a reason why I feel this should be deleted. I believe it to be an indiscriminate list, and because of that, meets the criteria for deletion. Oh and by the way saying that a list is useful (per your own words) is WP:ILIKEIT --sumnjim talk with me·changes 12:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to that, how do we know thaat each and every song on this list is truely about the person? Where are the sources? Sounds like original research to me, which is also a reason to delete --sumnjim talk with me·changes 12:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On that interpretation of ILIKEIT (which, incidentally, is an essay), any opinion on notability, usefulness, trivia or anything else is not a valid part of a deletion debate. The definition of "useful" is up for debate, but not whether there should be a debate at all. Your point about OR, however, is well made; thus I change my opinion to delete.Batmanand | Talk 13:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like it. But that's not enough. It would be a pity to lose the "value added" by the list. Is there some way to rename it that would make it keepable? Bucketsofg 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps one could make the connection to murder ballad more clear. This, however, seems to be more specific than a List of murder ballads, because it is restricted to songs where the killer is known and it does not include fictional songs or songs where the details of the original story has been lost over time. -MrFizyx 17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Big strong delete Hey, if everyone else is using "strong..." why shouldn't I? It's a trivia article. Lurker (talk · contribs) 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom and above comments. This fails WP:NOT#INFO, WP:OR etc, and opens the way to create List of songs about ______ with whatever tenuous connection spring to mind. EyeSereneTALK 17:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hate to cite "the essays", but isn't the last part of your argument pretty much WP:WAX? -MrFizyx 17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suppose it does, yes ;) I just don't like the 'ABC vaguely related by XYZ' type of listcruft that WP seems to suffer from. The other two points re info for the sake of listing things and original research are still valid AfD criteria though. EyeSereneTALK 11:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Songs about killers are not a notable subgenre of song, making this list, indeed, indiscriminate. If someone is worried about losing the information, suggest housing it off Wikipedia. GassyGuy 00:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete suffers from the same "songs about" problems. Carlossuarez46 19:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, ah, yes "songs about killers" is a notable subgenre, although not well described here. These would appear to be the subset of murder ballads that are non-fictional. I find the claim that the list is "indicriminate" to not be valid. The current article has some obvious issues with WP:RS and perhaps WP:OR. I think these could be overcome though. Not everything in Bulldog's graveyard is dead. Lets tag this one with {{unreferenced}} and give it some time. -MrFizyx 21:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has been around for a YEAR. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 01:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it has been around for a year and no one has ever tagged it with {{cleanup}} or for {{original research}} or {{refimprove}}. No one has posted a comment on the talk page. No one has proposed moving the article to a new title. In a year, no one has ever noted the need to address any of the reasonable complaints about this article being made here. AfD should not be the first stop for every article or list that has short commings. This should only be more true if the article is long-standing and has drawn in a number of editors. -MrFizyx 14:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know not everything is dead there but I think the point is that getting rid of all bad song lists now gives us the opportunity to make some really good song lists. Personally I think list of answer songs is really good. An answer song is a distinct type of song and the list is useful and notable (since many answer songs are part of a controversy). Bulldog123 03:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know of no reasonable argument that you could make for (or against) keeping the List of answer songs article that does not parallel a reasonable argument that could be made for (or against) List of songs about killers. The same would be true with many of the other titles that have been part of your crusade. I admit, I'm baffled by that one... Isn't a murder ballad a distinct type of song with historic origins? Don't the songs collected here relate historical events and people? Why should this list be any less useful or notable? If you do realize that there are potentially good lists, why not try to improve the ones with potential rather than destroy such content? -MrFizyx 14:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Wryspy 16:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ya know, there has been an awful lot of discussion above. Care to be more specific? -MrFizyx 17:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per all the above delete arguments. "About" is vague, subjective, and impossible to apply objectively and consistently. Wryspy 06:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're saying that no one can ever know what anything is "about"? -MrFizyx 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Per Samuel Wantman - you are redefining what WP:NOT means with all of these deletions and destroying years of work by hundreds, maybe thousands of editors to uphold a policy that doesn't say what you claim it says. Tvoz |talk 23:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if this "you" is in reference to the nominator or just a universal you, but, taking a look at the history, it seems the only main contributor to the list was User:Bakilas, who doesn't seem to edit much anymore. So I wouldn't say hundreds... Bulldog123 17:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Useful, elucidating and enteraining. Never used it before, but I will in the future. Things like this are meant, I think, to be a "springboard" towards further reading. Where and how are readers supposed to make connections between the songs and the sometimes obscure subjects they describe if not for easy to use additions to the project such as this? Hamster Sandwich 23:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 02:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Stake (lawn game)[edit]

    Stake (lawn game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    No references or case for note made, still largely OR and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day seems to apply (again, barring the availability of good references and citations). Given the very, very general name, I'm having a hard time finding any myself. MrZaiustalk 01:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I usually make a good faith effort to find references, but... this time I'm not even going to try. - Richfife 02:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per lack of notability Corpx 02:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • additional comment Note that the talk page implies that the game might be more common in Hispanic communities. Given that, if someone bilingual is willing to take a look, there might be Spanish-language sources available. Just hard to impossible to find sources for the specific game(s) described in the article in English, largely due to the nondescript name. MrZaiustalk 02:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Oysterguitarist 03:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This isn't a game, this is an accident waiting to happen. Also per nom. Nate 05:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Anas talk? 12:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Alex Randel[edit]

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

    This page describes a non-existent fictional character. As the character does not exist, this article should be deleted The Clawed One 01:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - Overkill, even if he is important to the Yu-gi-oh world, a sentence or two in one of the other article about his deck should suffice. Burzmali 02:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's just it, he isn't important, he doesn't exist at all. The user seems to have confused Wikipedia with Fanfiction.net. The Clawed One 02:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What you're saying is that this is non-canonical character created by someone outside of the originators of Yu-Gi-Oh, right? If so, Speedy Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS or hoax or WP:NFT or whatever. - Richfife 02:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Exactly, the character is non-canon and never existed. The Clawed One 02:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Quick research shows no significant hits or any evidence to indicate this character is part of the Yu-Gi-Oh universe. Call it bullshit, call it things made up in school one day, it doesn't belong here.--Ispy1981 03:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Completely non-notable character. --Charlene 12:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Even if the character was real, the article is horribly written. Erratic Communist 13:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Anas talk? 22:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yu-Gi-Oh GX Summer Break[edit]

    Yu-Gi-Oh GX Summer Break (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    this page describes a non-existent story arc in a fictional subject. The mere fact the subject it discusses isn't real is proof enough it should be deleted The Clawed One 01:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete article covers a topic that does not exist, i.e some ephemeral time period between seasons without episodes. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete not because it covers "a topic that does not exist" (existence is neither an inclusion or exclusion criteria. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God), but because it's unverifiable (see GHits [58]), fails to assert notability, and I believe non-canonical fan-fiction [59]. cab 03:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom; seriously fails WP:ATT, lacks content, is original research... EyeSereneTALK 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 02:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Another World opening sequence[edit]

    Another World opening sequence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The opening sequence of this series isn't notable enough for its own article. The closing credit sequence was deleted recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing credits of Another World. Masaruemoto 01:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep, because the article looks nice from a presentational standpoint with images and text, concerns a major soap opera that has been on television for many, many years, is rather well written. My only criticism is that there should be some kind of external links and/or reference section. Plus, just because one article was deleted does not necessarily mean that this article's quality is the same as the deleted one or worse. I'm not saying it's better, because I cannot compare it to the deleted one, but it might be and as it stands looks quite good, with the exception of the lack of sources, but I would hope that that is something editors can develop. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Keep, because the article looks nice"? That's a new one in AFD. The "quality" of the deleted Closing credits of Another World or this article have no relevance to whether it should be kept or deleted. I hope this isn't a reaction to my comment to you in another AFD (you seem to believe that adding images to articles that violate policy somehow improves them). Please familiarise yourself with WP:NOT. Masaruemoto 02:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the article should have more references, but I don't see any policy violations. Also, please Wikipedia:Assume good faith, because I don't make "reaction" posts to comments by users made elsewhere. I won't say it's a Wikipedia:No personal attacks insult or something, but I've been away for a while and am trying to do my best here and just thought it a little unfair to make that implication. Anyway, I'll probably be heading to bed soon. So, goodnight! :) Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't an assumption of bad faith to point out the obvious, that within 2 minutes of you replying to my critical comment in one of yesterday's AFDs your very next edit was saying "keep" here based on a non-existant argument, even though there were over 120 AFD articles listed in between that you didn't comment on. Then 3 minutes later you went straight to another of my AFDs and added another "keep". You then commented in one unrelated AFD, followed by adding another "keep" to an AFD I started FIVE DAYS AGO. You cite WP:AGF but you are apparently WP:STALKING me by looking for my AFDs and adding "keep" to them. Out of the several hundred AFDs made in the last 5 days I have only nominated 7 or 8 of those, yet you have managed to find 3 of them, while ignoring hundreds of others. I can only assume my criticism at the Hydra AFD offended you, but you did ask for other editors' opinions on the article. Targetting my AFDs isn't going to have much effect, other than make people suspicious of your motives. Masaruemoto 05:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are way off base and should lay off on accusations. I have participated in numerous discussions, several of which I don't believe you commented in, and I have made scores of edits to articles that I don't believe you had any participation in either. If in the off chance out of multiple edits, I happened to "vote" in a mere three of these that you also contributed in is nothing to get excited about. Please do not be paranoid. I think you're trying to distract from the actual discussion at hand and I hope that isn't the case. I will avoid debating you further and request that you be Wikipedia:Civility and do the same. Thank you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete I thought we had enough trouble with plot summaries....What exactly is notable about this opening sequence. Lots of WP:OR in there too Corpx 01:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete per Corpx. Why an opening sequence? Oysterguitarist 03:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. WP:OR, reads in part like a poor essay, and per Corpx. Flyguy649 talk contribs 06:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete this nicely-presented article for utter lack of sources, which are probably impossible to find. --Huon 09:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No opening sequence is notable enough to require an article. No third parties are talking about the opening sequence to this cancelled (but highly notable) program. --Charlene 10:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I didn't nominate this myself previously and was planning on !voting "weak keep" here because of the use of a Billboard Top 100 hit as the theme music. However, there does not appear to be a separate article for the theme music so I can't in any way now justify this article. The show is very notable. Notability of the show does not mean that every aspect of the show is also independently notable. Otto4711 18:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    F You Plan[edit]

    F You Plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Can't find results on google. Possible hoax. KJS77 01:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Sr13 02:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of actors receiving six or more BAFTA Film Award nominations[edit]

    List of actors receiving six or more BAFTA Film Award nominations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Arbitrary inclusion criteria; there is no reason why this isn't five or more BAFTA Film Award nominations or seven or more BAFTA Film Award nominations, other than the creator of this list has arbitrarily chosen that number. Also nominating the related lists; List of films receiving six or more Golden Globe Award nominations, List of film actors receiving five or more Golden Globe Award nominations, List of film directors receiving three or more Golden Globe Award nominations, List of films receiving three or more Golden Globe Awards, List of actors receiving two or more BAFTA Film Awards.

    Many similar and related lists have recently been deleted for the same reasons, ie; List of films receiving the three main Golden Globe Awards per category, List of films receiving six or more BAFTA Film Awards, List of films receiving three or more acting BAFTA Film Award nominations, List of films receiving two or more acting BAFTA Film Awards, List of films receiving ten or more BAFTA Film Award nominations, List of films receiving two or more acting Golden Globe Awards, List of people receiving ten or more Golden Globe Award nominations, List of people receiving three or more Directors Guild of America Award nominations, List of films receiving three or more Screen Actors Guild Award nominations, List of people receiving four or more Screen Actors Guild Award nominations, List of film actors receiving two or more Screen Actors Guild Awards, and List of films receiving the Golden Globe Award "Big Five". Masaruemoto 00:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong delete. This is pure WP:TRIVIA and definitely not a rational list. I mean, why should we unfairly discriminate against films that got "only" five BAFTA noms? And why just nominated films, and not ones that actually won said award? Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per TenPoundHammer. Burzmali 01:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 01:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete arbitrary inclusion criterion for the list. --Haemo 01:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP is not a trivia collection or a directory Corpx 01:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete wikipedia is not the place for trivia. Oysterguitarist 03:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep WP:TRIVIA does not apply to these lists, the guideline relates to "trivia sections" of unrelated facts. None of these list contain unrelated facts. They all clearly go together. Wikipedia IS a collection of trivia. What I consider trivia, someone else writes a PhD thesis about. I think it is very counter productive to try and determine which information is trivial. We'll never agree. Rather than try, it would be much more productive to give everything a place in Wikipedia as long as it can be verified with a third party source. Clearly all of these lists are verifiable. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Whilst it might be true that WP:TRIVIA does not strictly apply here, WP:SAL does, and it was clearly written so that arbitrary lists such as this one can be deleted. Batmanand | Talk 12:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Are reliable third parties discussing the specific topic of six-time BAFTA nominees? I don't see any. --Charlene 12:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as arbitrary criteria. A list of multiple winners in order of their awards might be in order? Bucketsofg 13:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Magioladitis 13:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, nom hits this one on the head - arbitrary inclusion criteria. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom and Arkyan. Carlossuarez46 19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete arbitrary trivia per above. Wryspy 16:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per above; listcruft. Bearian 22:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Also, NWill (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) created some of these lists, has been with Wikipedia since July 2005, but has never posted on a User talk page or apparently any other talk page. This seems odd to me. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was No consensus (default to keep). The article has been significantly expanded, so those recommendations to delete based upon it only being directory information have been addressed and made largely moot. Similarly, keeps based on local notability (undemonstrated) and all high schools being notable (no wide consensus for such a view) were weak as well...This defaults to no consensus based on the lack of a substantially clear notability case as well as subpar keep arguments.

    I have not, however, vetted the new information & sources and, as such, it may be worthwhile to re-assess the article as it currently stands. — Scientizzle 16:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    York School (Toronto)[edit]

    York School (Toronto) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Article fails to assert notability of institution; merely states the location. Aarktica 01:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete unless detail is added with citation to independent, reliable sources, providing significant coverage of the school.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete not notable, it just says where it's located. Oysterguitarist 02:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, as it is written now. No notable alumni, no historical value, no architectural value claimed in the article.Callelinea 03:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ☒N Speedy Delete article lacks enough significant coverage to provide notability. VanTucky (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy deletion is only for article that meet the criteria for speedy deletion. While someone might arguable say this meets A1/3 (empty), it is patently not within the ambit of CSD A7.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy delete as a recommendation in AFD's is used quite commonly (you might read a few), and it obviously doesn't suggest an article undergo the WP:SPEEDY process. It means the commentator doesn't see much room or points for discussion, that consensus is clearly leaning in a certain direction. It can also suggest that the AFD be closed before the typical waiting period. VanTucky (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, speedy deletion is done under the criteria and only if articles meet the criteria, and does not take on special meaning in afd debates (nor is it a stand in for WP:SNOW, as you imply). Please don't conflate the fact that articles which have been nominated for afd sometimes also meet CSD criteria and are speedied, with speedy deletion meaning a different thing here. Read a few? That's quite an assumption!--Fuhghettaboutit 05:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    VanTucky, you're thinking of the snowball clause. Speedy deletion, as noted, has very specific criteria, and the particular one you have in mind should usually be cited in your !vote. Additionally, we don't use the distracting graphics in AFD that I know are used in other deletion processes. --Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as no clear claim to notability has been established. --Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am going to try to find enough material on this school to justify keeping the article, so please do not speedy delete it. Cardamon 10:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Cardamon 12:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The school is notable because of its unusual structure and history (how many high schools begin as nursery schools?) and because apparently it is the first school in Canada to offer the International Baccalaureate (IB) "from junior kindergarten (JK) to grade 12". Cardamon 12:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The International Baccalaureate claim is an outright lie: College International Marie De France in Montreal has long offered that program as a matter of course. Eusebeus 13:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I couldn't find College International Marie De France on the IBO's list of schools in Quebec. [60]. I also couldn't find any mention of the IBO on the website of College International Marie De France . Maybe you can point it out to me? Cardamon 22:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I went to the IBO's list of 247 IBO World schools in Canada which is here, and the claim checks out. There are indeed about 4 other schools in Canada accredited to teach all 3 IBO programs, but the York School was the first in Canada to be accredited to teach all three, in 2005. The other ~ 4 schools have been accredited to teach all three since 2007. Cardamon 05:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. It's a school and I see that the article is not orphan. Magioladitis 13:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Thanks to Cardamon, this article now establishes notability with multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Any closer of this discussion should understand that the article was a one sentence stub at the time the AfD was filed and is a wholly different article than what was seen by the early participants. -- DS1953 talk 14:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A directory of private schools, this schools own website, and an alumni magazine are not reliable sources in establishing notability. VanTucky (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't forget the vanity press release site - another standout source! Eusebeus 15:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete still not apparently worthwhile on it's own IMO, but should better be merged into a suitable collection. SamBC 14:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep All high schools are notable. Greg Grahame 16:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Contrary to the belief of such radical inclusionists, there is no project wide consensus or policy/guidline that supports the automatic notability of schools. That view is certainly contested, and is not a valid, stand-alone argument for keep. Schools are subject to WP:V and WP:Notability just like any other article, and this one, with it's flimsy, trivial coverage, does not meet those standards. VanTucky (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Notable in Toronto Taprobanus 17:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The school has been relatively free of scandal, unlike some other independent schools in Toronto. As Taprobanus points out, the school is notable in Toronto, despite not having the high profile of Upper Canada College or Bishop Strachan School. --Eastmain 20:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's locally notable, by the wikipedia definition, then there should be independent reliable sources. The links provided appear to be a press release, some directory entries, and the website of the school itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambc (talk • contribs) 21:28, 10 July 2007
    • Keep Plenty of sources have been added since the original nomination, although editors who voted at the beginning don't seem to have kept up with the changes. As WP:N states: " The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." The Blue Book entry is longer than many newspaper articles and appears independent. That combined with the several other sources of lesser quality is more than enough to satisfy Wikipedia notability. Noroton 02:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • These sources seem, but for one, to be directory entries, press releases, and the school's own website. These are stated as not counting. The remaining source, a CBC article, mentions York School in passing. SamBC 02:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And yet the language I quoted directly from the policy clearly allows it, or am I misreading it somehow? Noroton 03:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I should clarify what I meant: those sources are considered unacceptable when establishing notability. For self-published and press-release material, WP:NOTE clearly says that ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." This eliminates the self-published and press release sources as establishing notability. I'm still re-finding the mention of directory entries as not establishing notability. Once I've found it, I believe that the only notability-relevant source left is the CBC article with the passing mention. SamBC 13:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Further to this, there is a 'by-example' mention in WP:ORG that entries in a business directory don't establish notability. The reasoning is pretty simple - if existencein a directory established notability, pretty much every business and organisation would be notable, which they patently aren't. SamBC 13:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please note that some of us who gave our opinion early on have kept up with the changes. I haven't changed my opinion because I haven't seen a single citation to a source that is: reliable and independent and treats the subject substantively (significantly, non-trivially; whatever WP:N word du jour you'd like to pick).--Fuhghettaboutit 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • What about the CBC News article? Cardamon 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • It hardly even mentions York School. SamBC 21:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The mention of The York School is 2 paragraphs, 5 sentences, and 118 words, if I counted correctly.Cardamon 22:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • One paragraph introduces the York School, and the other mentions their plagiarism policy. And that 'and' should be an 'or', really, seeing as they're different ways of counting the same thing. In the overall scope of the article, it's in passing. They're talking about a general phenomenon and use the York School as an example. The article isn't about the York School by any stretch of the imagination. SamBC 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • SamBC I'm confused here about what you think about the Bunting & Lyon Blue Book source here (already a source in the article). It seems substantive and independent. It's irrelevant if the book is a directory since the coverage of the subject of the article seems fine. Noroton 22:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no issue with the Blue Book source as a source of information and providing verification. I have a problem with it establishing notability, as directories are generally, by definition, inclusive, and therefore not a good indicator of notability. SamBC 22:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline supports your position. It does not distinguish between directories and other sources. Is there some other spot in the notability guidelines that does?Noroton 22:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The same reasoning is used in reference to business directories in WP:ORG. I'm not just relying on that, though; I'm also presenting supporting reason. SamBC 23:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The only time business directories are mentioned at WP:ORG is in the last item at "Primary criterion", which states: Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories. This is clearly not the same situation, since the only reason for citing business directories was that they provided only trivial coverage. The coverage at the B&L Blue Book is in no way trivial. Noroton 23:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • SamBC, to further pick up on a point we discussed earlier, the more specific WP:ORG notability guideline also seems to agree that one in-depth source combined with many not-in-depth sources is acceptable. Here's the language (quotes in italics): An organization is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. So far so good, only here is where it talks about depth of coverage of those sources: The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Note where "multiple" comes in -- only if the depth of coverage is not substantial. That means one substantial source is enough, correct? The following sentence only builds upon the preceding one and talks about all the sources being nonsubstantial: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Where is my reading wrong here? Noroton 22:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But there isn't substantial treatment in any independent, reliable sources. As already noted, the CBS source is quite (substantially) peripheral. When we talk about reliable sources and significant treatment and notability (as we have redefined that word), we must not lose track of the underlying purpose, which is to verify that an encyclopedia article (a tertiary source entry synthesizing reliable sources for its content) can be written on the subject. So far, what can be used to write an encyclopedic, verified entry (here after apparently quite a bit of research, which is commendable) is material verifying the school's existence and some meager detail that can be used as the basis of one or two sentence—an apparent permanent-sub-stub as to its policy conforming content.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What problem do you have with the Bunting & Lyon Blue Book source here (the first footnote in the article)? Noroton 23:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's absolutely fine, but doesn't apply here if directories don't establish notability. If they do, then that's fine and dandy. SamBC 23:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, where does it say in policy that they don't? Noroton 23:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, WP:ORG makes the point for business directories, and it's not hard to extend the reasoning to other directories of organisations. Policies aren't exhaustive, they're a start. If they say somethign is excluded for a reason, it's not too wild to imagine that anything else to which the same reasoning applies be excluded. Beyond that, not all reasons for exclusion are in policy. I've made an argument that directories can't really establish notability as they are inherently inclusive. One cannot simply refute a logical argument by saying "yeah, but what does policy say?" unless policy contradicts it. You refute a logical argument with another logical argument. SamBC 23:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd also like to say that I don't support deletion of this article; I think it should be merged into a relevant compendium and redirected, per my arguments at User:Sambc/wip/Sprawl Control Policy Proposal. SamBC 23:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I posted this above (23:29, 16 July 2007), but I think you didn't see it, so here it is again (I think it addresses most of what you said): "The only time business directories are mentioned at WP:ORG is in the last item at "Primary criterion", which states: Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories. This is clearly not the same situation, since the only reason for citing business directories was that they provided only trivial coverage. The coverage at the B&L Blue Book is in no way trivial." My argument here is both citing the rules and using logic, I think. Noroton 00:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's valid, but let me put the logical part of my reasoning this way: what's the Blue Book's inclusion criteria? SamBC 00:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know and it doesn't matter as far as WP:N and WP:ORG are concerned. According to its Web site it's a big, fat book, and I assume it tries to get every accredited private school that it can between its covers. The point for WP:N and WP:ORG is that the information be reliable and that the organization be notable enough to have received coverage from sources that are reliable. That's the essential point of Wikipedia notability policy -- not that a school be well-known or famous. I'm just pointing out Wikipedia policy, you're free to disagree with it and have your own policy, but you and other editors should be clear about where Wikipedia's ends. I just don't want anyone to think it is against Wikipedia policy to use the P&L Blue Book as a source helping to establish notability.Noroton 14:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A very complicated issue to resolve, it took looking closely at the article and the previous AfDs as well as what's below to reach a decision. Consensus of discussion is just strong enough to keep. Keep voters offer good, solid evidence for doing so, showing that article has been improving (becoming less POV; the retitling was a huge help) and that reliable and notable sources exist for covering allegations of influence of Buddhism on Christianity; also good is the section about possible influences the other direction.

    Delete votes offer little beyond shouting "OR! OR! OR!" without much proof offered. I am also a little disturbed by this idea that, well, the way to improve this article is to delete it and start over again. I'm told they do this on the German Wikipedia; as David Bowie once put it, "They do it over there but we don't do it here". As the keep votes note, the topic is eminently worthy of encyclopedic attention and we have never AFAICR deleted an article just to rebuild it. In its present form, it is beginning to show a lot of promise and might well, once the major cleanup is done and it is fully sourced, be a good candidate for GA status. I do implore the keep voters to continue working on the article, though. Daniel Case 22:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Buddhist influences on Christianity[edit]

    Buddhist influences on Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article is a complete mess, poorly referenced, filled with original research, utterly marred by dubious claims and other such failings. This section is a prime example of what exactly is wrong with this article. This article as it currently stands covers a topic that may well need coverage in Wikipedia. However, it is an unrecoverable mess. The best solution would be deletion and recreation with verifiable information from reliable sources while avoiding original research. Vassyana 00:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This article was recently moved by me to the current title from Christianity and Buddhism. Under that title, it wasAFD'ed with a result of "No consensus". Prior to that, it was AFD'ed under the title Buddhist-Christian parallels with a result of "Keep".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs)

    Previous AfDs:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist-Christian parallels and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christianity_and_Buddhism

    • Comment An article on the Parallels between buddhism and christianity might actually be in order, as there are tons of notable authors (even the Dalai Lama I think) who have written on the subject. But influences? Not one of those authors that I can think of suggested even for a second that one directly influenced the other. VanTucky (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Cross-influences are not unlikely as there was a cultural continuum from Iberia to Gandhara until the rise of Islam. The Hellenistic art had formative influnence on all Buddha representations which are known today (watch Ushnisha and Greco-Buddhism) and in Gandhara, where the oldest known reference to Mahayana Buddhism is from even Ancient Greek was spoken. Although there is little known an influence of Buddhism on Hellenistic philosphy is likely and the influence of Hellenistic philosophy on Christianity is an accepted fact. --Liebeskind 09:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I am all for "slash" and "burn" Here. We can recreate this article later. IMO, every vote for "keep, but rewrite" should be interpreted as a "delete" so that bad material doesn't stay here. If someone wants to save this article, he or she should make a rewrite with extensive sources, and I will change my mind. WhisperToMe 02:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep --- Good Lord, "bad material" stays here all the time! The paradox of Wikipedia is that this type of article gets deleted... but all the articles about Phil of the Future episodes will probably be kept (see July 9 AfD). So tag this with the disputed label. Similarities between two religions are notable, but that doesn't prove that one influenced the other. As with anything else religious, there is an element of speculation and this has attracted a large share of authors whose theories I don't agree with. But just because I don't agree with the theory doesn't mean that I should pretend that it hasn't been proposed. I disagree that its "poorly referenced" (42 footnotes?) Editing doesn't always have to mean executing. Mandsford 02:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Check the footnotes and the claims they support. Hardly well-referenced. Quantity does not equal quality and this article is a fine example. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Vassyana 02:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ☒N Delete This article is an orgy of original research. All of its notable published sources are about not a Buddhist/Christian interchange of influence, but simply a discussion of the similarities between the the two religions after their establishment. This article takes a collection of sources and uses them to try and prove a theory on the origins and influences of Christianity. An article simply comparing the two religions might be in order, but one pushing the idea that Buddhism was an influence in the formation of Christianity? I don't think so. That is the most insidious violation of NPOV, as it masquerades as being informed and academic, all while trying to push a patently fringe POV.VanTucky (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe the orgy would be at Tantra and Christianity. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Very original research. Calgary 03:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep
      1) Topic is encyclopedic. despite the fact that the idea that Buddhism influenced Christianity seems like a lot of New Age fringe claptrap. Edward Conze suggested that Hinduism or Buddhism may have influenced Gnosticism. Elaine Pagels acknowledged that the evidence was intriguing but inconclusive.
      Thomas Tweed reports that, between approximately 1879 and 1907, there were a "number of impassioned discussions about parallels and possible historical influence between Buddhism and Christianity in ... a variety of periodicals". However, this interest in parallels and contact between the two religions had pretty much waned by 1906. Many had come to agree with Albert Schweitzer's conclusion that although some indirect influence through the wider culture was "not inherently impossible", the hypothesis that Jesus' novel ideas were borrowed directly from Buddhism was "unproved, unprovable and unthinkable." (Tweed, Thomas (2000). The American Encounter With Buddhism, 1844-1912: : Victorian Culture & the Limits of Dissent. University of North Carolina Press. p. 280. ISBN 0807849065.)
      The point here being that this topic has been discussed since at least the 19th century and people as notable as Albert Schweitzer have seen fit to comment on it, if only to dismiss it.
      2) The article was a huge mess but is improving. Consider, for example, this version from May 8, 2007. An important difference is that the May 8th version basically makes bald assertions that are written from a stance that "Buddhism DID influence Christianity". The current version has been moved towards a more NPOV stance that "Buddhism MAY HAVE influenced Christianity but such theories are marginal, minority POVs based on scant evidence".
      --Richard 04:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. If the current state of the article is the result of two months of hard work, that only reinforces my belief that the current article is an unworkable mess that needs a mercy killing. Vassyana 06:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Although the article may have stylistic issues, the subject is treated in depth and highly referenced. Unfortunately, the very discussion of this subject (interactions between Chritianity and Buddhism) seems to be disliked by some. PHG 05:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Acutally, I rather wish Christianity was more influenced by Buddhism, rather than disliking the idea. But my personal wishes aside, the article takes sources solely on a relation between the ideas of the two religions and uses flimsy, fringe historical theories not backed by verification in reliable sources to try and make a theory of buddhist influence on early christianity notable. It just isn't supported by reliable, published sources (refereneces, present here and not in the article, to outdated books from the 18th and 19th centuries notwithstanding). VanTucky (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong KeepPer Ricahrd and PHG. The subject deals with theories that are minority view points and largely speculative, but the topic is still encylopedic, and well referenced, with notable acknowlegements of the existence of these speculative theories. I note that Elain Pagels has commented on them, for instance. They are thus notable enough for us to report on them. Lots of new research is being done on the various influences that major religions have had historically on each other as they evolved.Giovanni33 05:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Remember Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight - Giovanni, if the arguments are made from people deemed to be non-notable, Wikipedia does not care about their viewpoints. It works like that. "Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all." - If the authors of the article are deemed to be in a significant minority, then the basis of keeping this is flawed. WhisperToMe 05:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Well-referenced? I'm not sure where people are getting from, considering that almost no information in the article is verifiable in reliable sources, which one would expect from a "well-referenced" article. Vassyana 06:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. By the way, I told Shu this: "Don't be afraid to take out sections that cannot be cited - sometimes less is more. Also, Shu, remember that, as per Wikipedia:No original research, that a synthesis of published material to advance a viewpoint is not allowed. Think about the statement and avoid coming to conclusions using published material; instead find reliable, significant sources and simply report about their conclusions." WhisperToMe 06:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. Even The Catholic Encyclopedia, which goes to great lengths to deny the relationship between the two religions, covers this topic in depth, and is forced to admit that the Christian story of Barlaam and Josaphat was originally Buddhist. —Viriditas | Talk 08:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. It is important that wikipedia record the fact that Christianity was strongly influenced by Buddhism, both through the original influence on Greece in the Buddha's time (he sent 60 arahants out in about 587 BC) and later Ashoka's arahants a few centuries later. The similarity of parables and doctrines which are so different from Judaism all atest to this. Likewise, greek civilisation began to flower just 2 years after the Buddha's arahants were sent to the world, and taught such doctrines as the four elements, the turning of the wheel of suffering and so on. Ray Tomes 11:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Per the deletion policy, editing is an alternative to deletion; and therefore unless anyone can say why the topic is unencyclopaedic, this has to be a keep. Batmanand | Talk 11:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article has been moved back to Christianity and Buddhism. Per the undue weight policy, much less attention should be paid to a fringe theory about the origin of Christianity. If the article stays, I vote rewrite. If it moves back, or if its topic is to remain "Buddhist influences on Christianity" regardless of the title, I vote strong delete -- that topic is inherently unencyclopedic, not because of a lack of notbility, but because of a lack of reliable sources. Which is why the article uses primary sources in a way that constitutes OR (per VanTucky) or secondary sources which, at best, would otherwise be considered reliable but which are speculating, or which are simply unreliable. A.J.A. 12:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The topic is encyclopedic. Period. Is the article a mess? Yup. WP:SOFIXIT. Bucketsofg 13:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your vote only counts if the topic stays at "Christianity and Buddhism," though. Remember the title WAS "Buddhist influences on Christianity." WhisperToMe 16:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "My vote only counts if…"?! No, I expect my opinion to be given due consideration in any discussion that I join, as all opinions should be in all discussions. Bucketsofg 12:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The subject is not unsuitable, the article is far from unsavable. In fact, it doesn't seem incredibly far off being good enough at the moment, and we certainly don't delete things just for being not good enough, and AFAICT never have. SamBC 14:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep This well referenced article about a notable topic has twice been placed up for deletion and twice the attempt to remove it failed. Scholars were discussing this since the late 19th century. The content has been the subject of aan ongoing edit war. Editing is preferable to deletion, and the argument that we have to delete it and start creating it again is completely nonsensical. Just keep the good parts and delete the unreferenced or POV or OR parts. There is a long scholarly history of comparative religion, taught at major universities, comparing the doctrines and beliefs of Christianity with those of Buddhism. This is an important and encyclopedic topic, but the article is obviously undergoing a polemic edit war. Those who have studied comparative religion should take a look at the article and use Wikipedia edit policies, and perhaps RFC to straighten out any POV edit warring going on under control using the tools available. Disruptive editors can be controlled via RFC and blocking if necessary. Edison 14:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your vote only counts if the topic stays at "Christianity and Buddhism," though. Remember the title WAS "Buddhist influences on Christianity." WhisperToMe 16:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And was moved back to Christianity and Buddhism without discussion or consensus. Let's discuss the title after the AFD is closed. In any event, I dispute the assertion that the opinion (AFD is a discussion, not a vote) only counts if the topic stays at Christianity and Buddhism. --Richard 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because you had such extensive consensus to move it in the first place, didn't you? It seems you regard consensus as a one way street. In any case, the distinction is a crucial one, because "Christianity and Buddhism" is an encyclopedic article, while "Buddhist influences on Christinity" isn't, as I explained above: there are no reliable sources. You have a reliable source for the Western press talking about it a hundred years ago, but that has no solid connection to what actually happened. Likewise, you don't have notable figures (or non-notable ones; for WP:RS purposes it doesn't really matter) saying anything reliable about it. All you have is sources for much later Westerners contesting how their own origins should be imagined, which is an interesting and notable topic in its own right, but not the topic you chose to associate the article with, and the attempt to make the one into the other will necessarily produce an OR mess. A.J.A. 18:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Smile. Hey, A.J.A., I knew someone would raise the question of whether the first move by me was with or without consensus. I proposed the move on the Talk Page. After 4 days, nobody had objected so I moved it. Somebody moved it back. Now it's time to discuss the best title for the article (assuming that it survives the AFD which it looks like it will). I will comment that you made a snide remark when I proposed the move which criticized the quality of the article but did not indicate an objection to the move. If you had explicitly opposed the move, I would have held off pending further discussion. We should conduct the rest of this discussion on the Talk Page. --Richard 18:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • My facial expression is none of your business. A.J.A. 18:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Please keep things polite and on-topic. The question of naming and scope can be sorted out after this AfD closes. Vassyana 19:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • And please assume good faith. The smile was meant to characterize my facial expression as in "I found it wryly amusing that my concern was borne out and maybe I should have been more explicit in what I wrote". I see now that it could also be interpreted as an imperative meaning "You should smile". Well, it's up to you but it probably wouldn't hurt if you did approach these discussions with a smile. Let's keep this collegial. --Richard 20:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • "Keep"? A.J.A. 21:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • (Chuckle) Oh, at first I thought you were changing your !vote to "Keep" and was really surprised. Then I realized that you were insinuating that this discussion has not been collegial. Yes, I agree that it has not been as collegial as I would like. Naturally, my perspective is that it is you who has been less than collegial. However, if you believe that I have been uncollegial in any way, feel free to make your case on my Talk Page. --Richard 21:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and cleanup Article is a mess, but topic is notable Lurker (talk · contribs) 16:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Per user:Richardshusr and user:PHGTaprobanus 17:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete is this even factually accurate?--SefringleTalk 17:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      It is factually accurate that some people have proposed these theories and that the topic is encyclopedic and notable. Some notable people have expounded some of these theories. Other notable people have examined and rejected these theories. Make no mistake about it: these are fringe, marginal theories that are far from the mainstream. However, they are notable enough to warrant coverage in Wikipedia. To the extent that this article presents the theories as facts rather than as theories, the article is broken and needs to be fixed. Deletion, however, is not the answer. --Richard 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep and build. The extent to which the material is fringe varies--the possibility of influence is real enough, but demonstrating the actual effect very much more difficult, and many articles on this general area have been occasions of editor disputes. It is certainly encyclopedia worthy, though hard to handle. DGG (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletions. —SefringleTalk 20:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article is obviously notable enough to be encyclopedic, though I agree it is in horrid condition. I'm almost ready to agree with WhisperToMe that perhaps slash and burn is necessary in this case, but WP:SOFIXIT applies too. Keep it and see about having the Buddhism, Christianity, and/or Religion WikiProjects whip it into shape. - RPIRED 00:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and improve per DGG, Viridas, Bucker and others above. Johnbod 01:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article is overwritten and, in fact, still under-referenced (considering its length), but it does discuss points raised by a good number of what appear to be reliable sources. There are a lot of embarrassingly bad aricles on Wikipedia, but this is not one of them. -- Ssilvers 04:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Modify? So far as I can see, the article has no references to a fairly recent dialogue between Zen and Christianity, referenced in an article named "Christianity in the Crucible of East-West Dialogue"(author unknown). Christians influenced by Zen master Yamada Koun in the 70's have spread througout the world, establishing centers as they dispersed. Some of these are Thomas Hand (who died last year; he was at the Mercy Center in San Francisco); Hugo M. Enomaya-LaSalle, who established Shinmeikutsu, a Zen/Christian monastery outside Tokyo about 1975; Robert Kennedy, who was posted to the Northeastern U.S. about two years ago. The article is 28 pages, including 152 references, and I believe you can see it by using Zen-Christian dialogue in a Google search. I hope this doesn't just muddy the water in your discussion. User:Notspecial 13:47, 12 July 2007
    • Keep. Notable topic; AfD is not cleanup. —Xezbeth 08:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete this unworkable mess. Str1977 (smile back) 14:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This all seems like original research or claims that don't need to be argued about on Wikipedia. If someone wants to write their own book espousing theories, they can. Otherwise, if it was important it would be noted on Buddhism and Christianity pages and that would be sufficient. NobutoraTakeda 18:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There are plenty of sources to show this is a valid topic as covered my many above contributors, this is not the place for cleanup. Davewild 18:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Sometimes it is simply better to start from scratch. There is definitely a need for a comparative article; this is not it. How many times have we seen articles take an agonizingly long time to get in decent shape simply because of the precedent set for the article. My first priority is producing notable articles based upon reputable sources. This can be done with a comparative topic, but it simply would be easier and quicker to start with a tabula rasa. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Blanked by author, removing hoax stuff leaves no assertion of notability, etc. Waste of everyone's time. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Boris Orlov[edit]

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

    Possible Hoax article. Unreferenced claims to subject being a billionaire (worth $3,2 billion), but no ghits, which is surprising for a billonaire. Also adding another related article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following related pages because for the same reason. No references, barring a MySpace profile

    Svetlana orlova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • ☒N Speedy Delete No verification in any sources, and a cursory search of Forbes website provided zero results using his name. Definite possible hoax. VanTucky (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete possible hoax. Oysterguitarist 00:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral until I finish looking through the hits in Russian. The guy definitely exists and is connected to Lukoil, though he seems to be working for Rosneft now [61]. No idea whether he's a billionaire, hard to search for sources since there's apparently an author and an artist by the same name and my Russian is crap ... cab 00:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy delete Boris Orlov by author request [62] (WP:CSD#G7). Standard delete Svetlana Orlova as she only has 16 trivial Russian GHits, none of which support her article [63]. cab 01:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Yup, I found a Svetlana Orlova before I came to AFD, that seems to be the Vice-Chairman of the Federation Council of Russia, but a different person I'm sure, as I remain confident that a 22 year old wouldn't have got to that position. :O) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. cab 00:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It may be that the guy actually exists, but we'd still need to try and dredge up adequate coverage. Unless he was the CEO or founder of Lukoil, being a simple business executive of a corporation doesn't automatically lend notability, according to the policy. VanTucky (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note There is a Boris Orlov that was connected with Gazprom, but the article is very specific about the biography, and I can't find a link to Lukoil. And the Forbes rich-list assertion doesn't pan out. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 22:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of ROH Shows[edit]

    List of ROH Shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    While Ring of Honor (ROH) is notable, a whole list of their shows isn't. RobJ1981 00:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- seems like fancruft to me. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NOT - WP is not a directory Corpx 01:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete wikipedia is not a directory. Oysterguitarist 02:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per all. Bucketsofg 12:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete created and edited by one user to begin with [64], this adds nothing to ROH, and ROH have held/are holding/have broadcast* (*delete where applicable) their first PPV it would be better to start a page covering those rather than what amounts to a bunch of house shows. Darrenhusted 09:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. you'd think someone would have said this by now.... --SteelersFan UK06 15:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per reasons above. Davnel03 18:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per statements by everyone else. Nikki311 21:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This is a nice piece of info for Wikipedia. WWE has their results pages. ROH should be able, too. The list is notable. Results can be found on the ROH website. ThePerfectOne 18:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The WWE Have their PPV result pages, they have their "Saturday Nights Main Event" result pages and they have select "big show" result pages - but they do not in any way have a list of ALL their shows, nor anywhere near it only shows that'd be considered "notable". And results on the ROH Website isn't enough, significant independent coverage - or Verifiability is the key here. MPJ-DK 08:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WWE has had more PPVs than ROH has had shows. It wouldn't be fair to ROH. ThePerfectOne 10:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC
      • I don't think "it's not fair" is a correct argument. Find more third-party significant, verifiable coverage and then I'm sure we'll all reconsider. Darrenhusted 22:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom MPJ-DK 08:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 23:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2007 French Alps coach crash[edit]

    I still believe this to truly fail Wikipedia:Notability. This event has demonstrated no lasting notability whatsoever; WP:NN clearly states (Emphasis mine) "Notability is not temporary [...] In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." Further, it is quite clear that this incident without a death toll is not half as notable as the vast majority of cases listed on List of road accidents, and should probably not even be listed there. Finally, the article fails the "Featured artcle litmus test": it would be absolutely impossible, now or ever, to create a Featured Article on this topic.

    • Delete as nominator Circeus 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I was hopeful I could find enough sources even on this, but I couldn't. Which in itslef demonstrates a lack of notability. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you know if it can be transwikied to Wikinews? They don't seem to have anything about it, and it would be a shame if your work were lost. Circeus 18:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. A bus crashed into a rock. Wow. No one died, no one notable was involved, and this was in no way different than the plethora of automobile accidents that happen worldwide on a daily basis. As predicted before, once the initial headlines wear away people are left going "The what what crash?" This is a news article, not an encyclopedia entry. ɑʀкʏɑɴ &#149; (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't be sarcastic. Deleting current/recent events has always been particularly difficult. Circeus 20:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't directed at anyone, just an expression of frustration that this has to go through two nominations. I'm also having a bit of a long and drawn out day and apologize if I came across poorly. ɑʀкʏɑɴ &#149; (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, seems rather insignificant even in light of the bus plunge phenomenon. --Dhartung | Talk 20:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. It seems like a pretty well sourced article, suprisingly.--SefringleTalk 20:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether or not the article is "good" or "sourced" is completely besides the point, which is whether the article topic is notable, which I believe it is clearly not. Circeus 21:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete sorry this is absolutely nn.--JForget 23:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I'm glad nobody was killed. However, if we were to list every school bus crash in history as a separate article, it would be a major problem. A lot of people have done sourcing and contributing, but I can't see what makes this accident any more notable than any other motor vehicle accident. Mandsford 23:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete One person was seriously injured. Wikipedia does not need to cover everything that generates a few news stories. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this is a relatively trivial crash. Resolute 04:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unfortunately road accidents happen all the time, often make news which could be widespread depending on who is aboard. This crash is little different than any run-of-the-mill accident and is therefore nn. Carlossuarez46 18:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Over one million people a year are killed in vehicle accidents worldwide, and each such fatality is covered in the newspapers, and the vast majority of them fail WP:NOT#NEWS. Even more of a failure of that policy is an accident where no one was killed. Scary for the passengers, and for their friends and families, but not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a compendium of everything that goes bump in the Alps. Edison 19:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sr13 02:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    James H. McCall[edit]

    James H. McCall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Another campaign platform for another non-notable canditate, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Adams (political candidate) for a similar AFD, Delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 20:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete, Vanity piece, reads like a bad campaign brochure. Do notthink we need to know what he stands for, what what has he accomplished. No independent references on him either.Callelinea 20:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete The article certainly needs work, but there are independent sources listed on his website. [65] Amusingly he includes paid adverts in his list of press coverage, but he does seem to have received some genuine coverage in the local press [66] [67] and on local TV [68] which could be used to improve the article. However, he's still struggling to meet WP:BIO, and the argument made elsewhere that notable candidates in a national election should have received national coverage is a reasonable one Iain99 21:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete. On one hand, I'm not sure if a presidential candidate with 21 supporters could be considered notable, and candidates are generally not considered notable by Wikipedia precedent. On the other hand, that precedent generally refers to candidates for offices such as MLAs and representatives; a candidate for President of a country may be more notable. But 21 supporters.... --Charlene 01:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A notable candidate for president would receive national press notice, 21 supporters probably explains why he has not. Davewild 06:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I was surprised to learn a few years ago that there are actually masses of candidates running for President of the US, it's just that the overwhelming majority of them aren't notable, much like this fellow. If he attracts press coverage, he may well become notable later on in the election cycle. As it stands, there's no coverage of him and (apparently) hardly any support which might translate into same later. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per most comments above. If the subject attains national press coverage later in this election campaign, or qualifies for the general election ballot in at least one state, the article should be re-created later. --Metropolitan90 07:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per Charlene, Metropolitan90 and BigHaz, and per WP:SOAP. Bearian 20:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_10&oldid=1081099808"