Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 10

< June 9	June 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was No consensus, so by default the article will be Kept. The result of the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistle Thrush (band) also inclines toward a keep. DES ^(talk) 14:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Refraction[edit]

Notability. There are millions and millions and millions of under-the-radar bands and the thought of listing them all here will obscure the true informative value of wikipedia and reduce it to a record store's $2 bargain bin Toonot 16:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Wikipedia rule of thumb (per WP:BAND#Albums) is that if a band meets notability, then the band's albums also do. Since the band's article is also under AfD, I suggest waiting to see that outcome of that discussion. If not, please note that the album received positive reviews in the All Music Guide and the Boston Herald; and while Egg Records a is seemingly unknown indie label, it was actually bankrolled by Elektra during the fake-indie label craze of the late-'90s (reference from The Phoenix).) On a side note, this is the first instance where I've seen an AfD discussion also stuck on the top of the article's page (see article). Since I created the article and don't want to be accused of WP:COI, can someone please remove the {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Refraction}} tag from that page (unless, of course, it is actually supposed to go there)? (thanks Evb-wiki, for taking care of that.) Closenplay 18:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The outcome of the AfD for the band was "keep", so the album's article should be kept. Closenplay 10:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - This discussion was created (and the article tagged), but it was never added to this log. I'm just doing housekeeping and have no opinion re this article, at this time. --Evb-wiki 17:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 00:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prophetic Year[edit]

No sources and unencyclopedic Svetovid 23:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are Sir Robert Anderson's "The Coming Prince" where the term "prophetic year" is used and Robert Fleming's "The Rise and Fall of Papacy" where the term "prophetical year" is used. The sources are clearly documented so don't understand comment. One could comment that only two sources are given which would be true. And in which case more sources could be added beside these two, (which were added to help to illustrate the use of the term in literature). Googling "prophetic year" brings up so many sources that to not include the definition in "Wikipedia" appears to be unusual.Theporter 00:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per contra to User:Svetovid, this is sourced & appears encyclopaeic to me. -- Simon Cursitor 13:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- references are in-line in the article, so maybe could be summarized in reference section at the end just to be clear. Capmango 17:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Resurgent insurgent 17:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Belgium in Ottawa[edit]

WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE Svetovid 23:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is apparently either a mistaken nomination or an attempt to change policy. We have many hundred such articles. We have over 40 article in Category:Embassies and High Commissions in Ottawa alone. Many of them are quite substantial articles. If the nom would like to change this situation, the place to go is the Village Pump-- not by deleting an individual one . DGG 00:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous embassy articles are already established e.g. Embassy of Israel in London, Embassy of Ukraine in Washington, etc. and should be considered uniformly notable. Picking and choosing particular nation-to-nation diplomatic missions for deletion would constitute WP:BIAS and therefore violate WP:NPOV. Dl2000 00:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned articles have some content. This one is just a travel guide entry.--Svetovid 00:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs to be kept. Perhaps it could be put into the needs improvement category instead, because there is nothing wrong with it, exept for the fact that its a stub. Greenboxed 00:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs to be expaneded however, maybe a photo. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Embassies are notable and just because some don't have long articles doesn't suddenly make them subject to WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. --Oakshade 07:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, embassies are notable, I would say uniformly. Each is a sovereign extension of its home country. Further, the content is brief but encyclopedic. --Dhartung | Talk 07:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No reason to be deleted whatsoever as embassies are definitely notable.--JForget 23:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely a notable article as embassies are notable and as mentioned there are already many embassy articles. Does need some work but nothing that can't be fixed or improved. Xtreme racer 23:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per all above. GreenJoe 01:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Embassies are definitely notable, and this is most certainly expandable if somebody puts a bit of work into it. Keep. Bearcat 21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like WP:SNOW in here... 134.117.148.184 23:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Fitness Championships[edit]

"held annually, since 2003", "created by Rob Powell", "For the four years this event has taken place, Rob Powell has won it each time." However someone should create an article on Rob Powell as "the Greatest Athlete In History" 650l2520 23:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can this event be sourced using information independant of the event, its organisers, and the people involved? (ie, reliable, third party sources). If not, the article should be deleted as unverifiable. The same goes for the person, if there's no independant sources, there's no article. -- saberwyn 23:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete hoax. hoax. hoax. Elaborate one at that. Guinness has nothing on him. Kw sn 06:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per saberwyn. Egocruft, and probably fake egocruft at that. Adrian M. H. 16:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of wide recognition for this event. No coverage from independent sources. A google news archive search returns only three entries and do not appear to be related to this event. -- Whpq 16:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, There does not appear to be such an event. The term World Fitness Championships does not appear to be sufficiently unique - e.g., the IBBF also makes use of this name in some of their major body building competitions, as may have the WFF. Mr. Powell claims to hold (and even to have shattered) a Guinness WR - physical fitness. This is despite the Guinness site not appearing to have such a record. Pever 23:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEPbut MOVE to Mormon cosmology. Under that name it would certainly seem to be a legitimate concept. Whether the article can be cleaned up and redacted to fit the title is now up to the editors. Herostratus 18:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon teachings about extraterrestrial life[edit]

Concerns exist regarding WP:N and possibly WP:OR SESmith 22:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has references and if there is any concerns it can be rewritten or just simply remove what you think is OR and use the talk page first. Therefore, no reason to delete. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 23:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some of the information with Latter-Day Saints or something. Not original research because there's lots of sources. Useight 23:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain — I have been too recently involved in the heated discussions on this article. Though, to give my opinion on this subject: There are great concerns about lack of secondary sources, links only from only two articles (in See Also sections), and a certain contributor owning the article. There are also concerns about the name of the article and the emphasis placed in the article. (See the article's talk page.) If I were to be pushed (by this same certain contributor) to change from an abstain, I would change my vote to at least rename but probably delete. Val42 23:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well sourced, and since the actual sources are quoted, its fair. i think this is a valid use of primary sources. It is true that one of the eds. does seem to be animated by bias, but the present article does not reflect this. There was clearly no consensus on the talk page about a change. The objections to this article represent COI and the failure of some eds. to obtain ownership. DGG 00:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and resolve dispute at talk - I don't think AfD is the way to resolve this issue. It would be useful to try to thrash out a balanced article at the talk page (specific concerns will need to be stated rather than a vague "WP:N and possibly WP:OR") and perhaps consider renaming if there's a consensus to do so. However, since there are quite clearly reliable sources in evidence that at least some prominent LDS leaders have espoused these views, deleting the article altogether doesn't look like the right solution. --YFB ¿ 00:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I purposefully kept the reasons in the proposal "vague" to avoid reproducing the mass of material on the Talk page about these concerns. Ample detail can be found there on what the concerns are. -SESmith 01:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Sometimes Wikipedia has the unfortunate ability to evolve into a collection of personal blog articles or soap boxes. Though this started out as such, it can turn into a worthy article. The title needs to be changed and continued work on expanding the content will help. There are some definite issues regarding notability that need to be decided. Some of these issues probably have more to do with difficult relationships with an editor. I am rather Cromagnon like; to me editing is a priviledge and abuse should be given a very short leash. Those who abuse our policies just because of ease should be banned indefinitely because they add nothing to Wikipedia but abuse. Chances beyond the 3rd should be withdrawn; certainly those where the chances seem endless. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename - There has been some debates that the article should be renamed to something more along the lines of classifying the content as scientific theories of church leaders rather than prophecy by LDS prophets. I think it should be renamed and kept. There were some very good suggestions on the talk page of possible names. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move or Merge to an article about obscure teachings by Mormon leaders - i think this could be quite an interesting article about obscure teachings, such as BY telling parowan stake youth to get married at age 16 - in the same instructions as telling widowers not to remarry. Or how about the hankerchief of Wilford Woodruff that was used by Smith to heal hundreds at Commerce (later Nauvoo), that was later credited with the healings of hundreds of others. Or the early dietary teachings of BY, including the OT-like abstaining from Pork. There are dozens of other teachings which could make an interesting articel, but how this one stands, it is simply a list of quotes that should be put on Wikiquotes. In any case, there are multiple connotation issues with the current title - it leads the reader to believe that Mormons currently teach about aliens, rather than the more accurate, "God's creations of worlds is numberless." And, the title doesn't follow current Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) as this deals with the broader Latter Day Saint movement, and not just the LDS Church. Simply said, I don't think it has enough material to stand on its own. It is like an article on George W. Bush's pronounciation of "Nuclear." -Visorstuff 05:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much of this appears to me to be original research because there are quotes that seem to be left open to interpretation, such as: "That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God." Given the article title, it is clear what the editor here is trying to suggest, but this is not appropriate. This is my first reading of the article so I am not commenting on whether to delete or keep yet, this is just my first impression. A large part of the other sourced material is quotes. This again leaves the suggestion to the reader to interpret the quotes, rather than citing work from an independent researcher. If there are no independent articles/books/journals about this topic this also makes me wonder about the subject's notability. Aside from these opinions, my feeling right now is the article is needlessly long and too quote heavy, and it would do well merged to an appropriate article. daveh4h 06:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There seems to be some serious original research problems here, at least the version I'm looking at (diff). The intro and entire first section make a number of assertions that have no references except for two quotations from LDS scripture (which are primary sources, and used interpretively, to boot). This would seem to be a clear-cut WP:NOR violation, as phrases such as "which can be read as implying" and "it is believed" demonstrate. The second section contains quotes attributed to Smith by a third party, which the text goes on to indicate have "strong doubts about [their] reliability", and of which no indication is given that they represent a significant school of thought in LDS teaching. It is followed by a long quote from Young, again with nothing to connect it with Mormon belief or anything else. Finally, a brief section of more recent quotes, as opposed to actual references demonstrating the article's thesis (and for what it is worth, the Maxwell quote could be attributed to Carl Sagan with little difficulty). Whether or not there is some core belief in extraterrestrial life in Morman teaching is moot - this article makes no attempt to properly document any such thing. If there is, there should be some solid references available either from LDS publications, or scholarly works on the LDS. This is an essay, not an article. Quietvoice 07:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admitted sockpuppet see User:Quietvoice. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 07:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, acknowledged alternate account (see WP:SOCK#LEGIT). I have no especial interest in (or edits to) LDS articles, nor what seems (from a quick glance at User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey) to be some sort of hubbub around the above editor. I came across this on AfD, followed back to the article, and found an essay as described above. Not wishing to get embroiled in potential religious zealotry I used my alternate account, as I have done on a few occasions in the past. For all I know Mormons do (or did) explicitly teach extraterrestrial life as church doctrine, but if so then there needs to be references to reliable sources reporting this, not an original research essay. Quietvoice 08:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a legitimate use of WP:SOCK#LEGIT. I doubt someone who is nefariously using a sockpuppet would announce it on their user page. -SESmith 08:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC) (nominator)[reply]

Keep, notability of this topic has been readily addressed by Uncle G; title and content can be worked out on the talk page. John Vandenberg 11:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per reasons provided by the nominator, as well as WP:V issues. For the purpose of fair disclosure, I will openly state that I consider myself to be an long term less-active non-practising member of the church in question. As a non-practising past member of that faith, this article does not sit well with me (And even prompted me to do some serious looking into the information being presented within, even contacting other past and present members to obtain their views). After much consideration and research into this matter, I am openly prepared to suggest that the premise of the article in question is complete bollocks. Two of the references in the article cite an organisation known as the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research who state on their website that All research and opinions provided on this site... should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice. Secondly, the article in any case lacks sufficient citations and references to support the assertion that the church in question per the articles assertions believes that persons on other planets are extraterrestrial life. In fact, the opening of the article totally contradicts such assertions, As such, it is believed that there are other worlds that are peopled and that they would also have been created in his image and after his likeness similar to this world.. I think that the interpretation of the beliefs, doctrines, statements or value systems of any religious order can be quite dangerous specially considering the ability of others to take such content out of context. I am even more concerned that the main contributor to the article in question, Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, which I have independently become aware of as a known long-term POV-pusher in relation to Latter-day Saint articles and has a long and documented history of doing so. This was to the point where he has actually banned from en.wp twice in the last 45 days, one for massive disruption, and despite mentoring assistance from some respected admins has failed to be more considered in his contributions (diff) (RFC. I do not mean to continue on discussing the user, but regrettably his previous actions necessitates their discussion in the context of this AfD. He previously has edited en.wp under the username Gadugi (block log} which was blocked indef on 15 Oct 2005. I also recall, which an admin who I converse with often, do recall the user in question making statements on talk pages relating to the speedy deletion (as an attack article) of one entry titled mormon men in black in which he claimed he had suffered some level of oppression in both personal and business life at what he claimed was the hands of Mormon interests. I have as yet been unable to find the diff in question regarding this, but regardless this goes to a conflict of interest in relation to his editorial activities. It is regrettable that even after multiple and continued opportunities to reform his act, a user such as Merkey continues to act in a manner on en.wp which does nothing to damage the reputation of himself, the community, and the encyclopaedia at large. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These comments I categorically deny. They are inappropiate for a deletion discussion on the notability of an article. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are appropriate here as they go to the editorial leanings of yourself as core contributor to the article, and your rather colourful history of contribution to en.wp. Why is it you only ever comment on those who challenge you? On the information I have regarding your activities at the Cherokee wikipedia, you run the place with an iron fist and block anyone there who disagrees with you. If you're going to comment on my comments, address the concerns with the article and provide some meaningful input other than the constant Anti-religion rants that we've seen from you thusfar. Further, with due respect to the well intended contributions of UncleG, I don't think adding a further reading list of three books deals with the WP:RS or WP:OR concerns here, as they are just information on books, and they have not been cited inline to either support or disprove the core content. Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to debate with you on this. There's that anti-mormon accusation again. Personal attacks do not belong in discussions on article notability. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka! Rename and expand to Mormon cosmology. Uncle G has satisfied my concerns about reliable secondary sources (thanks very much, Uncle G), so the narrowness and phrasing of the original topic are my only remaining concerns. I think "Mormon cosmology" is broad enough to encompass not only the notion of life on other worlds, but also various ideas about the Creation, ancient astronomy, Kolob, and so forth, and will accommodate a balance of viewpoints regarding these ideas. (I'm uncertain whether such an article should be LDS-centric or attempt to cover the range of denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement; if the former, then "LDS cosmology" or something like that might be more in line with established Wikipedia naming conventions.) alanyst ^/talk/ 14:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concern about dealing with the broader LDS movement on this topic is the tendency to cut off discussion to topics prior to 1845, and uncertainty that there is much in terms of content by other denominations within the LDS movement. I don't know any CoC Science Fiction authors, but I do know some that are members of the LDS Church, just to give an example. Or astronauts for that matter (who get asked all kinds of weird questions about life in the cosmos and have responded in quotable public statements). --Robert Horning

Keep and move per Alanyst. AfD is not cleanup, or the place to resolve content disputes. There are enough sources in this article to establish that it is notable and based in fact. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as to the move, two people can have identical views about extraterrestrial life and quite different cosmologies, so is "cosmology" an appropriate term here? Carlossuarez46 21:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep substantial topic. JJL 23:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mormon leaders have made comments—some of them weird—about extraterrestrials. Do these statements constitute a doctrine or belief system for the church? The answer appears to be no; the article says, "the LDS Church has not explicitly adopted any official doctrines on the existence or absence of extraterrestrials." Lacking any underlying doctrine, the quotes are disconnected. For example, Brigham Young doesn't try to defend Joseph Smith's comment about people on the moon dressed like Quakers; instead he's got his own theory about life on the sun. All of these quotes are sort of strange, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not every weird comment made by Joseph Smith merits its own article; surely the standard for notability needs to be that it mattered to the church and its adherents. Sanpete Slim 04:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - I would have to agree that the current name of this article is certainly not the best one that could be used for a topic of this nature, although it doesn't need an AfD for that to be accomplished. There is sufficient material from a range of people including contemporary LDS leaders or even LDS astronauts that would make a broad article talking about LDS perspectives about the relationship of mankind in the universe something worthy of a Wikipedia article. Reliability of sources and POV issues are a huge concern, but I think those could be dealt with through normal editing processes. The idea of renaming to Mormon cosmology does sound like something a bit more appropriate in terms of a general theme. I would also point out that there are also some LDS scriptural references that are doctrinal which would apply in such an article rename and could help with maintaining an NPOV. And to help diffuse the problems of opening a back door to UFO researchers seeking legitimacy on Wikipedia. --Robert Horning 13:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and rename The article is well referenced, and it appears to be a notable topic. Actually, I found it interesting, but of course, that is a personal opinion. The name is bad however. It should be renamed. Orangemarlin 23:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as non-notable. KrakatoaKatie 00:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Fields[edit]

Delete - there do not appear to be independent sources attesting to her notability and her guest starring roles to date do not appear to qualify her under WP:BIO Otto4711 22:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN actress (much work through nepotism, apparently). At worst, merge with Kim Fields. --Dhartung | Talk 08:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio of [1]. Adrian M. H. 16:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and put some tags for expanding the article. She is not so insignificant. -- Magioladitis 08:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not that anyone is saying she is insignificant, its just that she's not notable. Her fame does not rise to the level of warranting an article. For me, when the trivia section of an article contains almost as many words as the main body of the article it becomes, well, trivial. Sorry. JodyB_talk 20:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. - KrakatoaKatie 00:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someko Singers[edit]

High school choir. Only possible notability is appearance in Lincoln Center, but I can't find anybody who noticed. Clarityfiend 22:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. As far as I can tell from a web search (190 hits) there have been a few local performances, but little or no non-trivial coverage. Adrian M. H. 16:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC -Flubeca (t) 00:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utgar (Heroscape)[edit]

Contested prod. Violates WP:NOT#IINFO's "7. Plot summaries", WP:N's "presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." and WP:FICTION's "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance" 650l2520 22:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other contested prods:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Heroscape. Adrian M. H. 16:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all Heroscape.
Merge all in Heroscape Magioladitis 09:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure. Yechiel Man 18:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ailurophobia[edit]

Speedy keep. This phobia is one of the more common ones, and it could easily be verifiable. It's no less valid than, say, acrophobia -- in fact, it's commonly known that Napoleon Bonaparte had ailurophobia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs work, but it's fairly new. I fear you haven't seen the scary number of articles on phobias (see -phob-#Psychological conditions). Clarityfiend 23:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. Clean up the article. Very real, very notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Very real condition deserving article. Davewild 06:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag for sources and expansion. 236 Google Books references show that it has usage in the real world. --Dhartung | Talk 08:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, lots of ways this article can be expanded. John Vandenberg 11:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or speedy keep, whatever. The topic is notable and holds encyclopedic merit. Sources do exist, and plenty of them. RFerreira 06:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qumsieh's syndrome[edit]

This is a description of a rare form of headache that doesn't respond to a painkiller. All very good, until we find out that it has not yet been published, and there is a reasonable chance it will not be accepted for publication. There is also a reasonable chance it will not be named after the medical student who claims to have discovered it. Delete, WP:NOR. JFW | T@lk 22:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V, and a previous version said that there is only one documented case. BassoProfundo 22:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indomethacin resistant hemicrania continua has been discussed in several journal articles the primary example is this pubmed article: Kuritzky A: Indomethacin-resistant hemicrania continua. Cephalalgia 1992, 12:57-59. View the PubMed notation for this reference. In addition, your correct, Qumsieh's syndrome is yet to be accepted by peer review jourals, but will be submitted in July, this condition exists and at very least an article comparing and contrasting or describing the condition should be allowed. Your not basing your judgement on science as it seems you don't know anything about headaches. This particular headache does not respond to painkillers completely. At first there is a decrease in the magnitude of pain then resistance develops. This particular patient continues to have the same headache described under Hemicrania continua but is not responding to indomethacin. In addition, no autonomic features are present. I don't care if the medical student has his name on it or not this is an issue of describing a disease variant. Describing, not diagnosing or treating. Please be reasonable user jfdwolff. vote for no deletion. thanks Hitman123 22:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I submit that your statement "it seems you don't know anything about headaches" constitutes a personal attack. Substantial arguments have been given in addition to whether it is your interpretation that this syndrome exists. Why call it Qumsieh's syndrome (is that you?) if Kuritzky already gave a good definition? JFW | T@lk 15:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it. This is an encyclopedia. Bring it back after it makes it to a review article or medical textbook. alteripse 23:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. There are 0 (zero) PubMed hits for "Qumsieh's syndrome". Which means that, medically speaking, this syndrome doesn't exist. Violates Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When it's been published somewhere reliable, then it could be considered for inclusion. Also, syndromes are not usually defined based on 1 patient; no evidence that this eponym is going to be used, even assuming that "indomethacin-resistant hemicrania" is someday accepted as a separate syndrome (there's a general move away from eponyms these days); zero reliable sources; I'd go on, but I'm getting an NSAID-resistant headache. MastCell ^Talk 23:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By admission there are no peer-revied scholarly sources on this article. The minimum borderline for an article's inclusion is that information on the subject must be verifiable through the use of reliable sources. Delete until such a time as peer-reviewed scholarly sources are published in medical journals. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your findings. -- saberwyn 23:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - no WP:RS yet published, presumption that it will (but I do wish you luck) and more likely would be named after the descriptive name than the initial researcher. Even if published, I would disagree with Alteripse, in that as just a single case report I would not have thought it would meet the criteria for being WP:Notable; instead might warrent an additional paragraph in hemicrania continua, along with IRHC. David Ruben ^Talk 01:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - per nom & others above. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Feel free to rewrite this article after it has been covered in multiple reliable, scholarly sources. Also, as the nominator and David Ruben above, I doubt this will be eponymous, (if) when it becomes a recognized entity. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If and when the peer-reviewed article is published would have been a good time to write this up; better would be when the follow-up study confirms the result. Until then this fails WP:OR. -- MarcoTolo 01:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Tizio 15:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race in hip hop[edit]

Delete:This is not suitable for an encyclopedia entry. The topic is inherently opinion based. Max Elstein 21:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I agree that it is hard to keep the article neutral. However, it is meets WP:N, and it is sourced reliably. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ)
Weak keep although it could use improvement. I was expecting an WP:OR-ish essay, but it's a reasonable container article in summary style as well as having some content of its own. --Dhartung | Talk 08:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is and will always be controversial so I understand the nom's concerns. It will always need lots of maintenance, but is definitely a notable topic. Malc82 21:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably enough potential for worthwhile content without bias or original research. Adrian M. H. 17:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: subject covered in depth on hip hop music pageCosprings 18:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge:Article should be merged with Hip hop music, after editing for NPOV.
Keep - As encyclopaedic as anything else I've ever seen. Reginmund 00:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vector graphics editors. History will be left intact since many seem interested in merging, what and where to merge are editorial decisions, as always. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SVG tools[edit]

Though it has some explanations of the software, most are just external links. This is in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. --HAL2008 21:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ good faith attempt to compare vector graphics tools. Similar pages include comparison of raster graphics editors. Needs improvement and probably a tweak to the name, but not deletion. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to change to Merge to List of vector graphics editors and SVG, as we already have a list of vector graphics tools. A lot of the rest could be rewritten into "Support in applications" and "Support in browsers" in the SVG article. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it is kept, shouldn't it be moved to List of SVG tools? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worthwhile information, but needs more content to meet Wikipedia standards. Perhaps should be listed on 'articles needing attention'?. DaveApter 09:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - list of products at one point of time. WP is not DMOZ. If kept it should be renamed to "List of ..." and better yet, a historical overview would be more valuable for WP than the product list (e.g. first SVG editor, when, what features were added over time, standard compatibility over time, etc). Pavel Vozenilek 15:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Wikipedia is not a collection of links. All of these links are, as far as I can see, spam related, so the most notable of them should be included in SVG or in List of vector graphics editors. - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 22:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not sure if it should be in mainspace, but would a few of the resources make any sense in the Wikipedia namespace as a list of resource? For those of us who would like to upload in SVG but have no current program that will handle them for editing, I can see a Wikipedia:List of SVG Tools LaughingVulcan 00:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually, that isn't a bad idea. This page could be moved, or merged with a Wikipedia namespace article. I support that idea as well.
  - Good idea - it would make most sense on commons:. The SVG help page commons:Commons:SVG has only one or two suggestions, so this could be helpful. However, I'm not sure how to go about moving across wikis, or whether we need to ask those on commons first. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Yeah, putting it on commons would be a good idea. This is the transwiki page in the Wikipedia namespace. Take a look at that, maybe it'll help. -HAL2008 talk 01:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete I believe that a soft delete would be useful, though I nominated the article for deletion, I did have a soft deletion in mind when making that nomination, though the problem is only a few links can be merged, not the whole article. I'm still a bit new... so I'm getting the hang of it. I also support a rename if possible to the Wikipedia namespace for some, if not all of the links, as they would be good for giving people information on how to acquire freeware Vector Graphics editors. I'd like to thank everyone so far in helping me learn, and taking part in the discussion, and any who voice their opinions from this point forward as well. --HAL2008 talk 03:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of SVG Tools or something else. Astrale01^talk_contribs 14:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why are people suggesting this be merged with a dead article?--Mike18xx 00:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The topic appears to be notable enough....this article needs a cleanup tag, not an RfD.--Mike18xx 00:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move/transwiki to Wikipedia namespace or Commons and Merge notable links to SVG per G1ggy. Ichibani _u^t_c 03:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 so the article is kept by default. DES ^(talk) 23:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chase hoyt[edit]

Contested speedy A7. Nonnotable film figure; article is a clear violation of WP:COI (which is how I found it). Yechiel Man 21:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Tag with Template:Db-bio. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and not speedy. IMDB page has quite a few major programs, albeit as bit-parts. Certainly needs improvement. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep pending cleanup and satisfactory sources. Adrian M. H. 17:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. DES ^(talk) 14:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fall of Mahkinoc[edit]

An article on a self-published book. Fails WP:BK Victoriagirl 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not self published, since tate publishing is more than just Frank Wacholtz, but I supose it really isn't peticularly notable either, since it's not to popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLAF (talk • contribs)

Comment The publisher in question, Tate Publishing, appears on a list of vanity presses within the Vanity press article. That said, per WP:BK "self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press is indicative, but not determinative of non-notability". Victoriagirl 16:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am inclined to agree with the point about notability, if web hits are any indicator. I got primary sources, retail listings and trivial mentions. Adrian M. H. 17:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tate publishing appears to be a publish on demand press. They make claims that the reject 95% of books, they invest lots of money in advertizing etc., but what is clear is that they charge authors $4,000 to publish. [2]. Presses that charge to publish are not reputable in my book. Putting that aside, I cannot find any reliable sources covering this book; it's ranked at 2,631,478 at amazon; and I failed to find it at the Library of Congress or on Worldcat, despite locating its isbn (1598863932).--Fuhghettaboutit 14:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 16:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Moorings, New York[edit]

There is nothing significant or relevant enough about the Moorings that it should have a page Saneno 21:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC) — Saneno (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This is an extremely exclusive upper-class gated community of a few dozen homes in an already wealthy part of Long Island. There were no real refs, but I added two from the NY Times, that confirm the information in the article.DGG 00:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and the references they added. And I just notice that this AfD is the nom's very first edit. [3] --Oakshade 07:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two small articles in 10 years do not make this area noteworthy. Delete or integrate it into another article on Long Island. It is only a few dozen homes on a couple of streets. No need for its own article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.11.135 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 11 June 2007 — 72.192.11.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Actually being the subject of 2 small articles, particularly if they include something like The New York Times, do demonstrate notability per WP:N. There's too much topic specific content in this article to be merged to the already long Long Island article. --Oakshade 16:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This not applied universally. Just because there were articles does not automatically make it notable. See the discussion of Allison Stokke. Even though she was on the front page of the Washington Post among other newspapers. It was decided that she was not notable enough for a wiki entry

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Moorings as other guard-gated communities have a place on Wikipedia. After all there is a Catergory Page with lists of many US guard-grated communities and if The Moorings is removed, what protects the rest? Refer to Harry Havemeyer's book Along the Great South Bay for more information on the topic. Long Island's South Shore has faced a wave a regeneration from time to time and area in which The Moorings exists is particularly significant. It was home to H. B. Hollins, a famed Wall Street Banker. In the fall of Hollin's firm, he subdivided the property and sold it off to Charles Lanier Lawrence.--24.186.83.117 14:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the AfD tag from the article when the AfD is still running. I trust you did it in good faith, but this can be seen as serious disruption. Malc82 21:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per above. Just looked it up on VisualEarth, it seems clearly notable enough for an article. Apart from that, since current consensus on WP is that every settlement deserves an article I would also include every neighborhood and every gated community. Malc82 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not like to be interpreted as advocating that. Gated communities are not inherently more notable than other real estate developments, unless they receive significant coverage--as some do. Nor is everything that is called a "neighborhood" by a real estate agent. We should always want more documentation than just advertisements. This one has it, DGG 00:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at List of Manhattan neighborhoods and countless others to see what I meant by neighborhood. While some of them may be the brainchild of real estate agents, they usually are notable. Gated communities, as the name suggests, are usually not very integrated with the surrounding locations, so they kind of form a settlement of their own. Malc82 07:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Moorings, New York is significant in the New York Society as the land was originally owned by a prominent family of New York Society, J. Mainwaring. Eventually, the Mainwaring family later sold the estate to the family of Harry Hollins, a prominent New York investment banker and a notable family in the Anglo-American Aristocracy. During the demise of H.B. Hollins & Co, the banking firm which Hollins formed, his estate was subdivided and sold to Charles Lawrance. The Lawrance family was also world renowned, Charles himself for architecture marvels (a graduate of Ecole de Beaux Arts) and for major aviation contributions. He invented and perfected the Wright Whirlwind engine which was utilized by the most famous of aviators including Amelia Earnhart and Admiral Richard Byrd. After Lawrance's death the estate once again was sold and subdivided with the intention to maintain a level of affluence. Advertisements in every publication catering to Long Island and New York's wealth mentioned the formation of this community. It highlighted its previous notable owners and boasted its creator’s vision. The Moorings was able to attract very prominent families who desired to live in lavious homes behind a veil of privacy and security. However, this former estate is important in the history of Long Island and the once tony South Shore. The Moorings epitomizes wealth and opulence, an ideal the South Shore was once known for. And although the homes are no where as elaborate as the 30,000sq foot estates of days before it is still an icon to the past. Yet, its seclusion leads to it being unnoticed and leaves this ideal of wealth to be forgotten.--LongIslander 22:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I would probably have opted to delete or merge personally, but the consensus is clear in this discussion. The Merges and Moves suggested by some in the discussion are editorial issues, and can be proposed and discussed on the relevant talk page. DES ^(talk) 14:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Races in the Warcraft universe[edit]

This article is full of OR and cruft. It's one of the longest pages on the entire encyclopedia, and it's not even referenced. Any sort of minimal value that this article presents would be better off in the main World of Warcraft article. ElbridgeGerry t c block 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Keep While the current page may not be referenced, that doesn't mean that the concept of the page is OR. It's not. Conceptually, this would merely recount the races in the setting, which would be reasonable in terms of WP:FICT, especially since World of Warcraft is distinct from the Warcraft universe. That said, I'm certainly not enamored of the contents of the page, and if you want to suggest starting over from a blank page, I won't object. Nor to a redirect section on Warcraft universe. FrozenPurpleCube 23:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Humanoid Races in the Warcraft universe, Demonic Races in the Warcraft universe, Animal Races in Warcraft universe and Miscellaneous races in the Warcraft universe but I couldn't find the Superfluous races in the Warcraft universe. 650l2520 23:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that probably does need to be deleted, since I'm not sure that it's a good concept as it stands. It would at the least, have to be re-purposed. FrozenPurpleCube 23:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a reasonable article and I split it into ~~smarter~~ (Sorry typo meant to say smaller) articles making it smaller.--St.daniel ^Talk 20:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It should be moved to World Of Warcraft
World of Warcraft != Warcraft. It's a subset of the setting, just as Forgotten Realms is a subset of D&D setting. Merge the lists mentioned by User:650l2520 into this main article (and split when necessary), but this article should never be a redirect to World of Warcraft. Keep - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I am sure that there is official Blizzard documentation about those races, making it not OR. However, it should be split into several distinct articles since it's too big.--Kylohk 16:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is not OR, merely a compilation of various details and information. There is no reason to discard or delete this, as it does contain significant information. --Sm8900 17:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Sm8900.IP198 14:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow this is the biggest violation of WP:NOT a indiscriminate collection of information I've seen in a long time. Whisp e ring 12:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as unencyclopedic list. - KrakatoaKatie 00:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of RAS examples[edit]

Content taken from an earlier revision of RAS syndrome. As it stands, I see no real point in having such a list - people are smart enough to check if an acronym is redundant or not and the 3 (as of now) examples provided in RAS syndrome are more than sufficient. Verifying entries also poses a challenge - it's easy to see that something is redundant (PIN number, for example), but it'll be difficult to find sources showing that X instance of RAS is commonly used. mi km 20:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unencyclopedic list. DaveApter 09:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-encyclopædic list that is very hard to WP:verify and is redundant next to the parent article. Adrian M. H. 17:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jess King[edit]

NN musician. Ms. King has no label and the only sources are her own website. The author of the article is JessKingMusic who admitted on my talk page that she is Jess King's manager...which is a serious conflict of interest and after being warned of this, the editor recreated the article (it was originally deleted as a copyvio). Blatant advertising. IrishGuy ^talk 20:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails both WP:BAND and WP:BIO. Also is WP:SPAM. --Evb-wiki 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. It reads like advertising and offers no reliable sources. A web search can't turn it as copyvio—but that also means the quotations have no sources! Notability not established per WP:BAND, claims not verifiable. —C.Fred (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per SPAM, and per WP:A Ohconfucius 08:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craig-Paul Sinclair[edit]

Likely hoax, originally tagged for speedy deletion by Xn4 (talk · contribs). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verifiable sources are added as almost certainly hoax. Cannot find any sources for his existence. Davewild 21:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, claim of honours publication in London Gazette not verifiable. Most likely hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 08:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Ghits for his mother's death in a car bomb. Or him being part of the Royal Horticultural Society. Supposedly made Captain at age 21. Supposedly recieved United Nations Medal for Cyprus while attending college in Cambridge. Almost certainly hoax. Edward321 03:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Creator of article also tried to give him completely different father in this edit.[4] Edward321 03:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:CRYSTAL. KrakatoaKatie 00:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFL in Toronto[edit]

Speculative blog entry, not an encyclopedia article. Every few years, Paul Godfrey does a lot of talking about it, but no serious proposals about an NFL team coming to Toronto have ever materialized, and as of 2007 is rather far fetched. In the context of Wikipedia the idea only deserves a mention in Godfrey/Toronto/NFL-related articles. heqs ·:. 20:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL one feels. Pedro | Chat 20:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is crystal clear that the article fails WP:CRYSTAL. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Useight 23:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect title to ~~Professional sport in Toronto~~ Professional sport in Toronto#Football and take Second NHL team in Toronto created by same editor with it. Yes the article's tone appears as the author's analysis and could violate WP:CBALL. However, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. (emphasis mine). One such reference would be: [5]. There are others. Canuckle 06:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the references in the article confirm that as it stands, the idea is little more than excitement on Godfrey's behalf but is "still just a dream" "it would seem destined to remain just that -- a dream" "plenty of reason to doubt such a possibility" "little discernible progress". The reference you provided is extremely speculative and basically concludes that Canada may host a single game at some point, not a team. heqs ·:. 13:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. As you demonstrate notable people are having a public discussion, verified by reliable sources, about a topic that would have notable impact on professional sports business and infrastructure. "Hope" and "dream" yes but so is the idea Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state. Is there enough progress to justify a stand-alone article? I don't think so but that doesn't mean it has to disappear from Wikipedia entirely. I've added the verifiable parts to Professional sport in Toronto#Football. What do you think of Redirecting NFL in Toronto to that section? Canuckle 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see no reason to preserve the redirect; with relevant content now merged I still support delete. heqs ·:. 10:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: You're opposed to redirecting the title? One reason might be that "Someone finds them useful." as in the advice not to delete redirects because "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." Wikipedia:Redirects#When should we delete a redirect.3F NFL in Toronto seems to me to be a likely search phrase used by a layman. Canuckle 20:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge .....with NFL or CFL or perhaps cultural imperialism. Eastbayway 16:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe the correct title for the article is Football in Toronto. This can deal with both the Argos and any kind of NFL discussion. Kingjeff 13:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Such an article would cover the Toronto Argonauts, the International Bowl, the York Lions, Varsity Blues, and other amateur teams, not to mention touch on the 130+ year history of what became Canadian football in Toronto, including many dozens of Grey Cups and Vanier Cups held in the city, former Ontario Rugby Football Union teams, etc. The popularity of of the NFL/Buffalo Bills in the area might be included; the possibility of NFL games actually being played in the city would be a mere footnote. Such an article does not exist, and unless someone is prepared to write it at this time, the current article, NFL in Toronto, is up for deletion. heqs ·:. 14:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, As a (senior) resident of Toronto I agree that this is long-standing hype. The actual Toronto Olympic bid is redirected. In comparison, the subject of this page is not even an actual NFL bid. Verbose text without citations is also noted. If not delete, then pare and merge with the entry for Paul Godfrey. I concur fully with heqs. Pever 00:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about money[edit]

Yet another list of songs. Violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY - list of loosely associated things. Clarityfiend 19:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Zero tolerance with articles that being with "List of songs...", delete it before it spreads! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 20:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I had a million dollars (If I had a million dollars!)

I'd delete some cruft (Wikipedia cruft!) Yechiel Man 20:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My deepest sympathies for whoever's going through the lists of songs. Phony Saint 20:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Good grief how many of these worthless "List of songs..." articles are there!? Anyway this violates WP:UNENC, WP:POV and WP:NOR so get rid of it. A1octopus 20:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thi$ i$ getting out of hand. Thi$ one i$ ju$t totally non notable and hard to verify. I mean, is "Last Dollar (Fly Away)" really "about money" since he's singing about being happy despite being down to his last dollar? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These "lists of..." have been driving me crazy, most of these lists (not all) are non-encyclopedic and should be placed elsewhere on the internet --♫Twinkler4♫ 22:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know how many more of these "lists of songs" I can take, but I'd guess about three more. Useight 23:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this tedious cruft. Bigdaddy1981 06:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inclusion criteria far too broad, impossible to keep track of, and not really encyclopedic.--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 02:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^talk 11:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colligo Contributor[edit]

This is basically a relisting. I closed the first AFD of this article but it had very little participation. The creator (who apparently has a conflict of interest, but that alone isn't a reason for deletion) came to me with new evidence, and I did some looking of my own, and there seem to be a few stories about this product [6]. I'm still not really convinced so I'm bringing it back to AFD. I will notify the people from the 1st AFD. --W.marsh 19:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of articles and reviews from several publications:

Windows IT Pro
CMS Wire
Small Business Technology Mag
Outlook Power
Application Development Trends
eWeek Review
Network World
Backbone Magazine
SearchVB.com
Also covered by analysts such as 451 Group:
451Group
Awards:
Finalist Tech Ed 2007
Case Studies:
Microsoft Case Study on Colligo
AAXICO Case Study
--Colligo 20:26, 10 June 2007

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while there is sufficient RS for an article, with only 150 ghits I doubt that this product has become notable. John Vandenberg 23:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John, please allow me to differ. Colligo Contributor is part of the Colligo for SharePoint product line. Please try "Colligo for SharePoint". You will get 526 ghits. The most notable product in the line, called Colligo Reader, gives 10,100 ghits. Because Colligo Reader is free, it has garnered a tremendous amount of support from SharePoint users. Contributor is the corporate version used mainly by large enterprises, hence more stealthy, but no less notable. Please reconsider your position. -- Colligo.
- "Colligo for SharePoint" only returns 103 unique hits, and "Colligo Reader" only returns 179 unique hits. There are 50 hits on the Microsoft website, so perhaps an article about Colligo is warranted. The question that needs answering is .. why does this product need to be recorded in an encyclopedia? John Vandenberg 07:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It all started when a consultant contacted us after updating a Wikipedia article on SharePoint. In it he had mentioned us and some of the alternative solutions for taking SharePoint offline. I noted that he had prepared a companion article on Sharepoint Offline Synchronization Comparison. In it, he had linked to a Wikipedia article on Microsoft Office Groove. A great product no doubt, but not as notable for offline SharePoint applications. For example, try googling Offline SharePoint and see who dominates the first page. I'd also point out that offline access to web applications like sharePoint and the Google Apps is heating up today. Heck, even Google Gears has an article, and it's still in Beta! -- Colligo.
  - Question I'd really like to know how you made those google search numbers so low. I click on your link and it shows the low number you site, but all I have to do is click "search" and I come up with the higher numbers sited by Colligo. When I did the search myself (in quotations), I got basically the same numbers as Colligo. - T-75|talk|contribs 00:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Google removes duplicates as you travel through the list of results. i.e. the number of hits will become more accurate when you ask google for hits further away from the first 20. John Vandenberg 01:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment'Keep I accept full reviews in eweek and similar well-regarded trade publications as notable, ~~but it does not appear that the one in eweek was more than a paragraph.~~ I have not analyzed the others. Anyway, it's the quality of the items found as ghits, andwhat they say, not the number. DGG 00:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC) It is a full review & sufficient for notability.DGG 21:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment DGG, there IS a full review in eWeek. The link is at the bottom of the article cited above. It's a three page review. -- Colligo

Keep WP:N is a guideline based on WP:V. In order for a subjec to be "notable" enough to have an article they should meet the standards of WP:V. This article meets those standards. - T-75|talk|contribs 00:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, this article isnt written based on those sources. We could reduce the article to a stub because we know there are a few reliable sources, but as the article is written by the company, there is little to gain from doing so. John Vandenberg 01:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the contributor has been honest about his affiliation with the company and that he is willing to work with other editors to make sure the article meets wikipedia guidelines. I understand the editor of the article probably wrote the article based off of his own knowledge, but if the info in the article can be sourced to the sources provided, I don't see how that makes a problem. Besides, the article isn't much more than a stub now, so it couldn't be made one. - T-75|talk|contribs 16:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have some basic notability. Further, while the article may have been written by the company, they wrote it well, and I only see a couple minorly questionable sentences. While editors are discouraged from editing articles for which they have a conflict of interest, what they write should be allowed to stand on its own merit. Someguy1221 03:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Prison Break. Note that in a merge result the history is kept (for GFDL attribution) and the article remains as a redirect. DES ^(talk) 15:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International airings of Prison Break[edit]

Delete - for the same reason many similar articles for shows from Desperate Housewives to The Simpsons to Smallville have been deleted, Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. Viewers can check their local listings. Otto4711 19:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into the main article about Prison Break. It wouldn't take up much space there; just show it as a list there, omitting the flag icons and the redundant columns for "title" and "translation" since the show is known as Prison Break in almost every country identified so far. --Metropolitan90 19:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge If we say that Prison Break airs in the USA on FOX, why not say where it airs in other countries? We are interested in a worldwide view. Yechiel Man 20:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We say it airs on Fox in the US because that's it's originating network. Otto4711 23:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Prison Break. Main article is a little lengthy at 53 kB, but nothing that would preclude merging this back in. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - because it's all fine to say merge but any non delete vote typically gets treated as a keep vote and then misapplied as rational to keep a nonmerged article. Happens all the time. So delete and if the info is any good someone can put it on the main article. DreamGuy 21:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, for GFDL reasons, we aren't normally supposed to delete articles which contain content that gets merged into another article, but replace the original article with a redirect; though it could also be argued that as a simple table of facts, this article isn't subject to copyright protection so GFDL doesn't apply. DHowell 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the world is bigger than the US, also provides interesting cultural reference V8rik 21:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Prison Break, informative table which demonstrates the worldwide distribution of the show. DHowell 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 16:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Dyer[edit]

Fails notability, there are only a handful of WP:ATT sources that discuss this guy and none of them have very much information so it fails verifiability as well. Tmtoulouse 18:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nominator has clearly failed to check Google News Archive. A quick check of regular Google results may turn up largely promotional material, but this guy's first publishing success was 33 years ago (and has remained in print). USA Today profile, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 19:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 90 percent of that archive is Science Daily, not exactly a great source. I am not denying there are a few article here and there about this guy but there is just not a lot to do a very good article on him.Tmtoulouse 19:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment How is Science Daily (whatever your opinion of it) not a reliable source? How is USA Today not a reliable source? Please don't wikilawyer. We have a nationally-published newspaper calling him a "best-selling author". --Dhartung | Talk 19:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science Daily is mostly a source for reprinted press releases. Many of its articles end with a line stating "Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by ...." [7] But even without Science Daily we should be able to produce a decent article about Wayne Dyer. --Metropolitan90 20:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's more specific, thank you, Metropolitan90. I apologize also to Tmtoulouse, as I misread the comment as "90% of the (USAToday) article is Science Daily", which didn't make sense. --Dhartung | Talk 08:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article could use some improvement in its references, but that can be done. According to Publishers Weekly his books have sold 80 million copies worldwide. [8] --Metropolitan90 19:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, in agreement with Dhartung's points about the reliable sources. Seems to have his own notability, and those sources are perfectly fine. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Eh, its a bad article thats not likely to improve anytime soon. I think its a blackeye and I am tired of it, I think deletion is best but obviously others disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmtoulouse (talk • contribs)

Well, the numerous many bad articles on Wikipedia don't tend to enjoy much support for deletion when they otherwise qualify for an article. FrozenPurpleCube 20:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That almost borders on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Almost. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The article could be improved, but how can someone who wrote "one of the best-selling books of all time" be non-notable? It's number 32 on List of best-selling books, the list that begins with the Bible and the Little Red Book. We are virtually obligated to have an article on someone like that. --Rbraunwa 22:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. For all the above reasons. It is not a perfect article but it is the most NPOV bio of Dyer that I can find on the web. Pgc512 00:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AFD is not cleanup. If there's a problem with the article, fix away - it's very obvious that the subject is notable. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 00:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tony Fox. The individual is highly notable and may be the best-known medical writer in the English language. --Charlene 01:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Massively notable author of one of the best-selling books in the history of publishing. Plenty of sources out there if one looks for them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has been improved from reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 09:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Regardless of the quality of this particular article, there is no doubt of Wayne Dyer's notability, since notability doesn't expire. He was huge in the '70s. Capmango 03:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article reads: His 1976 book Your Erroneous Zones has sold over 30 million copies and is one of the best-selling books of all time. Sources are there. What more do you want? RFerreira 06:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crucificia Maria Traina[edit]

Probable Hoax. No hits in Google for "Crucificia Maria Traina", and when dropping the first word, there are hits, but it's for an Italian bishop, not an American SirFozzie 18:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax unless verifiable sources are added. Davewild 18:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With no sources and no Google hits, this person must be considered unverifiable for now. --Metropolitan90 19:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. per above--Svetovid 21:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. John Vandenberg 12:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hikarunix[edit]

Stub on non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 18:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This item's claim to fame is that it contains a computer program that plays Go. Such a program might be notable in the context of Go, but not in the context of Linux. Yechiel Man 20:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a few links. This is, IMO notable more as a zero-footprint Go program/environment than as a Linux distro. One of the links I added is a positive review from a publication of the American Go Association who are the name in GO in the USA. DES ^(talk) 18:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also added an internal link to Sensei's Library. DES ^(talk) 06:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with a cleanup tag (needs some external links converted into references).--Mike18xx 00:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable as a Go app. Reliable sources exist. Seems fine to stay. Ichibani _u^t_c 03:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Heyward[edit]

Subject fails WP:BIO standards for athletes for never having competed at the professional level or at the highest amateur level. He was selected in the Major League Baseball draft but has A. yet to play a game in even the minor leagues and B. not yet decided whether to go to college or to the professional level. Metros 18:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having been drafted as a #1 pick of an MLB club is most assuredly notable, and while not official, it is a foregone conclusion that he will indeed sign with the Braves. Additionally, I would imagine that his selection and inclusion to such events as the Aflac All-American High School Baseball Classic and the Perfect Game Top Prospect Showcase should qualify as the highest levels of amateur high school baseball. MichaelProcton 03:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once he plays in a major league then he's in but schoolboys who might play in the future are not. This applies to sports like soccer and cricket and should also apply here. High school baseball is not the highest level of the game as an amateur sport. Nick mallory 05:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S._state)-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- If he's been drafted, then presumably he's received at least one paycheck from the Braves. Unless he wraps his car around a tree or something, I can't fathom them not trying to get their money's worth out of him soon enough. Leave the article alone as a stub and let the sports nuts play with it as the baseball season progresses.--Mike18xx 00:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's not quite the way it works in Major League Baseball. Draftees have up until August 15 (I think that's the date) to decide whether they're going to sign with the team or continue playing baseball at the high school or college level. If he does decide to take the pro contract, he'll probably stay in the minor leagues for several years before he possibly makes the major league team. So technically he's never signed a contract (or received at least one paycheck from the Braves as presumed) and he's definitely never played a game at the professional level. Metros 00:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO for athletes; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so he gets no article unless he does start to meet that guideline. Notability is presumed for extensive coverage in secondary sources; I couldn't find any articles talking about his prospect as a first pick. Ichibani _u^t_c 03:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that he fails BIO, but I think the references in the article are enough to make a legitimate argument that he meets the general guideline in WP:N. Someone has gone to the trouble of writing and referencing the article, and I see no harm in it. If the guy goes a different route, the online sources will presumably go away, and I would see a much stronger reason to delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete DES ^(talk) 18:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southland Mall (Houma, Louisiana)[edit]

This page was nothing more than a directory when I first found it. I stubbed it down to just a few sentences, but besides that it's been largely untouched for about six months now. A cursory Google search (yeah, I know) reveals very little about this mall -- and while I'm of the inclusionist sort when it comes to mall pages, I just don't see much hope for this article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Technically a "regional mall" due to having 471,000 square feet of gross leasable area. Edison 21:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, that would make it regional, but that alone isn't necessarily enough to make it notable. I'm still not finding a whole lot of reliable sources. If some are found, then I will withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if t here is nothing to say, how can we have an article. At the moment it is just a list of the 3 anchors, and there is debate at the Malls Project about whether a list of anchors is even suitable for inclusion. DGG 00:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and unsourced Ohconfucius 08:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Smoker[edit]

Subject fails WP:BIO standards for athletes for never having competed at the professional level or at the highest amateur level. He was selected in the Major League Baseball draft but has A. yet to play a game in even the minor leagues and B. not yet decided whether to go to college or to the professional level. Metros 18:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Or do we want every schoolboy on a soccer team's books to make it onto Wikipedia? Once he plays in a professional league he's in, until then he isn't. Nick mallory 05:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I applaud the initiative of the editors who have created dozens of pages for the top picks in the draft, but I don't think Smoker meets WP:BIO as a high school prospect who wasn't even picked in the top 30. In baseball, the amateur draft is relatively unimportant because of the minor leagues -- a team's top prospects are more notable than top draft choices. Slic e NYC (Talk) 01:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest adding to this AfD debate all the picks from the sandwich round (picks #31-64), most of whom have pages about them made already. A case for notability can be made for most of the top 30, especially those known for their collegiate accomplishments, but I think the other picks can wait until they develop into minor league prospects. Slic e NYC (Talk) 01:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

he is a top prospect and just fell he should have been drafted higher. i think it should stay but maybe i guess i could recreate it when he reaches AA or AAA in the minors. but it you guys really think it should go then that's fine.

Delete He isn't notable yet, wait till he does play at the upper tier of baseball then we can talk.--Kylohk 15:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was copyright violation, speedy deleted. Chaser - T 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and catholicism[edit]

Looks like someone's pasted essay with tons of original research. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 17:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, someone found the copyvio, and tagged it such. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 17:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleteas WP:SNOW. KrakatoaKatie 21:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wheeler ball[edit]

Non-notable game, made in the format of a guide. Simply inappropriate for Wikipedia. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 17:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Phony Saint 18:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT --Bonadea 19:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and as a bonus, I think this articles gotten more idiot vandalism than most first day articles. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 19:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What has been vandolised here? and what is idiotic? also...why do you care that it is deleted so much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philapple5 (talk • contribs)
- Because we're making an encyclopedia, not a compendum of random things people make up. Delete - ElbridgeGerry t c block 21:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not verifiable; goes against WP:NFT and is a textbook example for WP:NOT. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 21:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DES ^(talk) 00:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R.Kan Albay[edit]

prod removed without improving article at all. This article doesn't show why this guy is notable at all. For all we know, based on article, those films can be flops. If guy was notable, or at least his films, there would be honors and awards listed and IMHO, links to other pages because people would cite him as sources or at least his movies. Postcard Cathy 23:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actor was a main character in a Dutch (or Belgian) tv series ("Emma") and Director/ Writer of two films that don't have their own article. I tend to NN, but this might need clarification from Dutch Wikipedians. Malc82 14:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also has articles on the Turkish and Flemish WP. Malc82 14:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - see this nl.wikipedia entry and this tr.wikipedia entry. --Evb-wiki 14:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless better sources can be found. IMDb confirms the existence of his films, but they seem to be fairly minor productions. His strongest claim is probably being an actor for a Belgin TV show which is not even included in the article and probably doesn;t quite meet WP:BIO. Eluchil404 04:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a stub is reason for expansion rather than deletion, looks notable anyhow. RFerreira 06:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a stub, what else are stubs for? I was unaware directors needed awards to be on wikipedia? Fisheke 09:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That it is a stub is not at all the question here. The question is the notability. And yes, winning awards is one of the main criterions for the notability of an actor/producer. Malc82 11:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if this is the main character in Emma, it would meet BIO, though just barely since this is a new Dutch series of unknown notability. I've added the acting filmography to the article.--Chaser - T 18:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistle Thrush (band)[edit]

Not sure what gives this band more notability than the billions of others. A quote in Boston Globe may sound weighty but they cover local bands weekly if not daily. This is wikipedia not MySpace. Toonot 16:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a relatively well-sourced article. I find that it meets WP:BAND. --Evb-wiki 17:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- consider http://www.amazon.com/Super-Refraction-Mistle-Thrush/dp/B000005C5P (album for sale for one cent). Also I reviewed WP:BAND and cound not find a criterion that it met (thus the afd) Is it possible to get Evb-wiki to acknowledge which point it meets? For the benefit of future debates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toonot (talk • contribs) 17:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll stand by at least #1 and #5 listed at WP:BAND#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. Also, you appear to be a WP:SPA intent all quashing this band, as all of your edits are attempting to delete this article or the one's for the band's albums. [9] Strike the albumns as lacking WP:RS (maybe), but keep this well-sourced article. --Evb-wiki 17:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The All Music Guide and Boston Herald are both reliable sources. Closenplay 19:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Evb-wiki. WP:BAND only needs one of its criteria met, and this band meets two:
- been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable: check the references section for articles in the Boston Globe, Phoenix, and Weekly Dig (and see the talk page for another feature from the Globe that I recently accessed but hadn't incorporated into the article yet), plus their All Music Guide entry in "External links"
- released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels: while Bedazzled isn't a mega-major indie, they were around for over ten years and released albums by many small-yet-notable bands (mostly goth and shoegaze). Egg Records seems to be an unknown indie label but it was in fact bankrolled by Elektra Records, when the indie craze hit in the mid-'90s (reference from The Phoenix).

(disclosure: I have heavily edited the article in question, and created the articles for the band's albums). Closenplay 19:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure on this myself. I went through the links provided in the article; some of them are minimal mentions of the band, others are indeed full-length pieces, and a couple are broken. I'd be more comfortable with "multiple, non-trivial" mentions if there were some references from outside of Boston; as it is, it looks like the band was known in its own area, and didn't really get beyond Boston. One of the interviews describes Egg Records as being the band's own label, and I don't find much other than the mention in the Phoenix about it being a "shadow" label; Bedazzled seems a bit dodgy too. If someone can show me some links from outside of Boston, indications of national tours, etc., I'd give this some more consideration, but for now, weak delete. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 00:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the band meets the notability criteria. There's nothing in the notability criteria which states that they have to have coverage from different regions of the world, just that they have to have coverage from reliable sources. This article's well written (perhaps excluding the "notable artists they've played with" section) and referenced, and I see no reason it should be deleted. - Zeibura ^Talk 05:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the criteria are clearly outlined and this page does not meet them. You are opening the floodgates. Poster above cited two and they are simply not true.
- released two or more albums on a major label - they did not. or one of the more important indie labels Important indie labels = discord, subpop, matador, 4AD, taang!, SST, saddle creek, tommy boy, priority... the list goes on but does not include bedazzled. To say so is some major heavy favoritism by a mod and totally sucks. Egg is the bands own label!
- been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable NON-TRIVIAL... the mentions in the boston rags are the definition of trivial.

At the very least, strike some of the supporting album pages. As I said this is not myspace.com Toonot 16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you doubt the statement in the Phoenix article that Egg was bankrolled by a major label ("about three years ago, when they were secretly aligned to a major label (their last album… came out on Egg, a "ghost indie" imprint that was quietly financed by Elektra)… Executives were sniffing around the band, and hints were dropped about moving them… up to Elektra proper and giving the big push")—an article written by someone who wrote the book on record collecting (literally)—Egg is certainly not the band's own label. The band was in Boston, the label in Indianapolis. The only thing I can find that Tony Fox might be referring to above is "now available on MT's new label, Egg Records", which I guess could be misconstrued. But considering Egg reissued Lisa Germano's first album four years prior to the sole MT release on that label, it just doesn't follow logically. And if you consider the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, and the Phoenix "rags", I don't know what else to say. Closenplay 19:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for deleting the album pages, WP:BAND says if the band's notable, the albums are notable. Closenplay 19:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets several WP:BAND criteria. History on web site mentions some major touring, which would give them yet another claim to notability. Capmango 02:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets the central criteria of WP:Band. A1octopus 13:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Atkinson[edit]

Unsourced autobiographical article about a radio presenter, with minute unencyclopedic details of "controversial records" played and "radio games". Digital Spy Poster 16:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with NE1 FM and remove unnecessary details of games etc Digital Spy Poster 16:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete nn. Mukadderat 17:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most likely a request from friends/family of Ryan Dunlop (if not Ryan directly). Clearly related to the Hitz Radio disputes where it is clear to see Hitz Radio UK do not like the public attention. It should be noted that sockpuppets etc... should be investigated fully before deletion of any articles or deletion requests from Digital Spy Poster. One can most likely safely assume Digital Spy Poster has only raised deletion requests for articles linking to/from the Hitz Radio UK article. Kev Akas 23:30, 7 June 2007 (GMT)

PROCEDURAL ERROR. There is no AfD banner on the article itself! I suggest that the nominator, Digital Spy Poster, should place the banner and then leave a request here that the debate be extended for another five days. EdJohnston 05:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Banner added. Navou 17:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Navou 17:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable sources. Without them, it is difficult to know if this presenter is notable. This article has a somewhat promotional tone, which I know could be fixed by rewriting. I don't believe this is an autobiography since the article was created by a widely experienced editor. The great profusion of unsourced info is a concern; you would imagine that an experienced editor would avoid doing that. Removal of all the unsourced info would leave only a tiny stub. I would consider changing my vote if references could be added before the close of the AfD. EdJohnston 18:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable.--Svetovid 21:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real evidence of notability. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Gamble[edit]

queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard 17:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A7. Dooms Day349 17:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable teacher, no sources to establish any notability, easily fails WP:BIO. Davewild 17:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- doesn't quite fit Speedy because it claims notability ("world renown"), but still an easy delete. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable to all but former students as a teacher who allowed them to watch lots of television in class. Ohconfucius 08:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I'm going to assume this article is intended to mock its subject and should be removed immediately.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 21:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. DES ^(talk) 00:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peerix[edit]

Notability must come before article creation. Chealer 16:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Peerix is still in the early stages of development." Yechiel Man 16:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad NN debian port. There are many ports and there is no evidence that this one is notable. meshach 17:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was supprimer (delete, en français). Sr 13 08:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred de Montesquiou[edit]

French journalist, but the French Wikipedia has deleted his article considering its policy violation: lack of notability and a probably advertisement. For further information, see [10] Chabert 15:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article doesn't assert notability Esurnir 16:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources therefore notability cannot be asserted or assessed. JodyB_talk 21:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kramamudra[edit]

The article seems to be original research. It does not establish the notability of the topic. At best it should be a subsection of an article about Utpaladev. Delete TheRingess (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 12:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced original research. With 200 Google hits, it's not likely to improve. Yechiel Man 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability, no references, and no established context (it can only be inferred from the text by those familiar with the related issues already). Almost an article for speedy deletion on that latter point alone. ◄Zahakiel ► 14:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original nom, and all of the above.TheRingess (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 no prejudice toward recreation. Sr 13 02:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justice House of Prayer[edit]

This organization is not notable. There are no reliable sources. The All Things Considered link is actually about a group called "The Cause USA". And it is a single 5 minute story from 2005 sparked by the Terri Schiavo case. The group in the NPR story is lead by Kelsey and Randy Bohlender. There is no mention of Lou Engle. These are two separate organizations that are allied, but the article confuses that. There are no other media sources referenced at all. The organizations websites are linked, and an online Christian newsletter is linked. This organization is not the subject of multiple, non-trivial media stories. The founder and a rally also appeared in a documentary film, Jesus Camp. I do not believe there are enough reliable sources to establish the notability of this organization. Andrew c 03:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Severa (!!!) 03:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It should be possible to find a 3rd party source, if they are engaged in the demonstrations claimed. An extensive article on the leader, Lou Engle, with references only to his books and to affiliated course, was deleted in a AfD in April 2006, [11] and re-created as a stub with no real 3rd party sources on April 17, 2006 and reasonably enough deleted by a speedy, but a good article if there are any 3rd party sources for either topic would seem the obvious place for this material and affiliated groups. Suggest re-creating a better article for him incorporating this material. DGG 16:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; organization is not notable, nor are reliable sources given. A Google search was underwhelming. Yechiel Man 16:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable organisation. Bigdaddy1981 06:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N a brief burst of news in the context of someone else's 15 minutes, doesn't make you notable. Carlossuarez46 21:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DES ^(talk) 00:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Townsend Letter[edit]

Non-notable, unreferenced, orphan article. THF 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion or citation of notability. -Markeer 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is terrible, but the subject seems notable. Google has 500,000 hits, so we have something to work with. Yechiel Man 16:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 12:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per YechielMan. JJL 23:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It's basically a print journal, with about one-third of the articles available online free. From Ulrich's Periodicals Directory-- 1/not indexed anywhere except in Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, which is mainly UK oriented but is the most complete of the relevant indexes 2/ the publisher is unknown otherwise--only title--it's a private operation run by the editor, Dr. Jonathan Collin 3/ a consumer magazine, claiming only 6000 paid subscriptions. However, though not available through Proquest & Wilson, it is through Ebsco and Gale, and it has been going under slightly varying titles since 1983, which is a long time in this part of publishing. Ulrich's will serve as a source. Being in Ulrich's doesn't show notability, since they put in everything they can find that is actually being published more or less regularly, but it does document the basics. I think being in 2 of the 4 major online services is notability for a consumer magazine. DGG 02:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. It is a stub that can be improved with scholar, news and book results. John Vandenberg 05:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete no reason for duplicate articles at similar but distinct titles. DES ^(talk) 04:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuperNova (Shotgun)[edit]

Delete - same topic as the article SuperNova (firearm), both articles are written by the same editor, UNSC WARRIOR two days apart. PianoKeys 14:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is just spam. DarkAudit 15:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 17:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, and the article will therefore be kept by default. DES ^(talk) 00:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Hannah Foster[edit]

As below. We're not a newpaper. And if anyone cares you could start on Category:British murder victims and Category:Murder victims by nationality fo more unencyclopedic stuff (not that they are ALL non-encyclopedic) -Doc^g 15:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are so many murders, it really doesn't make sense for WP to report on all of them. See WP:NOTNEWS. Yechiel Man 16:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Judged individually, this one has sources in BBC, the Scotsman, and Hindustani Times --the murderer fled to India. Article needed updating as he had not yet been tried in 2006. Google News now shows over 100 additional sources, though they are not all really independent of each other. There was apparently great interest in this case in India, & it was covered by national news sources there. Interesting that by chance it was nominated just as more sources became available--shows continuing interest, which is a criterion. Old crime stories should be checked for developments before being nominated--actually, all articles should be checked before being nominated. DGG 16:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was. It makes a great news story. Pity we're an encyclopedia. Wikinews perhaps?--Doc^g 17:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, what exactly are your criteria for which murders to include? Mine is simple: two national media sources, and we will have as many articles as attract major coverage. Not paper, after all. Does not detract from the seriousness of the encyclopedia; it's not as if we were covering shop-lifting. DGG 17:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedians don't establish notability by their subjective votes, the media does in its coverage. If it gets two or three stories in independent media outlets, its notable. We aren't covering the >100,000 murders every year, just the ones that media outlets deem interesting enough to cover. Thats less than a hundred a year. Fewer than the number of sports people that get automatic coverage by joining a major team each year. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due top the mulitple sources the international aspect of the crime and that extardition law is being virtually pioneered between India and Britain by this case.--Lucy-marie 19:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We need a bit more than these subjective measures of "notability" here. The article in its present form is just a news story and thus violates What Wikipedia is not. It may be possible to create a Wikipedia article on this murder, but this isn't it, and the "keep" opinions don't seem to demonstrate a realistic possibility that it could be developed into one. --Tony Sidaway 20:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment what in your opinion counts as a reliable indipendant source? The case will last in notability due to the international aspectm, the fact that extradition law is being heavily ironed out by this case and wiki is not an American only entity it must contain articles from all round the world.--Lucy-marie 21:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per policy WP:NOT and per essay WP:NOTNEWS. Not every news story is encyclopedic. It must have a larger effect on society. Edison 21:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment At some point every encyclopedia article must have been news at some time to gain any form of attention.--Lucy-marie 21:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but the problem here is that it's written like a news article.--Svetovid 21:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not to be used to delete articles because you don't like the writing style, but only because you don't think the subject is worthy of an article. -- Necrothesp 15:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not encyclopaedic.--Svetovid 21:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment If the way the article is written is the problem then it needs a clean up not deleting.--Lucy-marie 22:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. High-profile murder case in a country in which (thank God) murder is still a pretty rare and newsworthy event. -- Necrothesp 22:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO, clearly falls under the news reports. No evidence of any mid or long term significance. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newsworthy is not noteworthy. Wikinews exists for this purpose. Resolute 13:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N#Notability is not temporary, and per Resolute (great formulation of the phrase!), other than the brief bursts of news surrounding the murder and stages of the case, this differs little from the many other murders. Carlossuarez46 21:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment The case has been circulationg for a few years now so it is more than temeperary, temprary is a few weeks.--Lucy-marie 07:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep This case has a significant international aspect with the testing of extradition laws between India and Britian. This case may lead to the change or modification of extradition laws betwwen the two countiies, as a direct result of the events in this case.--Jjamesj 08:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my arguments on the old version and archived talk page of WP:NOTNEWS. The article fails to cite any evidence to indicate that there is a unique aspect to this case, and WP is not a news archive. Zun aid ©® 09:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A transnational crime event is probably as notable as cases like the disappearance of Maddie McCann, it needs cleanup though, and details of the investigation should be found. The extraditional implications may be significant too.--Kylohk 16:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

probably, maybe, could be found :- evidence?--Doc^g 16:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. --JJay 20:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DES ^(talk) 00:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Hannah Williams[edit]

murdercruft. Whilst newsworthy this isn't encyclopaedic. No evidence of any ongoing significance. We are now a news archive, or a court report. -Doc^g 14:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This sort of thing belongs at Wikinews. Wikipedia should be for subjects which have lasting impact. Riana ⁂ 14:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the case was being discussed by Brookman 3 years later is evidence of lasting impact. Uncle G 16:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We're not a newspaper. /Blaxthos 15:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and this is not a newspaper article. Uncle G 16:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~Delete~~ Keep although there was mostly only local media attention, but there was a major article in the Guardian, comparing the lack of police & media interest in her disappearance and murder with that of Amanda Dover, a girl from a wealthier background, missing & murdered about the same time (WP missed that one--our coverage seems to be erratic, and arguably should be improved not decreased). DGG 17:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC). Changed to Weak Keep on reconsidering the social aspects. DGG 17:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep due to social aspects mentioned above. There are also sources from two diffrent countries regarding this case boith the UK and the Irish Republic, so this was not some non-notable local crime in the end it had International media attention.--Lucy-marie 19:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy WP:NOT and per essay WP:NOTNEWS. Not every news story is encyclopedic. It must have a larger effect on society. Edison 21:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a news story. It is an encyclopaedia article about a murder case — one that is described in books about murder cases as a specific example. Uncle G 16:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopaedic.--Svetovid 21:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In what way is it not encyclopedic?--Lucy-marie 22:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newsworthy is not noteworthy. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Resolute 05:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and this is an encyclopaedia article, not a newspaper article. Uncle G 16:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well referenced. Wikipedians determining what is encyclopedic is too subjective. If its covered in the media by multiple, reliable outlets its inherently encyclopedic. --208.115.233.146 05:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO, clearly falls under the news reports. No evidence of any mid or long term significance. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is, as mentioned. Uncle G 16:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an improvement, but still doesn't push it over the bar for me. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication that this will be a notable case. She is one of many people who unfortunately are murdered. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. GassyGuy 14:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, there are indications that this is a significant case. I've just expanded missing white woman syndrome from a book that contrasts this specific case with the murder of Danielle Jones. Uncle G 16:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG and User:208.115.233.146 above. Much better to expand coverage than contract it. The article could be moved to "Hannah Williams" however. --Rbraunwa 20:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It could, but it shouldn't be. This is not a biography of a person. It is an encyclopaedia article about a murder case, dealing with the case and with the way that the case was dealt with. Uncle G 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N#Notability is not temporary. Carlossuarez46 21:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As pointed out above, the fact that the case was written about in books 3 years afterwards entirely shoots down that argument. Uncle G 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The media may have decided that the Murder of Amanda Dowler was more momentous than the Williams case, but that's not a decision we ought to be emulating. Even if it weren't notable in its own right, discussion of the Williams case adds value to the Dowler one. Besides, WP:NOTPAPER and all that. --Calair 23:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has lasting notability as demonstrated by Uncle G, written about in books several years later. We can afford to spare a couple kilobytes here. RFerreira 05:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what RFerreira wrote is accurate... we can certainly afford to spare a few K. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Uncle G, "he case was written about in books 3 years afterwards." --MichaelLinnear 06:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the social implications and on the addition of the sources from indipendent third parties in the form of publisihed books.--Jjamesj 07:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or quote AS AN EXAMPLE CASE in missing white woman syndrome. This murder does not push itself over the notability bar for me, per WP:NOT and WP:NOTNEWS. As a counter-example to missing white woman syndrome it may be significant, but an example is ALL that it is. Its ONLY notability rests on the imbalanced coverage. NONE of the murder/victim/murderer/trial/evidence/conviction/sentence are unusual or unique in any way whatsoever. Without such, this becomes just a commentary about the imbalanced coverage which is better suited to the main article. Without this commentary, this article is nothing more than a blow-by-blow account of the murder/trial/conviction and is thus a news story. Wikipedia is not a news archive. Zun aid ©® 09:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That this event has been referenced years after the conviction of the perpetrator, indicates that the murder is more notable than an average news story. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is relevant to the issue of coverage for missing pretty girl syndrome. LILVOKA 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources are obviously present to illustrate notability. Everyking 05:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple non-trival reliable secondary sources provided. Therefore a notable topic under WP:N. Assize 13:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DES ^(talk) 04:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Danielle Jones[edit]

yet another non-notable child murder. A blow-by-blow trial report and little more. We are not a new archive. -Doc^g 14:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This sort of thing belongs at Wikinews. Wikipedia should be for subjects which have lasting impact. Riana ⁂ 14:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the case was being discussed by Brookman 3 years later (and by Jewkes 2 years later) is evidence of lasting impact. Uncle G 16:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're still not a newspaper. /Blaxthos 15:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and this is, again, not a newspaper article. Uncle G 16:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Again there are individual features. The body was not found, but her uncle--who had two previous sex-related crimes--was convicted, & it was upheld on appeal. BBC sources, so there will be others. The article discusses the legal aspect too. DGG 17:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has multiple sources and is well known in the uk for being a murder secured on the use of mobile phone evidence.--Lucy-marie 19:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy WP:NOT and per essay WP:NOTNEWS. Not every news story is encyclopedic. It must have a larger effect on society. Edison 21:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment how would you define effect on society? and isn't that subjective and POV?--Lucy-marie 22:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a news story. It is an encyclopaedia article about a murder case — one that is presented in books about murder cases as a specific example (both by Brookman and by Jewkes). Uncle G 16:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fairly high-profile murder case. Britain has few murders, and murders such as this are neither non-notable nor unencyclopaedic as the nominator appears to believe. -- Necrothesp 22:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep featured prominently on crimewatch, which is the biggest place for crime stories in the UK.[12] --h2g2bob (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Crimewatch is a channel that specialises in current police appeals for help. It is not a commentary programme and inclusion in it does not indicate that the case is of more than passing interest. Tell me it was a feature on Newsnight or Panorama and that would be different.--Doc^g 08:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - clarification Crimewatch is not a channel in the uk it is a T.V show screened approximatly once a month featuring high profile unsolved crimes.--Lucy-marie 08:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, quite right. My point still stands - although not necessarily high profile ones.--Doc^g 10:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newsworthy is not noteworthy. Wikinews exists for this purpose. Resolute 13:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikinews is not an encyclopaedia. This is not a news article. It is an encyclopaedia article giving (some of) the history and impact of a murder case. Uncle G 16:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N#Notability is not temporary. Carlossuarez46 21:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As pointed out above, the fact that the case was written about in books 3 years afterwards entirely shoots down that argument. Uncle G 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ on the basis that we're not a mere archive of newspaper reports. --Tony Sidaway 21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We are, however, an encyclopaedia, and this is an encyclopaedia article. Given that it isn't actually a newspaper report in the first place, your argument thus has no rational basis. Uncle G 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Actually I think you'd done excellent work on this. I'll withdraw for now and may change my opinion. --22:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
keep is encyclopedic and notable for a number of reasons: 1) It a rare example where in Britain a murder was prosecuted without a body 2) the case has been extensively covered in books and other content 3) It was a noteworthy early case where cell phone technology was highly relevant to the verdict. JoshuaZ 02:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly notable the article has now been expanded new sources are in the form of published books by indipendent third parties. This by far and away satisfies notability criteria.--Jjamesj 07:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A blow-by-blow account of a murder trial does not an encyclopedia article make. Yes, this case is unusual in that no body was found, but it is not unique, and the article itself fails to make an assertion as to why this specific murder and subsequent trial stands out amongst many others in UK law. Without such, this is just a news story which fails the policy WP:NOT and the essay WP:NOTNEWS. Zun aid ©® 09:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it does. Please read the article more thoroughly. You appear to have read the "Murder trial" section of the article and not read anything else. Uncle G 09:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've read the whole article, including the "aftermath" section more closely. There still isn't enough to convince me that this is encyclopedia-worthy. The use of text messaging analysis could be borne out of this case (quoting the newspaper headline), but then that is the ONLY unique aspect of the case for me. The coverage of the article therefore has to shift to focus on this one aspect. I don't think there are enough sources or further information to flesh out an encyclopedia article on this aspect, so for now my !vote stands. Zun aid ©® 09:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT. It's not that uncommon for someone to be convicted of murder without a body being found, as corpus delict doesn't require a body. A brief mention in a book doesn't confer notability on this case. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, it is pretty rare. -- Necrothesp 12:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Uncle G's analysis pointing out that this murder is more notable than a mere news event. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Make the necessary clean up for this article. Thanks LILVOKA 15:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are obviously present to illustrate notability. Everyking 05:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep a high amount of sources (especially BBC News), comprehensive, well-written, I see no reason to delete this. I don't believe that WP:NOT prohibits articles like this one, they're definitely encyclopaedic. Sala Skan 12:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart_Esposito[edit]

non-notable person Spacefarer 14:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this person was an instructor, and there does not seem to be any notable content. Spacefarer 14:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability. /Blaxthos 15:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable Alex Jackl 15:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable EST trainer. The one non-COI source, New York magazine, doesn't even mention him.DGG 17:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. What may be worth noting however is that this is one of a couple of dozen articles created by Smee (talk · contribs) (and typically edited 70% or more by him) about individuals who are not notable at all except for their contact at some time with Werner Erhard, many of which have already been deleted on the grounds of non-notablity, or poorly-sourced defamatory content, or both. In common with all of those, almost all of the material is derived from Pressman's Outrageous Betrayal, a partisan work which doesn't identify its sources and is highly suspect as a reference source for an encyclopedia. DaveApter 09:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Not notable Eastbayway 16:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, does not meet our guidelines for inclusion. RFerreira 06:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was it's out of here. Krimpet (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get out of here in film lore[edit]

Trivial and an indiscriminate collection of information. It depends on a claim by a film historian who's notability is not asserted. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, at least, for letting me in on a debate, instead of deleting this without a word. I guess I should be honored that you've picked my article about the nearly two million already there. So many of them are about television episodes from someone's favorite TV series, singles from an obscure album from your favorite recording artist, "characters in the DC Universe", etc.

Oh my, I've run afoul of the Wikipedia administrators and editors. Let me be as obsequious as possible. May I bring anybody some tea and biscuits? I hope that you can take criticism as well as you can give it.

Let's start-- "a claim by a film historian who's notability is not asserted". What's that mean? Do you have your own list of notable film historians? Or should I precede his name with "Noted film historian"?. Granted, you haven't seen the gentleman on television, but at least he's a published author. Mandsford 19:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - oh dear god. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a collection of loosely-associated topics. The presence of a line in a bunch of different films doesn't make for any level of association amongst the films. We have deleted any number of articles on cliches in film, video games, comic books and the like and this article about a specific cliche is no better. Let's get (it) out of here. Otto4711 14:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's "Oh dear God!"-- exclamation point and dramatically rolling your eyes is optional. This is not in the same category as The Clampetts strike oil. Among film fans, the occurrence of the phrase is a point of interest. It's a movie cliche' like the fruit cart that gets in the way of the car chase, or the character who dies before he can reveal a secret. Lighten up.

Delete as crufty crap (WP:NOT). /Blaxthos 15:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Crufty crap"? I never heard the word "crufty" until now. Guess I haven't been sitting at my computer enough. I loved the article Mr. President (TV series), which revealed that it was a TELEVISION series. So THAT's what "TV" stands for. And the citation to an installment of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" made it more scholarly. Read any good books lately? Read any books? Mandsford 19:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above and nom. « ANIMUM » 15:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty font. "Steam" (ooohhh!). And it's green. You went to a lot of trouble. And your user page, also very colorful; not very informative, but colorful. Mandsford. Mandsford 19:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, let's get (this article) out of here. This is definitely a WP:NOT#DIR case, connecting a bunch of films only by the dusty phrase "Let's get out of here". Big whoop. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. "Big whoop" from a guy who has written individual articles about all of his favorite shopping malls? And I thought I was the one who had to get a life. Go buy another album at Disk Jockey, and stop at Orange Julius while you're at it.Mandsford 19:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above would seem to violate civility policy. --Dhartung | Talk 19:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, only my contribution fails to be civil...Mandsford 19:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis is correct. TenPoundHammer criticized the article. You criticized TenPoundHammer. --Dhartung | Talk 09:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riggghhhhttt.... That's one of my favorite manipulative arguments: "I'm not making fun of you, I'm making fun of what you do..." Mandsford 22:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is actually a widespread bit of trivia, but I don't see what the point of keeping a list here is. --Dhartung | Talk 19:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, a halfway positive comment. This is actually a widespread bit of trivia. The point of the ongoing list is to show that the usage is fairly common.

Mandsford 19:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, don't confuse humour or humor with frivolous. It's great that you're editors and administrators, but frankly, you're no more literate than I am. Go find another article to freak out over.

Comment - obsessively responding to every comment has generally not been found to help promote one's cause. Otto4711 19:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting concept, but we aren't for trivia. Mandsford, your comments are not helping to defend the article and are irrelevant to the issue at hand. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially this could be a decent article, but it should probably be renamed to something like Let's get out of here (movie quote). Also, I would recommend revising the article so as not to imply that Richard Gere said "Let's get out of here" in American Grafitti [sic]. Please consider this a neutral recommendation for now, but if User:Mandsford responds to this recommendation sarcastically, it should be considered a delete recommendation. --Metropolitan90 19:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree with you, and I appreciate criticism that takes the form of "improve this" instead of "delete this". Mandsford 20:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article could be rewritten, with information taken from and verifiable through the use of reliable sources, and with a focus on information about the cliché, it might be worth saving. In its current form, a laundry list of apperances, the article is inappropriate as demonstrated above and should be deleted. -- saberwyn 00:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Donald Neilson (nomination withdrawn). (Non administrator closing per Non-administrators closing discussions. --Tikiwont 11:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Whittle[edit]

Another unreferenced child murder victim. Newsworthy not encyclopaedic. -Doc^g 14:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This sort of thing belongs at Wikinews. Wikipedia should be for subjects which have lasting impact. Riana ⁂ 14:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we're still not a newspaper. /Blaxthos 15:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As shown by google news, this infamous kidnapping/murder case has received over 30 years of coverage [13]. Could also be merged with Donald Neilson, one of the UK's "most notorious murderers" [14]. --JJay 15:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Neilson per Jjay -- Esurnir 16:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or delete Donald Neilson too. We're not a news desk.--Doc^g 17:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, we are an encyclopedia. And like any serious encyclopedia, serial killers and other notorious criminals merit inclusion. [15]. --JJay 21:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I support this statement, if a serial killer is notable then there is -no- reason not to include it as a biography including the stuff he done. — Esurnir 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Donald White, the convicted serial killer,--who is not mentioned in the article, a strange application of BLP. Generally multiple murders have been held notable, since they always attract great media attention. DGG 17:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Donald White
  Who? Gordonofcartoon 21:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think he meaned Donald Neilson it is the only donald mentioned here. Here is a source[16] of his conviction as the murderer. — Esurnir 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment This page was previousl;y merged with Donald Neilson before the previous version was speedy deleted by the nominator. I also suspect that the fisrt comment may be a sock of some kind as it has appeared uniformly at the beginning supporting the deletion of the articles nominated by DOCg.--Lucy-marie 20:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Neilson. The current stubbed Neilson article doesn't fully explain the notability, but - unlike the others in this batch - this is a case of lasting notoriety in the UK. Gordonofcartoon 21:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a film starring Donald Sumpter [17] and I think we should have something about the criminal (well, we do, but it's not very good). A brief search doesn't turn up any published literature on this particular criminal, though. In any case this article isn't much use and can be deleted. --Tony Sidaway 21:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See: Harry Hawkes, The Capture of the Black Panther, Harrap: 1978. http://catalogue.bl.uk/F/EGXBLPTYBAXMPHK2CVGIU8CVAS86L98PHMPG4EAHNM4AA7MXMU-51360?func=full-set-set&set_number=137621&set_entry=000001&format=999]. Incidentally, the book won a non-fiction Dagger award in 1978. --JJay 23:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also: Shari-Jayne Boda, Real crime: four crimes that shocked a nation, Granada:2003. [18]. --JJay 23:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should never have been brought to AFD. It was merged into Donald Neilson twice, by three separate editors, and the merger was discussed without opposition, by a fourth editor, on Talk:Lesley Whittle. The argument on that talk page is a strong argument. The arguments by Riana and Blaxthos above, in contrast, are simply boilerplate arguments that have been parroted verbatim across several AFD discussions, of several quite different articles, listed on the 10th of June, within minutes of the nominations by Doc glasgow. Everyone (everyone, that is, who has actually looked at the article on its individual merits rather than blanket voting) agrees that a merger is appropriate here. I encourage Riana and Blaxthos to actually read the articles that they are discussing at AFD, and not to treat AFD as if it were a vote. I encourage Doc glasgow to remember that deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox. Uncle G 11:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duly slapped. OK, I withdraw, merge away.--Doc^g 11:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merge done. I did some copy editing to make the merge cleaner. Esurnir 19:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Joanne Nelson[edit]

Another non-notable murder victim. Unreferenced to boot. No doubt there will have been newspaper coverage at the time - but unless any ongoing significance can be shown please delete. Temporarily newsworthy != permanently encyclopedic. Happy to withdraw this if anyone can show any particular importance or significance. -Doc^g 14:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the victim nor the perp is notable; Wikipedia is not a police blotter archive. Delete. Chromaticity 14:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This sort of thing belongs at Wikinews. Wikipedia should be for subjects which have lasting impact. Riana ⁂ 14:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Please keep nominating these types of articles.--Svetovid 21:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why keep nominating these articles WIki is not an american entity it is international and should contain a wide range of articles. The mass deletions are unecessary as wiki is not paper based so the number af subjects is unlimited and far less notable individuals have pages such as anybody who has ever been a professional wrestler is that really more notable?--Lucy-marie 22:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. People die every day; needs something special to make it notable. Useight 23:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment yes people do but not every murder in the uk makes it in to the news this one did so some form of notability must have been generated. Also wiki is not american so stop applying american standards to non-american articles. Murder rates in the UK are on about 800 a year, compared to the 16500 murdered in America. Murder is lower in the uk the ones which attract media attention are even fewer so saying poeple die every day is true, but every single death is not reported.--Lucy-marie 23:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media attention does not equal encyclopaedic merit. It only snows 30 days a year in the UK - when it does it is recorded in every newspaper - doesn't mean it is encyclopaedic.--Doc^g 23:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably would be in an article on "Climate in the UK", but on the flip side of the coin there would be multiple reliable sources beyond the newspaper articles.-- saberwyn 00:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentIn the correct context that would be acceptable and agin you are providing wild examples with no direct baring to anythign just to try and be as extreme as possible. The case must have a form of notability in the first place or the media would not have picked it up and don't all encyclopedia articles have to be news articles to start with to be noticed in the first place?--Lucy-marie 23:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? The media if fickle and lazy - they report human interest stories about shaggy dogs, lottery winners and the weather. We need to do our own thinking to differentiate between the widely-reported newstory (which goes to wikinews) and the event of lasting social impact - which may be encyclopedic. We are not a newspaper - not an archive of news reports. We are an encyclopedia. --Doc^g 23:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no way of discounting something from the encyclopedia just because your opinion is it is only a news story and the point still stands all these articles in this entire encyclopedia must have started off as a news story to gain any form of notability. Also your comments regarding the media are in my opinion very narrow minded, would you classify the watergate scandal in the US as one of those stories in the same class as shaggy dogs and lottery winners?--23:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There are books written about watergate, don't be daft. Of course things that started off as newspaper stories can be encyclopaedic - but not if all they are is newspaper stories - then they are newspaper stories - and WP:NOT a newspaper - try wikinews.--Doc^g 23:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue this does merit inclusion under wiki not being paper so there is no limit on the number of articles. I say we are never going to agree on this as we are poles apart but at least we know where each other stands.--Lucy-marie 00:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced. Haukur 00:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO, clearly falls under the news reports. No evidence of any mid or long term significance. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N#Notability is not temporary. Carlossuarez46 21:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunetra Sastry[edit]

Sastry is notable only for being Rowan Atkinson's wife. She is mentioned in his personal life section, this BLP is a repeat of that. Otherwise only 1 makeup artist movie credit.Spouses/relatives of BLP subjects should merit BLP articles only if they are notable for reasons other than being related to a BLP Piperdown 13:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There is nothing here that is not and cannot be covered on the main Rowan Atkinson article. She has done nothing to merit a seperate article. Davewild 14:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Davewild. We can revisit this decision if Ms. Sastry's career takes off. Chromaticity 14:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect -- there is no significant notability beyond being his wife (which, in and of itself, fails notability). /Blaxthos 15:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Svetovid 21:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. does not meet criteria in notability guideline; notability is not transmissible by marriage Ohconfucius 08:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^talk 11:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tacto Latino[edit]

A single appearance at Glastonbury does not rise to the level of notability expected of WP:MUSIC. No other assertion of notability. Search results from reliable sources only mention the band as part of the day's lineup. DarkAudit 13:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to me to be advertising copy for the band. Congrats on the festival appearance, but you haven't earned a place in Wikipedia yet. Delete. Chromaticity 14:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also suggest in passing that Glastonbury Festival line-ups is encouraging the creation of these non-notable band articles, and is unencyclopedic. Does Wikipedia really need to archive in perpetuity the lineups at regional music festivals, especially when so many of the bands that perform at these are ultimately non-notable? Chromaticity 14:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest that if the bands do not meet the standards outlined in WP:MUSIC outside of the one Glastonbury appearance, then no. DarkAudit 15:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND /Blaxthos 15:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough if it doesn't meet your standards, however, one strength I've always admired in Wikipedia is its detail. If a Wikipedia user desired to research Glastonbury, one of the world's most famous music festivals, and to carry out that research in detail, he or she would trust Wikipedia to provide such detail. Due to this, I don't see what problem there should be in listing every band that has played or will be playing at Glastonbury, including those who aren't 'notable'. And to further this research, clicking on as many of these bands as possible should bring up detail specifically about that band. Tacto Latino, as well as many other 'unnotable' bands on the list, are listed on the official Glastonbury website as well as several other major music websites. I reject the accusation that I am using the page to advertise the band. As a matter of fact, I don't enjoy playing in the band that much and we're not making any money out of it and I doubt I shall be playing with them again. Do as you wish, although as all the information is correct and is referred to by trusted sources, I don't see the problem here. /User:samhickssamhicks

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^talk 11:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuentos De La Frontera[edit]

Unreferenced, full of OR, still fails WP:WEB. First AFD only had only one vote (hardly a consensus) and makes unverified claims. /Blaxthos 13:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Despite the unsourced claim of mention in Playboy, etc., it fails to assert significance. Why was it mentioned? Fails WP:WEB. Has no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 13:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not strongly inclined to delete this article as it asserts sufficient claims that, if verified, would seem to me to establish a suitable level of notability. However, I doubt that the article will improve without some pressure to do so; therefore, I do not object to deletion either. Chromaticity 14:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs referencing drinking[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a collection of loosely-associated topics. These songs have no commonality in terms of style, theme or subject matter beyond the happenstance of mentioning drinking or alcohol in the lyrics. The list survived an AFD in 2005 but the reasons offered for keeping then, ranging from we have other lists like it so why not to some of the best songs are drinking songs, are not particularly compelling. A number of similar lists have been deleted recently and this one is no better. Otto4711 13:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Probably includes 60% of all songs. --Evb-wiki 13:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm sure the Temperance Union would like to have this list for reference purposes, I don't see enough encyclopedic value to keep it. Chromaticity 14:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT (listcrap) /Blaxthos 15:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What's next -- List of songs referencing love? (Please don't create that.) --Butseriouslyfolks 17:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a highly unencyclopedic list. "Songs about x" is so often hard to maintain anyway -- lyrics aren't always concrete, so a song could be interpreted to be about drinking when it's really not. In addition, there're, like, 56 million country songs that are missing from this list (and I'm a country fan too, so don't jump on me for stereotyping country music)... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Zero tolerance with articles that being with "List of songs...", delete it before it spreads! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 20:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. — brighterorange (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Or we'll end up with List of songs referencing cheese. A1octopus 20:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Loosely related list. The number of articles about "lists of songs" is getting annoying. In fact, it's almost as annoying as "my garage band..." Useight 23:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. The number of these songs is innumerable. --Rabid Monkeys Eat Grass 19:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree that the topic is too broad to create a useful index. I would not be so adverse to List of traditional Irish drinking songs or List of songs about alcoholism were they to exist, and I can see some usefulness in List of songs about tequila. -MrFizyx 18:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All those articles whose title commences with List of songs... shall be mercilessly deleted. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 22:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 notability guidelines. Thanks/wangi 08:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Parker-Perry[edit]

This is a simple case of Wikipedia trying to list every elected official in the world. UK election turn outs are very low and to list every councillor is flawed. A google search would yield far better results than a page on wikipedia Mike33 11:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On the google test of notability he stars 0 with 95 hits [Google search] and on google news archive hits 8 hits [Google News Archive]. Wikipedia is not here to list every elected official. Elected officials serve their terms and go. A councillor who ended up before a judge maybe notorious but not notable. Mike33 11:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete this article has caused nothing but grief. There's appatently some kind of local political tiff involving this chap Roy Oldham and the Longdendale Bypass. I've no idea what its about - but we've had various OTRS correspondence, I've had people claiming to be the principals all over my userpage for months - we've had POV pushing and vandalism on the articles, and abusive images uploaded from various socknests. I've no idea what it is about, and I don't care. Wikipedia is not a battle ground and this low-notability article isn't worth the fuss. Anyone voting keep should please agree to watchlist the article - referee the dispute - and put up with the hassle of maintaining it. If anyone is willing to do that, and do it properly, I'll withdraw my delete vote. Please don't vote "keep, this can be maintained - someone else could in theory do it. Either let us kill it, or maintain it yourself, and good luck.--Doc^g 12:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided Though ideally the difficult of being maintained is not a consideration, I can see the utility of handling the most stubbon conflicts this way. Doc agrees that its at least minimally notable. On one hand, the visible problems lately have merely been attempted additions of links to wanker, and to facebook. However, we currently do not have articles on most municipal officials at this level in the UK or the US, and I can see our making a decision to not include them unless there was something special & this might not be special enough unless it escalates. DGG 18:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see nothing here indicating notability. I assume his article being here has somthing to do with the 2005 theft charge, but that was dismissed. It's well-referenced, but fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 18:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No This article is being investigated by the standards board for local councilors over Sean Parker Perry's edits. It is supposedly being investigated by the police according to SPP himself in a recent article in the Tameside Reporter. --Gayboy-DS
Delete per general notability issues, and agree with User:Doc glasgow's concerns and comment. MastCell ^Talk 22:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Important I raised the Afd initially. I received an email this evening pointing me to a local newspaper page [CYBERSPACE OF WORDS] where mr Parker-Perry mentions taking the matter to the police. ~~I therefore renounce my delete and would opt for a two week protection on the page.~~ I have also raised this in [AN/I]. I will contact mr Parker-perry and see if the police are involved. Mike33 22:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After some thought, the article if it reaches consensus can be viewed in some form by the police at any time waybackmachine etc. Mike33 22:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs containing overt references to real musicians[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a collection of loosely-associated topics. This sprawling list brings together vast numbers of songs that share nothing in common in terms of style or theme based on the happenstance of mentioning a musician somewhere in the lyrics. This list is not encyclopedic and it does not tell us anything about the songs, their relation to each other, the artists who recorded them, the artists mentioned in them or music as a whole. Any number of similarly loosely associated indiscriminate lists have been deleted recently and this one is no better. Otto4711 12:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. List that is based on no signifcant common characteristic of items included, as described by nom. Deor 13:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 13:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT (more listcrap) /Blaxthos 15:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a totally indiscriminate, loosely associated, et cetera. Now, if this list were to be re-tooled to something like "List of songs that are tributes to other musicians" and if it were well-referenced, it could stay. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Zero tolerance with articles that being with "List of songs...", delete it before it spreads! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 20:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:UNENC. A1octopus 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is better than most "Lists of Songs that..." because you do list what celebrity is referenced in each song, and the recording artist; you have an introduction; it's obvious that your musical expertise is not confined to a single decade. Save your article; don't let the critics get to you. What some see as another "list" is, in this case the beginning of an index. It's worthwhile to anyone who deals with music (such as a radio station programmer). Many Wikipedia articles have a section entitled "----- in popular culture"; usually, it's a nod to The Simpsons or to Family Guy, so it's nice to see something other than a TV reference. Suggestion: The better approach might be to reverse the organization... rather than an alphabetical list of songs that have overt references to musicians, maybe you should make an alphabetized list of celebrated persons and the songs that reference them. I'd confine the list to more well-known songs, but it's a good start. Mandsford 01:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Save your breath, it appears no one is listening. I know folks who put a lot of work into this article and it's been around for a long time, yet people have decided to target it as part of the anti-list agenda. It's one of the reasons I no longer edit Wikipedia in any serious way. (retired Wikipedian: 68.146.8.46 03:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC) )[reply]
- Amen to that. You're right, this article has been around a long time, and now it's targetted for elimination. Once Cotton Mather says "there's a witch", a lot of witnesses turn out to testify. Within any organization, whether it's the Red Guards or the Southern Baptists, there are zealots. They have a creed to go by, complete with slogans. Instead of "Withstand the Revanchist Movers" or "Let's Take Back Our Country", the ones here have slogans like "WP:UNENC". It's kind of sad, but I think this article has already been tied to the stake, and folks are looking for combustibles. Mandsford 12:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - perhaps if you spent less time gnashing your teeth over the wretchedness of the deletion attempt and more time citing actual Wikipedia policies that support the existence of the article, you might have better luck convincing people. "It's better than most" is not particularly persuasive. Nor is "most articles have an 'in popular culture' section." Got anything else, or are you still too busy trying to spit on the villagers' torches before they set you alight? Otto4711 01:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since you asked, there are some things I don't understand about the Wikipedia policies. Nobody ever wants to delete any of the hundreds of articles about a television show (which has its own website), but groups of lists are targetted for "mass deletion". I don't get it. Deletions don't appear to be made out of a concern for space. Take Buffy the Vampire Slayer, for instance. Sure, it's worthy of an article, but why are there individual entries for each of the 144 episodes? Or 56 articles about fictional characters on the show? Or an entire article called Buffy's residence? Why is there a Buffyverse? And that's just a single television show. I guess that's why I don't understand it when someone says that Wikipedia is "not about trivia", or that sources aren't cited, or that it's based solely on "original research". I don't know why Wikipedia policies support articles about individual TV episodes and songs on a CD, but not someone's (L-word) of songs that make a reference to celebrities. So, no, I don't get it. But that's just my opinion.Mandsford 23:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you are not the only one who is boggled by the process, but I can't come up with a reason to keep this in light of the WP consensus as demonstrated by our prior deletions that nearly all lists of songs are not encyclopedic - I have even made arguments to keep some that I think ought to be saved as encyclopedic, but have ended up in the minority but you can't win them all. Another thing struck me: your pointing to the buffyverse is analogous to the Wikipedia:Pokémon test, which is a good read, that has been noted by other wikipedians. Carlossuarez46 01:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NOT, and cruftiness. María (habla conmigo) 17:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion, but not for the usual reasons. The topic here is way too broad to allow a useful index to be created. This makes it much less useful, say than List of songs about Elvis. Also, there are two many songs that simly list artists without commenting on them (e.g. Dan Bern's "Chick Singers"--which is not yet included here[19]). -MrFizyx 17:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who cares? —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 22:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - KrakatoaKatie 01:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wave Harmonic Theory of Historical Perception[edit]

Delete - Non-notable trivial fictional theory with no real-world importance. Hitchhiker-cruft. Otto4711 12:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - let's stick to significant nonfiction. /Blaxthos 15:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~*weak keep~~ Delete and it will be better to merge the info.into the main article since, as zadiagnose says, it isn't mentioned there. DGG 21:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC) this is in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which counts as significant fiction--which by apparent precedent in WP, gets at least as full coverage as real-world history. There are of course places to merge it to.DGG 18:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If it doesn't merit mention within the Hitchhiker's Guide, then it certainly doesn't merit it's own article! zadignose 14:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^talk 11:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wavis O'Shave[edit]

Delete. Either vanity or spoof page, possibly both. Non-encyclopaedic, non-notable, no references or sources. Hyperlink given in article is blank. Smerus 12:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup/wikify. See this and this. --Evb-wiki 13:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Reliable sources.Piperdown 14:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unreferenced & no assertion of notability. /Blaxthos 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stinks of OR, and non notable G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 06:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as non-notable and unencyclopedic. - KrakatoaKatie 01:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Überbots[edit]

I would call this a vanity page, there's no evidence for notability, and it reads like a story. cornis 11:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, non notable vanity page. Davewild 11:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - RS/Vanity. /Blaxthos 15:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which Avon High School? ~ Infrangible 16:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per created by one person, not notable, and reads like a story. OSborn 04:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Project Lead They Way Schools[edit]

it's not a list of anything but states, article name is misspelled, text is unencyclopedic and doesn't lead to a main article nor explain notability Chris 10:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not the kind of thing one would expect to find in an encyclopaedia. No attempt at WP:V. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 13:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - unverifiable and listy. /Blaxthos 15:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any education-related article with a misspelled title should probably be deleted. If the subject is noteworthy, it is better to get the misspelled version out of the article history and start over. --Metropolitan90 19:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero tolerance with articles that being with "List of...", delete it before it spreads! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 20:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a Project Lead The Way article, and it was sourced, externally verifiable, and passing of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then there might be a case for this list. Delete. -- saberwyn 00:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment there is a Project Lead the Way article (the the is lower cased), but it is not sourced, well-written nor particularly notable-seeming, I have tagged it for cleanup. Chris 00:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't even figure out what this list is supposed to be about. - T-75|talk|contribs 16:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Maniacs[edit]

Non-notable team, existed for one match, achieved nothing. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Cena and Shawn Michaels (who actually achieved more). Going for AFD rather that PROD due to potential controversy. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This team is more well known for its backstage problems (With Warrior and the WWF mostly...) than for actually doing anything, in which they didn't. If they had done any sort of huge angles or such, I would've given it a weak keep, but they mostly didn't. FamicomJL 13:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely nonnotable. How come wikipedia enamours the wrestling and webcomic crowds so often? ;-) /Blaxthos 15:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the article stated they teamed for just around 2 months and are more known for Warrior NOT teaming with Savage as the 1992 Survivor Series than anything they did as a team. It makes for a note or a section on each individual article at best. MPJ-DK 16:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Including low-quality articles such as these waters down the credibility of the serious sport of professional wrestling ~ Infrangible 17:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Nikki311 06:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Govvy 08:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^talk 11:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SlickEdit[edit]

No notability established, no reliable soruces and references provided. Vacuum Cleaner 01 10:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: SlickEdit is marketed for almost two decades (released by MicroEdge in 1988 [20]). In 1997 it obtained an award from Dr. Dobb's [21] (at this time, the award may not have been totally worthless). It was one of few editors running on exotics as OS/2.

If the article is kept the note how complicated the user interface became should be definitely preserved, it is spot on. The red links should be unlinked and there could be more about history rather than detailed listing of features in the last release. The current categorisation is joke. Pavel Vozenilek 11:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & cleanup - This one actually has some established history. Let's get some better sources than self-references. I'm sure they're out there. /Blaxthos 15:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's a google search for slickedit+review [22] with >97K ghits ~ Infrangible 17:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Right now the article is barely more than spam, but this is a venerable software /shareware package. --Dhartung | Talk 19:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & cleanup. Recognized package with a large following and history. Just needs more info on both of these (especially history, of course). — Frecklefoot | Talk 23:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Highly notable program, just needs cleanup. G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 06:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HotHTML[edit]

No notability established, no references or reliable sources provided. Vacuum Cleaner 01 10:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources or assertion of notability. /Blaxthos 15:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of assertion of notability, and no reliable, independent sources provided. Someguy1221 03:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs cleanup f'sure...but I don't like the precedent of deleting articles regarding software applications. There are lots of people who consult Wikipedia for feature comparison charts like this one, and this one, and it's not doing them any good at all to present them with a bunch of "oranged-out" dead links. In a day and age when mainstream media news agencies are being run by the corporate entertainment divisions, and a good 95% of technical information exchanges are occuring exclusively on internet fora, the hoary "notability" guidelines Wikipedia is presently employing are doing more harm than good -- you simply cannot expect newspapers and "big four" TV channels to write stories about such obscure technical subjects. This does not mean that nobody is interested in the material. I'd guess that about three-fourths of the "still alive because they're blue" linked applications on either of those comparison charts could be hosed under the same rationale as this one. But by deleting them, all you're doing is driving away readership segments and eliminating any positive reputation for comprehensiveness.--Mike18xx 00:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable and unverifiable. There's nothing making this app stand out. Ichibani _u^t_c 03:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Brothers Mixtape[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Prod removed by creator without comment. -- Merope 10:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:A and is a load of (Crystal) balls. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shatter this crystal ball per nom.Blueboy 96 13:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crystal ballism (as noted above). /Blaxthos 15:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, mix tapes by the very nature are typically non-notable. They're mix tapes. RFerreira 06:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this probably isnt even a real mixtape, plus Lil Wayne isnt even a blood.--Yankees10 20:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinian Theory and Ethical Problems[edit]

Article violates our no original research policy. -- Merope 10:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Heavily breaches WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:A. This is someone's political campaigning. Abortion causes extinction? This article is a load of shit and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research and an essay. Davewild 10:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as essay, should be a speedy close per WP:SNOW.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I almost suggested that this be salted as well ... I'm not sure if I see an encyclopedia article in this.--Blueboy 96 12:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke it per all of the above. --Evb-wiki 13:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not neutral, and it would require a complete rewrite and retitling to become neutral. The article covering Darwinian theory may be able to fit a sourced paragraph on ethical problems, but it can't be an essay. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Leebo ^T/C 15:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest of the Delete - I'm having a hard time finding a p/g that doesn't support deletion (OR, NPOV, SOAP, ATT, RS, V, N, ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ). I would probably like a little salt with my meal. /Blaxthos 15:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hoax. "Puppies are commonly believed to be cute and innocent. But what has evolutionary theory to say about them?" ~ Infrangible 17:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potential hoax. More to the point: the subject itself is nonsensical. Ethical problems may exist regarding how research was conducted or how it was applied, but not so much for the contents of scientific theories themselves. Ante lan ^talk 17:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and various other policies cited above. --Metropolitan90 20:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The puppies section made mu chuckle though.--Svetovid 21:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for blatent violations of pretty much everything. I agree with HisSpaceResearch, this AfD needs to be Snowballed: having this article remain on Wikipedia in its current form for 5 days would not be a good idea -- what if someone searches for evolution, finds it, and ignores the unassuming grey template at the top? At the very least, I'm going to put the relevent templates on it, in case someone does come across it. -- simxp (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Delete How does this stuff show up? Per everything above, and it's a crock (not sure if there's a wikilink). Orangemarlin 20:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At first glance, this appears to be an unsourced editorial, so it would be eligible for deletion under WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT#SOAP, and WP:NPOV. But the very last section, "Puppies" (which has been there since the first revision), clearly demonstrates that it's all a leg pull, so delete as WP:BJAODN. -Severa (!!!) 02:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jim62sch 17:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wants to redirect go for it.--Wizardman 01:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pentrepoeth School[edit]

Poorly written, seems non-notable and also is biased. Mess of an article. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 09:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was about to put this up for deletion when I noticed that Dissident (oddly ironic name btw) had already put it up , for all the same reasons as the nominator. Cat-five - talk 10:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol yes, when you think about it, my name is quite ironic for my work in afd huh? Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 10:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I've tidied up the article a bit and added a link to the school's website. I also agree that it's deletable in its current state, but if someone wanted to spend the time it could probably be brought up to standard. -- Sjb90 10:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For an article on a primary school to be kept, I think, some sort of exceptional notabilty (that is, some characteristic or event not shared by every other elementary school on the planet) needs to be demonstrated. Nothing like that here. Deor 13:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rhiwderin. Article makes no claim of notability. No distinguishing characteristics were found on the school's website, Google or Google news/Archive. Primary schools have a tough road to climb to establish notability, and this article does not pass that bar. Alansohn 04:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rhiwderin per Alansohn and WP:LOCAL as well. Redirects are cheap. RFerreira 06:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources (at least on the internet) to establish notability.--Kylohk 16:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call to close -- its been five days. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 04:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HTMLPad[edit]

No notability established and no reliable sources provided. Vacuum Cleaner 01 09:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - RS/V/N /Blaxthos 15:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. First ten Google hits were all "download HTMLPad" - no real sources. Also, search and destroy all incoming links. Yechiel Man 16:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of assertion of notability. Someguy1221 03:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB-Flubeca (t) 00:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedroid RPG[edit]

Does not explain how the game is notable (WP:N or provide any independent references (WP:V). Prod'd in January, but removed by anonymous user without comment. Have had a quick look for references, but can't find anything beyond the usual download/directory sites and forums. Marasmusine 09:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 09:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability concerns + only self references. /Blaxthos 15:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - doesn't look like there are any sources for the article. --Scottie_theNerd 14:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only primary sources in the article and haven't found any through Google. Wickethewok 15:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like others in this AfD, I've been unable to find sources for the project which prove notability. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 23:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (almost a snowball by the end, although a fair nomination to begin with) Orderinchaos 00:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Australian[edit]

Non-notable, article could realistically be summed up in perhaps one sentence. Simply not even worth an article, but maybe it could be the title for a cat (?) Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 09:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 09:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: -- Category:Dutch Australians already exists. - Longhair\^talk 09:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If an intelligent use was made of the reference of 400 years contact The Dutch Down Under, 1606-2006 / co-ordinating author, Nonja Peters. Sydney : Wolters Kluwer/CCH Australia, c2006. ISBN 1921153555 - the claim for lack of notability would sink quicker than all the dutch wrecks off the west coast - it might become something - specially with the migrants of the 1950s in western australia and tasmania - for a start - however as it is - it depends whether.... afds have a life of their own unfortunately... Satu Suro 10:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be in vio of WP:WAX, but I dont see an article on, say, Finnish Austrlian (s) or Maltese Australian (s). Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 10:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following Comment: Of course not the Maltese or Finnish - it is because they are not in the majority - however check Welsh-Australian - that would be far more relevant to the history of Australia. It would take about two paragraphs of someones time utilising information from the Nonja Peters text to remove any doubt as to the relevance, notability and significance of the Dutch in the history of Immigration to Australia in the last 100 years. SatuSuro 12:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There actually is a reasonable contention for *both* - the Finnish had a huge role in Mt Isa, and the Maltese in Melbourne (in fact it wouldn't be hard for an NPOV RS'd to be written about the latter, it's a quite cohesive community - I remember reading about this when I was doing the Melbourne suburb articles). Orderinchaos 20:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Of course there should be articles on both Finnish and Maltese Australians in due course, Australia was a very important destination for Maltese emigrants during most of the 20th century.--Grahamec 02:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Delete for the moment until secondary sources provided. Might qualify as a list. Assize 10:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]
- Comment. I don't think the references support the article, and I would argue that only one of them is reliable anyway. The terms Dutch Australian, Greek Australian, etc, are generally used in Sydney to denote somebody born in Australia of Dutch or Greek parents. This really is a dictionary entry and should be on wikidictionary. However, the references cited would support an article "Dutch in Australia" as the Australian War Memorial site gives tons of information on this and there are heaps of books on the Dutch in Australia. Assize 12:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC) .[reply]
  - References still don't support the term "Dutch Australian". As only a new article, will pursue that issue through the talk pages as the actual subject matter of the article warrants a page on wikipedia. Assize 21:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Assize's argument above. Unless these secondary sources are reliable ones, which are non-trivial coverage of the subject, then it should be deleted. However, the sources must assert notability. No prejudice against changing my vote to Keep if new sources are found. --SunStar Net ^talk 10:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly can be sourced, should be tagged as such not deleted. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 11:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to Keep per Mattinbgn's reasoning above. --SunStar Net ^talk 11:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Speedy keep Article certainly needs expansion but they were a significant group post WW2, maybe a change of title needs to be considered Paul foord 13:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment nominated for deletion four minutes after creation! Hardly time for improvement. Paul foord 13:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, this subject deserves more than four minutes. John Vandenberg 13:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it can be improved, then why hasnt it been? It's now been given 3 hours +. I dont think the creator has any more intentions for it. The above is, in my opinion, a weak vote. It has been given more than four minutes! Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 13:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There have been lots of improvements since the Afd. Or do you want a featured article in three hours? John Vandenberg 13:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I dont. I want to see this article deleted, for a number of reasons: 1. It is non-notable. 2.It belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. 3. The actual object of the article could be summed up in one sentence. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 13:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an notable subject regardless of the current quality of the article. Anonymous Dissident's repetition of his previous comments is not useful.--Grahamec 13:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He asked me what I wanted in 3 hours, I told him. Any garbage article can use this excuse to not be deleted. If he wants to have more time, he should place the {{hangon}} tag onto the article shouldn't he? Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 13:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also note: I do not wish for this AFD debate to become too heated. Whether you have opposed or supported the deletion, your input is much appreciated. Thank you to all who have participated in this discussion. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 13:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The initial contributor of this author, Yamama3000 (talk · contribs), has a grand total of 56 edits, making this a typical case of an inappropriate introduction. John Vandenberg 13:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we wouldn't want that. But, even though the creator is very new, it doesn't make the actual article any less a candidate for deletion. If the article is kept, he should have some congratulations; if it isnt, he should still have congratulations plus an encouragement notice. We were all newbies once. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 13:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just sent him a note. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 14:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am astounded. Afd is not 'Articles for discussion'. Unless you are 100% confident that there is not two significant sources that document the existence/plight/etc of the Dutch immigrating to Australia while running from the Germans that they had underminded, then this is a nuisance nomination. John Vandenberg 14:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(new indent) I am trying to make sense of what you said: yes AFD means articles for deletion, but how is this relevent. Did I say it somewhere, by accident? And, as for the second part, about sources -- I never mentioned those, but you speak as if I am blatantly contesting it. Please explain. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 14:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reason for nomination is that this subject is not notable and should be deleted on sight; that means you believe that two significant sources cant be found. John Vandenberg 14:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment John Vandenberg, that's way out of line. Please assume good faith. If Anonymous Dissident believed it should be "deleted on sight", then the obvious choice would have been a speedy deletion template. Instead, it came to AFD, where there are five days to discuss the topic, improve the article, and build consensus.--Dhartung | Talk 19:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Mattinbgn's comment above - notability is a non issue if you read my comments above - to ponder otherwsise is contravening WP:POINT there are hundreds of refs in the book that I have cited aboveSatu Suro 14:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it's apparent there are sources can be found, and I would like to caution the nominator to be more careful in examining whether or not a given population group might merit an article. Certainly, it is possible that some insignificant population group might get an article, but that doesn't mean they all do. But while I think you should have looked harder before this AFD, I think it's important to assume that you meant well, and not get to focused on the criticism of the nominator. Assume Good Faith, folks, people can make mistakes, and one of the points of AFD is that sometimes cleanup does happen. FrozenPurpleCube 15:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit now that I may indeed have been too quick to nominate this for AFD. I did not realise that they played such an important role in Australian history. To be honest - I would not particularly care if the AFD was closed. However, as pointed out above, the article has improved geatly since nominated for deletion, and, ironically, amy now be elligible to be kept after the efforts made due to its dletion nominating. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 15:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment- fair enough - but the issue was if you had read Mattinbgns or my comments and taken them in good faith - you would not have had to go through the further issues below that. If you do not know the history of a country that well - all you had to do was read Mattinbgns or my comments top see that a tag for cleanup or sources was all that was needed - cheers Satu Suro 15:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously sourceable and a significant immigrant group in Australian history. Still needs some cleanup, though. --Dhartung | Talk 19:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A clearly notable and useful subject for an encyclopaedia to cover - they are one of a very small number of groups (about 7 at a guess) about whom an encyclopaedic article could be written given available sources. Article may need work. Orderinchaos 20:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should be closed. The article is good enough to keep now. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EditPlus[edit]

No notability even established, no reliable sources provided. Vacuum Cleaner 01 09:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I think this could be sourced. It has a checkered history as an article and was created by a near-WP:SPA, Karlwilbur (talk · contribs). I have used it myself, I have seen it come with glowing recommendations, but it's shareware and thus iffy to start with. --Dhartung | Talk 09:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced & no assertion of notability (even if it is a good piece of software). /Blaxthos 15:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep - This is a well known software. The fact that the software exist can be easily verified at http://www.editplus.com I am wondering the reason for deleting the article about this software that is well known. Please note that "I don't know" is not equal to "non-notable" .... "I don't know" can also be translated as "I am a fool" :) :) :) 221.134.166.209 16:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)— 221.134.166.209 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note 1: AFD is not a vote (unlike RFA).... So no need of signing in.

Note 1: A badly written article / "Cut-copy-pasted" article per se is NOT a criteria for deletion. If you have real concerns about WP, try editing your self.... Blatant Deletion is not a way to improve the WP

Comment. The stated reason for nominating for deletion is lack of notability and reliable sources. Reliable sources must be independent of the subject to prove notability (ie, not an official website). Find multiple, independent reliable sources that discuss this program and it can be kept. As far as editing it over deleting it, this is only a good recomendation for articles that should be on Wikipedia in the first place, which has not been proven here. Someguy1221 03:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Keep: - Shareware or not EditPlus is feature rich, stable and very competitive. It does more than most editors, and is fully functional without a license and works years after the trial period. It is one of the few text editors that is truly suitable for HTML/C++/Java/Makefile editing with syntax highlighting for each.

Deletion of this page invalidates wikipedia and would be pointless. If this should be deleted then so should 50% of all software related articles for non-proprietry software or ones bundled in a OS distros. Keldon85 17:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability is made in the article, and no independent sources provided. If you think it should be kept, find sources to prove this topic complies with the notability guideline. Someguy1221 03:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - EditPlus is one of the well known Text Editors (as compared to the others listed on Comparison of text editors) and the article can be kept as an unsourced stub. It has its own wiki, and I found some reviews about it with a simle Google search (like this one, this one with a 5/5 rating given to the tool, these, or this one). It has also been given a Softpedia Pick Award (and some other awards) and hight ratings on that site. Having all these and its history (about seven years now) I think this stub article, needs to be completed, and should not get deleted. huji—TALK 19:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Huji has summarised it pretty well. The article needs work to be unstubbed and properly sourced, but the software is notable. The fact that it still exists today as a shareware distributable, when there is such strong competition from open source and freeware alternatives is testament to that. In addition to the links Huji gave, there's also an active Yahoo Groups forum. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unimportant shareware (I'd support if it was freeware). Ace of Risk 21:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How does it being shareware/freeware/closed-source/open-source/commercial or whatever change anything here? - JNighthawk 02:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shareware is paid for, and has an axe to grind as far as advertising and free publicity, freeware is more deserving of coverage. Ace of Risk 21:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Well in my humble opinion, a shareware has just the same right to have an article on Wikipedia as a freeware, if they are in the same level of notability and, this is our duty to make the article a non-advertising one. In this special case, I see no advertising tone no EditPlus article. I mean, what you said has a good faith behind it, but nevertheless, we shouldn't allow Wikipedia to be used in an unequal way; putting more time on freewares would mean an unequality towards them. If you like to discuss this furthur, find me on my talk page. :) huji—TALK 03:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Huji on "good faith," but I think you have a basic mis-understanding of what advertising is, what Wikipedia's policies are, and what Wikipedia itself is. An article on a commercial subject is not advertising and is paramount to having a good encyclopedia. - JNighthawk 04:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep EditPlus is relatively well known, perhaps only slightly less than UltraEdit - JNighthawk 02:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite the program is wel known and notable, it just needs a better article G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 06:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well, I no longer see a reason not to keep, per Huji. G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 00:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I totally rewrote the article, as you requested :) huji—TALK 13:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs cleanup f'sure....but I don't like the precedent of deleting articles regarding software applications. There are lots of people who consult Wikipedia for feature comparison charts like this one, and this one, and it's not doing them any good at all to present them with a bunch of "oranged-out" dead links. In a day and age when mainstream media news agencies are being run by the corporate entertainment divisions, and a good 95% of technical information exchanges are occuring exclusively on internet fora, the hoary "notability" guidelines Wikipedia is presently employing are doing more harm than good -- you simply cannot expect newspapers and "big four" TV channels to write stories about such obscure technical subjects. This does not mean that nobody is interested in the material. I'd guess that about three-fourths of the "still alive because they're blue" linked applications on either of those comparison charts could be hosed under the same rationale as this one. But by deleting them, all you're doing is driving away readership segments and eliminating any positive reputation for comprehensiveness.--Mike18xx 00:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Huji's excellent reasoning, not per Mike18xx or Keldon85. Very nice start thanks to the rewrite. Ichibani _u^t_c 03:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee snob[edit]

This article seems to be a candidate for speedy deletion, but I can't figure out which category it would fit under. Sort of a cross of hoax, advertising, and nonsense. Gobonobo ^T ^C 09:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR with a dash of WP:POV. I suppose one could source an article, but would it be substantially different from a dicdef or snob itself? Although I note that article has no section for culture/materialist snobbery as the term is most often used today. --Dhartung | Talk 09:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To quote a fellow editor, "this article lacks multiple, non-trivial sources". The current links are a blog, a forum and news article which bears little relevance to coffee snobbery as defined on this page. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Odd collection of original research intermingled with some trivial facts. Crucial conflations, like the title and entire gist of the article, do not have credible references. I know that coffee aficianados as described do exist, but extensions such as actually naming them as coffee snobs and the bit about the quirk in the Australian psyche need very specific references. Format 12:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, otherwise WP:NEO is breached. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:NEO concerns. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 12:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And if there's entries for other pop slang phrases such as "f*&k monster", "crumb snatcher", and "player hater", then delete them too.Piperdown 14:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fear not. Whatever a "fuck monster" is, it seems to have no Wikipedia page. (is that actually real slang...??) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is 100% non-Colombian WP:OR. Now, excuse me while I go roast myself some Ethiopia Harrar beans. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely WP:OR with a dash of unrelated WP:TRIVIA at the bottom. This term is best treated in wiktionary MPS 21:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 KRU. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KRU Records[edit]

NN label, created by someone working for the label, spam, advert, fails WP:CORP, no sources given, etc Lugnuts 08:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if sources are not provided, authors should have no reason to believe their articles should be kept.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. /Blaxthos 15:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To KRU, who are a notable band. The company seems to be a post where KRU produce their promotional activities. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per x42bn6 -Flubeca (t) 00:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete tag added G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 00:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added two references, and a Google search at http://www.google.com/search?q=%22KRU+Records%22+site:my found several Malaysian-language references. --Eastmain 01:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge to KFU. Both of those references are interviews -- primary source. Notability is presumed in the presence of secondary sources independent of the subject; I don't see any. If someone writes based on those Malaysian sources, and they are reliable sources, the article would probably be fine, but as is, it isn't verifiable and shouldn't be kept around until then. Ichibani _u^t_c 03:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, seeing as the band made the recording studio, it deserves mention in their article. Ichibani _u^t_c 03:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied. Johnleemk | Talk 11:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fizx Recordings[edit]

NN label, created by someone working for the label, spam, advert, fails WP:CORP, no sources given, etc Lugnuts 08:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SD I have nominated for Speedy Deletion per WP:SPAM. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7. Resurgent insurgent 16:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ConnecticEnergy.com[edit]

A recently opened web site with no claim explaining notability per WP:WEB, no reliable sources. Weregerbil 08:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability established, fails WP:WEB. Davewild 10:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources to establish notability, possible WP:COI.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HisSpaceResearch. /Blaxthos 15:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable website, that fails guidelines. --Haemo 07:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bygfoot[edit]

Article does not explain how the game might be notable (per WP:N guidelines), or provide any independent, reliable sources (per WP:V policy). Article tagged with these concerns in January (and was even prod'd), but tags and prod were removed without addressing these concerns. Marasmusine 08:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 08:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nominator says it all. /Blaxthos 15:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without any sources to establish notability. — brighterorange (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 17:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your justification for that? So far, all I see are forum posts and the official site referred to in the article. --Scottie_theNerd 14:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 23:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. David Eppstein 04:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radical values environmentalism[edit]

Unsourced, orphaned article of uncertain provenance - this message explains why the article was initially created. If sources can be provided discussing this philosophy (perhaps under a different name?), that might change my assessment, of course. JavaTenor 07:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article may be a copyvio.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete — The only ghits appear to be wikipedia related. The article does not look like a copyvio of the above external link above, which appears to be an essay from an unsourced contributor. Due to the lack of sources, however, I'm inclined to believe this is original research. But I could be persuaded otherwise. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as RJH says, the google hits are deriving from the wikipedia article itself and not the other way around. It's not clear to me what the original intent of the material was, there's no references to guide us, and the author is presumably long gone, so I'm not sure how this could be salvaged. Between this and the obscurity of the title itself, I think it's gotta go. -- Madeleine 00:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. IP198 20:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Tristan Heathcock[edit]

Not notable under Wikipedia:Notability (music). Of few Google hits, most appear to originate with the subject himself. No references. Seems like self-promotion. All content was originated by User:Marcustristan, which is suspiciously similar to the name of the subject. Grover cleveland 07:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous IPs based in Saint Petersburg, Russia have repeatedly vandalized the article by removing the AfD notice. See here, here and here. According to the article, Heathcock lives in St Petersburg. Given this attitude, it is likely that if the article is deleted that the vandal will attempt to recreate it. I suggest the article be deleted and additionally be prevented from recreation. Grover cleveland 20:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a surprise: He's at it again. Grover cleveland 04:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, I removed his self-promotion on the Requiem page too. Sigil7 13:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks notability and is probable self-promotion. Biruitorul 15:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Self-promotion/COI, no reliable sources or assertion of notability. /Blaxthos 15:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Borderline G12 Speedy as well. Cannot find enough verfiable sources to suggest that this person meets WP:Music. A1octopus 20:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to user space -- there's nothing specific in the notability guidelines to cover contemporary composers, but I would think one of (a) a notable publisher, (b) a notable work, (c) a notable award, (d) a notable academic or orchestral appointment would be needed. Since he's taken the time to write an encyclopedic style article, I'm going to assume good faith and assume it's just a misunderstanding of WP policies. Moving this article to his user space may be more likely to give us a valuable editor in the future. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, resumecruft apparent. RFerreira 06:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self promotion - Andrei 08:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasDelete as the previous AfD closed as no consensus leaning towards merge, this one clearly shows that the issue of sources hasnt been address and unsourced material cant be merged into another article. Gnan garra 04:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Four[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The subject of this article is a university comedy club based at the University of New South Wales. No external sources are used, other than it's own website, to assert it's activities and history (no newspaper articles, reviews etc). A similar club (a theatrical society) at the same university was previously deleted (see New South Wales University Theatrical Society (AFD). The page is seemingly a storage for a vain list of past shows and events with an extensive history, including directors and producers. Delete Jaykatz 06:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of New South Wales :: maelgwn :: talk 08:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until reliable secondary sources provided. Has apparently been going for three years, so if notable, there should be some secondary sources out there (but I haven't been able to find them). Assize 10:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete/Merge. If the authors of the article, or anyone, can source some of the article to reliable sources indepedent of the subject, weak keep.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is plenty of case history for deleting articles of this sort, and this article does not appear to have reason to be an exception. Ante lan ^talk 17:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:N and lack of likely WP:RS, and smells just a little of schoolcruft. "The Vice-President supports the President and the rest of the Board in their duties" (together with a list of all in that position since its foundation - and every other position) is not something I'd expect to see in the dominant section of an article about a studio/comedy club. Orderinchaos 20:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom as not meeting criteria of WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. The article contains a lot of original research, and as hinted at by Orderinchaos is just another example of the Schoolcruft that infests the wiki. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwydianthia[edit]

Likely hoax. No reliable sources. Not notable. Risker 05:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It lists itself as a Fictional Country, but more importantly, I can't find any reason to call it a notable fictional country such as Middle Earth or something of the sort. Redian (Talk) 06:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no RS. John Vandenberg 06:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume by "RS" you mean reliable sources. That's a good reason for deletion, but please remember that article authors may not be familiar with our jargon. It's better for all concerned if we explain ourselves without reverting to initialisms like "RS" or "NN" or "POV" or any of the like. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Nonsense and obvious hoax. Tagged as G1. Masaruemoto 06:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article should be deleted, for the reasons Redian (talk · contribs) mentions. However, it is a long way from being patent nonsense, and is clearly not a hoax (any more than we should consider Bilbo Baggins a hoax because we probably don't have hobbits in real life). fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly not a hoax"? Prove the article is not a hoax. And don't accuse me of misusing {{db-nonsense}} tags; I know WP:BULLSHIT when I see it. Masaruemoto 06:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would teach your Grandame to suck Eggs? I'd like to think I wasn't aggressive above, Masaruemoto, and I'll thank you to moderate your tone. Gwydianthia, as I've said, could be described as a hoax only in the same sense that Bilbo Baggins is a hoax — because it doesn't actually exist in meatspace. An article on a fictional subject could only be a hoax if it attempted to convince us the subject was real (e.g. if Bilbo Baggins asserted that he was a real historical figure, one of the chaps who signed the Declaration of Independence, perhaps). The article appears to describe a non-notable entity, and we shouldn't have it. But it's not patent nonsense; it's not even nonsense on stilts. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 07:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I rather suspect that this is part of a little game relating to the hypothetical king of this fictional country. Whether he is the originator or someone is playing pranks with his name, I have no idea. Risker 07:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - As Redian said, this country is listed as fictional, and as Risker said, it is not notable. It is also improperly formed - info box not visible at top, no sections, no introductions, improper grammar, etc. The infobox also appears to be one for a real country. anger2headshot 06:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete ?not hoax? ?not nosense? Yeah, okay, lets waste editor's time debating whether or not a fictitious kingdom made up by some guy, without any references or sources should be deleted for reasons a, reason b, or reason c. Better yet, just delete it and lets move on. —Gaff ^ταλκ 07:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See WP:CSD#G1 with regards to hoaxes and speedy deletion. Cheers. --MZMcBride 07:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my mistake. Not a speedy. Now lets all spend time chatting about this before we delete it. —Gaff ^ταλκ 07:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Breaches WP:OR, WP:V and so looks like a WP:HOAX. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge, but quite possibly not a hoax: was mentioned on the TV show How to Start Your Own Country, apparently. See the first revision of the page, dating from December 2006!-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was "inspired by" the television show. Risker 18:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC
  - It's either some nerd who watched the show and ripped off Danny Wallace's micronation website idea or it's a hoax. Either way, it needs to be deleted completely. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the purported author is linked, but is unlikely to be any of the 3 on the disam page linked to. DGG 18:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom as a non-notable hoax. RFerreira 06:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egosurfing[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Lacks multiple reliable sources on the topic of the neologism itself, so it fails WP:NEO. Chardish 05:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it does seem to be rather new, it has apparently been mentioned in a tv show (The Office) and there is a website which has coined the term. Googling it fills pages on this exact definition. I think for a Neologism its pretty popular already. Redian (Talk) 05:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I had not heard of the concept under this name, but "Auto-googling" has been around for quite a while (at least five years; I used the word in 2002, after I encountered it on another blog). At the very least, egosurfing and auto-googling should be transferred over to Wiktionary if the article is deleted. Horologium t-c 07:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the idea is in quite common usage, though it's known by different names. "The term egosurfing dates from 1995, when it first appeared in the ‘Jargon Watch’ column of Wired magazine." says the Macmillan English Dictionary[23] It's more a question of what this article is called, rather than whether it's notable. Nick mallory 08:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - certainly the concept seems notable, but it really needs proper sources. If nothing can be found, delete as WP:NOT#DICT.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of these keep votes are kind of surprising. WP:NEO clearly requires multiple sources on the topic of the neologism, not merely sources that reference it. - Chardish 14:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just because you guys like it doesn't mean it meets with WP:NEO. Toss it. /Blaxthos 15:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfair. No one used an "I like it" argument. Zagalejo 17:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found two articles on EBSCOHost which are actually titled "Egosurfing." The first is from New Scientist (November 11, 2006), and the second is from BMJ (January 16, 1999). I'm sure there's much more available if someone wants to do some digging. And as Nick said, the concept of Googling yourself is certainly familiar, even if the term may not be. Zagalejo 17:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the term is unfamiliar, that is compelling evidence that the neologism has not reached widespread use. I had never heard of it until stumbling upon this page. Remember, sources must be about the term, not merely using the term to describe something else. - Chardish 18:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the article isn't about the term as a term; it's about the general concept of searching for yourself online. The title of the article really isn't that important. Zagalejo 18:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Articles on neologisms have to be about the term as a term, otherwise the concept would be more well-suited for general discussion in an article with a generic title, such as Internet searches for oneself. Without sources about the term as a term, there is no evidence that the term has entered widespread usage, and thus it is unverifiable. - Chardish 21:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, "egosurfing" has entered the Oxford Dictionary of English (and here's an outside source that says it has appeared in the dictionary), so I think we can assume it has entered widespread usage. Zagalejo 21:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure I really understand your objections. Could you point to an article on a neologism that you would deem appropriate? Zagalejo 22:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure. McJob, Bushism, and Bling-bling are all acceptable articles about neologisms. Feminazi has the right idea in terms of what the article should be about, even though it lacks sources. - Chardish 23:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @Zagalejo: then transwiki it to wiktionary? Sala Skan 12:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see why we can't keep it here. It's just a stub right now, but it's conceivably expandable. Zagalejo 22:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep here. The term is in the Jargon File (link), so whether you consider that to be a verifiable enough source is left as an exercise, but Raymond does have certain standards to get things in there - and stuff doesn't just go into the jargon file. I call weak, however, because as was pointed out, the article is about the concept, not the term, and it's granted we're not a dictionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't follow this argument about the article being about the concept vs being about the term. 1) we can certainly have articles about concepts. 2) at least two mainstream dictionaries list this word; therefore, if we have an article about the concept, we can use the word egosurfing for the article title. And there are published articles about egosurfing. The one at the McMillan website has already been mentioned. There's even a short note at the British Medical Journal about it! [24] --Itub 17:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a well-known term, and there are references about it. Search google books to see multiple printed appearances.[25] --Itub 13:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename - the concept was clearly discussed (in random places I don't remember, probably the Jargon File?) several years ago. The term can be debatable, but that's not the point. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Wikipedia:Internet phenomena - this is bollocks, shall we also start an article about Googling the name of your mother with the same content? Sala Skan 12:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part of Wikipedia:Internet phenomena are you using for your argument? Zagalejo 22:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If we find that there is a word for it on mainstream dictionaries, and multiple articles written about it, yes. :) --Itub 06:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:NEO doesn't apply to this, I am curious what it would apply to, besides simply things people have made up. - Chardish 11:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The definition of neologism used in WP:NEO is "are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary". Granted, it says "generally" so some exceptions may apply, but the very fact that this word appears in dictionaries should make one careful about applying WP:NEO. There are many neologisms that are common on the internet that haven't made it into the dictionaries, and WP:NEO is perfect for them. --Itub 11:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and we can discuss the possible move further on the talk page, but I think this title will do until there is more evidence of what it is usually called. This is not an article about a word, any more than any article about any concept usually starts off with a definition. The first sentence makes this clear by listing the other terms. DGG 22:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Black Bear Ranch. History will be left intact, what or whether to merge is an editorial decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commune (documentary)[edit]

Contested prod. There's a ton of documentaries out there, I fail to see how it's notable. Whs itc hy 04:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of it, and merge the essentials into Black Bear Ranch. Yechiel Man 05:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above, and Yechiel's statement. Redian (Talk) 06:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, Google News Archive results indicate it is notable enough, but Black Bear Ranch is really short, so a merge is far more desirable. John Vandenberg 06:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest that this film and its entry meets all and more of the proposed requirements for a notable film. The first comment that contested the film was not particular in its criticism, ie "Documentaries are a dime a dozen."

Here are the criteria that are proposed for film and the Wikipedia and where "Commune" stands in regards to these. (note - I am the filmmaker)

"A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

COMMUNE played theatrically in regular (known as at least one week) runs in Manhattan, LA, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle and other cities gathering full, favorable (and not capsule) reviews in the NY Times, the Chicago Sun-Times, the NY Post, the NY Daily News, the Onion, Time Out, the Chicago Tribune, The LA Times, Salon.com, Variety, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Seattle Times, the LA Weekly and numerous other well regarded publications.

Other screenings beyond the theatrical run include retrospectives at the Museum of Modern Art, the Cleveland Cinematheque, the Cornell Cinema, and at the Communal Studies Conference in Marshall California in 2006. It is being used in the coursework many colleges including courses at SUNY Purchase, and other well regarded film schools. The film will be shown on the Sundance Channel and will received a full DVD release from First Run Features, a venerable independent film distributor that distributes the work of acclaimed filmmakers like Michael Apted and his award winning "7 Up" documentary series.

Additionally the work is distinguished from the commune itself as the product of a group process between the filmmakers and some of the residents of the commune. Many of the residents did not appear in the work. The work is intended to contest the marginalizing of the history of the counterculture and as a reexamination of the values of an era that still is confusing and misunderstood, precisely, I would argue because of the potency of the zeitgeist.

Here are excerpts of some of reviews from above.

“Amid the dozens of documentaries made about various aspects of '60s society and culture, "Commune" stands out for its ambiguity, honesty and sheer human clarity…an extraordinary collage.” Andrew O'Hehir, Salon

“A breezy, informal history of a long-running California commune begun in the summer of 1968 and still in existence, offers the fascinating spectacle of observing people then and now.” Stephen Holden, NY Times

“Celebrating the desire to immerse oneself in a collective, world-changing enterprise..” J. Hoberman, Village Voice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.141.140 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 10 June 2007

Keep. Film has received attention from critics major enough to pass the notability threshold I think, although the article itself is in dire need of an editor willing to take the time to Wikify it (e.g. to remove the excessive external linking). Ford MF 10:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Long diatribe by the filmmaker himself aside (COI), there is no assertion of notability. /Blaxthos 15:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Black Bear Ranch and leave a redirect behind here. I hold that the film does indeed fall foul of our notability guidelines in and of itself but since it is associated with this notable community it should get a mention there. A1octopus 20:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The film-maker's page was deleted. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Black Bear Ranch, per comment above G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 00:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to propose that this article does in fact meet the notability guidelines and incorporates a multitude of reliable external sources. I am unclear as to what more is needed to prove its notability or to Wikify it. I would like to add though, that this film is of great significance as both an art piece and educational tool. It tells a compelling and eye-opening story of communes, hippies, and the sixties in general, not just in reference to Black Bear Ranch; therefor it would be a mistake to merge it with that article. This film has been formally reviewed by well known publications, and has been shown at large scale film festivals around the world. It certainly seems to me that this film has proven its significance for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sashm 02:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Black Bear Ranch. The article does not effectively assert notability except in the statement "It's among the first of a group of films that reexamine and contest the negation of the ethos of the 1960's and 1970's". The proposed policy for film notability suggests notability is met if "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". Although two full length reviews seem to be available [26][27], the film is not yet widely distributed. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so a merge with no prejudice against recreation if/when more reliable sources are available is indicated. Ichibani _u^t_c 02:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging or splitting, as suggested by some editors in this discussion, is an editorial decision. It can be done at any time, without an AfD, provided there is consensus among the editors involved or intrested. DES ^(talk) 05:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'no' campaign (euro)[edit]

An article with no significant information, no sources, only eleven major edits, only one serious article link, and a very awkward title. I'm a staunch inclusionist, but there is no (and as far as I'm aware, there never was an) organisation called the '"no" campaign' in the UK. We should wait until there is one to have an article on it. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 02:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, so it lacks verifiability. Delete per nom, referencing WP:NRSNVNA. - Chardish 05:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll also vote 'no' on this one. As it has NO sources, it really has NO purpose. CitiCat 05:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep - This article does have a place, it just needs to be found. It is a real organization, it comes up in a news article as one of the first google hits: [28]. While it's from a long time ago, it is definitely useful for someone who may be doing a report on the Euro, or finding some history of it. Perhaps it should be retitled as the "Euro No Campaign" ? Redian (Talk) 06:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This campaign was very notable for the period it was running with plenty of sources available - I have added some sources to the article which leave no doubt about the potential for expansion. Contrary to the nominator there clearly was a 'no' campaign. I agree that the title of the article is strange and a dsicussion on the article title would be welcome but the article itself should clearly be kept. Davewild 10:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the two comments above, I wouldn't be opposed to moving and then this article now that it's sourced and now that I know there really was a large, important organization called to No Campaign. I'm thinking the name should be "No Campaign (UK)" in order to differentiate it from other possible "No" Campaigns that have existed or may yet exist and to make it clear the same time that the unequivocal, unqualified name of the organization was simply the "No Campaign". I would support more work being done on and more links being made to the article in conjunction with this. When we can get consensus on this or something like it, I'll withdraw the Afd. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 05:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- it would not be difficult to source and expand this article Thunderwing 11:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's got sources, and is just missing citations.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one of the main Euro-related topics if some references to establish notability can be found, else Delete as a POV-Fork-- simxp (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Create a new article, Opposition to the euro, to contain this and similar content, and merge this into it. -- The Anome 10:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least Merge into an article with some substance. As it stands, its just waffle (and a POV fork). --Red King 19:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Euro#Criticism. The other way around - a split - is an option too, but is small enough to be a section only for now. I have just merged a paragraph there. - Nabla 13:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Straight Outta Lynnwood. Note that a redirect is a form of Keep, and the article history is retained. DES ^(talk) 22:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Sue Ya[edit]

This article has been created, prodded, deleted as an expired prod, recreated, speedy deleted (which was procedurally incorrect), recreated, redirected, recreated, and redirected again. It's my understanding that any deletion attempt after the original prod deletion should have been an AfD. So this nomination is mostly procedural. The song did have an animated music video featured on the CD, and it does seem to be promoted by Yankovic as one of the album's main songs, featured at his website and sung at concerts, but on the other hand, five other songs on the album had animated music videos too. Anyway, I'll abstain on this one, but I do think we need a community decision at some point. Maxa megalon 2000 03:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Straight Outta Lynnwood. I do not believe this song was ever released as a single. Resolute 04:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Look, it's not about whether or not the song can considered be a "single" in whatever sense you want to look at it, it's whether or not the song deserves an article. I'm a huge Al fan and I love this song, but I don't think it's article-worthy. There's little that can be said about the song outside of a one-sentence summary, which can be stuck in the Straight Outta Lynnwood article. The list currently in the article is pointless at best, and dangerously close to copyvio at worst. And look at "Canadian Idiot", a single (though without a video), and its article has been deleted several times because there's not enough significant info to justify the article's existence. - Ugliness Man 07:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yankovic is the leading parody/novelty artist of all time; all of his significant songs are notable. Newyorkbrad 16:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Straight Outta Lynwood. The amount of Weird Al cruft on Wikipedia is shocking. GassyGuy 10:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. At most one independant source of debatable quality for purposes of establishing notability, so on both weight of arguments and weight of numbers, the result is delete. DES ^(talk) 05:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua House[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Joshua House

non notable youth club of an individual church, no independent sources for notabilility DGG 03:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a local newsletter item, not suitable for a worldwide compendium. Yechiel Man 05:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that there is some notability, such as [29], I am not entirely sure, but do consider the amount of people according to their sources they attract. Perhaps though, this source is not independent? Local newsletter or not, I think that someone outside the community may have some interest in it. Redian (Talk) 05:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. No RSes. Doesn't pass a priori muster (Wikipedia doesn't even list every church, much less every church's youth group). Ante lan ^talk 17:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AfD is not the place to make article cleanup requests. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Destroyer[edit]

Article lacks any link to real world facts it is full of fancruft and other violations of WP:FICT and WP:OR it is sitting with 4 tags with no fixes it badly needs to go.Jeffpiatt 03:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. There is no question that an article deserves to be written about this subject. If nothing else, there are no fewer than seven interwiki articles in other languages. The major problem is finding sources in literature related to Star Wars. I think the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars might be able to help. Yechiel Man 03:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added the aforementioned cleanup tags just two hours before the article was nominated for deletion. This doesn't mean that the issues highlighted by the tags shouldn't've been addressed before I added the tags, but the nominator's tone might be misconstrued as suggesting those tags have been there longer than they really have. --EEMeltonIV 03:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What is the policy -- or, lacking that -- practice/precedent if a topic is worth keeping but the entirety of the article is overwhelmingly, perhaps entirely, unencyclopedic? --EEMeltonIV 04:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that the article is at most blanked and rewritten from the start in such cases. In this case, it'd probably just be a trimming though. FrozenPurpleCube 15:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hoo-boy, this is a nomination so full of problems it is hard to know where to begin. First, the nominator is wrong that the article is entirely devoid of real-world facts (though I agree there is way to much in-universe material), as it describes the history of the term in the early drafts of the script, redesigns and variants that came about from different models used in the movie, and the issue of the changing name of the Imperial class ship as it relates to the literature. Second, as pointed out above, the tags on this article were only recently added, leading to an astouding lack of research by nominator or bad faith manipulation of the facts. Third, WP:FICT has nothing to say about fictional things, only plot summaries and characters, so has not been violated. Fourth, I see no evidence of widespread WP:OR violation that would require the entire article to be deleted. Fifth, while this has nothing to do with the nomination itself, I do find it somewhat hypocritical of an editor who is a member of WikiProject Gundam complaining about "fancruft" on wikipedia. If Star Destroyer, an iconic symbol of modern science fiction, is to go, then I wonder what Jeffpiatt would think of deleting MS-06 Zaku II, an article on a FAR more obscure topic that has the same tags on top and which he has spent a good deal of time working on in the past few days. Nomination smacks of bad faith to me. Indrian 04:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Indrian. Needs cleanup, but is notable. Resolute 04:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep per above, and I find it hard to assume good faith with this nomination for the obvious reasons stated above. This article will still pass notability with flying colors even after my rewrite of the guideline is finished. — Deckill er 04:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I find your lack of faith, disturbing. Seriously though, just because it isn't real doesn't mean its not notable enough for inclusion. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 04:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of Google News results. The tags were added only two hours before the Afd; the current article is better than no article, and it is being improved since the Afd. John Vandenberg 06:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete about 2/3 of the article and keep the stuff that's important to Star Wars in general. Wikipedia is meant to be a general-interest encyclopedia: knowledge that would only interest a small number of people who read the article should be avoided. This sort of knowledge is, unfortunately, most of the article. - Chardish 06:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs some cleanup but easily deserves an article. Davewild 10:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup, Star Destroyers are clearly a notable part of a notable work of fiction. There's no problem finding significant coverage in sources outside the work of fiction. (The question of whether they should be third-party or not is possibly not meaningful, since Star Wars is notable, and this is a spin-off of it). And there IS real world context in the article. Note the mention of production in SW?? You might convince me of the value to merging to a single article on Capital ships in Star Wars, but I don't see deletion happening. Especially not when the cleanup tags are but hours old when you make the nomination. And shame on you if you didn't check before making the nomination! FrozenPurpleCube 15:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is largely fancruft... notability in the Star Wars universe (or community) doesn't make it notable. It should be noted that in general I am personally not inclined to have encyclopedic articles on fictional concepts or objects unless they have some real-world applicability (which most don't). /Blaxthos 15:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable, a staple of pop culture (cf. for instance the reference in Spaceballs). Article may need to be trimmed, but that's another issue. Nicolasdz 21:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is a revenge nomination because your Hi-Zack article was deleted seven times really the answer? Clearly notable in a way that, I should note, said article on the Hi-Zack was not. There may be too much fancruft, but the Star Destroyer is a much more immediately recognizable mechanical design than the Zaku-looking robot which appeared for maybe a quarter of an anime and was depicted as nothing more than cannon fodder. If you're trying to prove a point, you pretty much screwed the pooch here. Maikeru 22:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this is not revenge i was just seeing how things would stand seeing that this article has infomation on ships that appear in the most obscure places.Jeffpiatt 03:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - *sigh* AfD is not a laboratory. --EEMeltonIV 03:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Star Wars is obscure? Since when? I think most people worldwide have at least heard of Star Wars, and a good amount of those same people have watched at least one Star Wars film. At any rate, at least IMO, you're abusing the AfD area to try and make a point. Maikeru 04:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Could have been "no consensus" but policy arguments seemed stronger on the keep side, and numbers were equal. DES ^(talk) 05:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tazewell Thompson[edit]

Apparntly non-notable theater director / playwright. Importance, prod tags removed without any supporting comment. Nomination for an Emmy does not meet Notability criteria. Ga rr ie 03:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Notability threshold does not seem to have been met, despite being tagged for improvement since September 2006.Ga rr ie 03:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also agree that it is non notable. Seems like the subject hasn't had any notable projects lately... okay, one but it's a redlink. --ROASTYTOAST 04:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Tazewell+Thompson%22+site%3Avariety.com for several articles in Variety magazine that seem to establish notability. --Eastmain 05:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Variety "the new artistic director of the Westport Country Playhouse, making him one of the few African-Americans to head a regional theater of such significant size, history and scope". Profiles in NYT and WaPo. --Dhartung | Talk 05:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since article has 5 notable references, which is more than most other members of the American theatre directors category. Let's not forget the IMDB and IBDB entries. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Segger Microcontroller Systems[edit]

Article is unverifiable with most edits coming from [email protected], who is most likely an employee at Segger. WP:COI. The purpose of this article was to advertise Segger. Witchinghour 03:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Witchinghour 03:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't forget the copyright image Image:Segger165x71.gif as well. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 03:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - who eats spam anyway? /Blaxthos 16:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG keep - a deletion spree by a person who does not bother to do a minimal bqackground check. `'юзырь:mikka 19:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - actually it was other admins who said to me that I'm welcome to do an AfD. please see Talk:Segger Microcontroller Systems. --Witchinghour 19:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - also please take a minute to look at the histories of those pages thanks! --Witchinghour 19:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - also bear in mind that I am NOT an admin. I can't delete anything, all I can do is propose. Other multiple admins agreed with those proposals and deleted all those pages. but you are the only one who reinstated them!. --Witchinghour 20:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I could only see one academic reference to the company; more reliable sources are needed. John Vandenberg 08:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merges, edits, or additional sources, as suggeted by some in this discussion, are editorial issues, and do not need an AfD.DES ^(talk) 04:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Hills Software[edit]

The article doesn't assert it's notability. It's unverifiable and appears that it's purpose is to advertise the company. Witchinghour 03:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Witchinghour 03:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some secondary sources, which should go towards notability. While it may be a bit ad-like in places, I don't feel the overall article is an ad. The problems sections can be repaired. CitiCat 05:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment: if the article is kept the current minutae listing of every feature should be radically trimmed down, also leaf articles like µ-velOSity should be merged here. The article lacks information about the history. Everyone can look up the current products on their website, the history is what's encyclopedically valuable. Pavel Vozenilek 11:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Inline external links (or put in the EL section) do not reliable sources make. Perhaps if this article were properly referenced and trimmed significantly it would be a keep, but as it stands now it reads like an advertisement. /Blaxthos 16:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG keep - a deletion spree by a person who does not bother to do a minimal bqackground check. `'юзырь:mikka 19:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - reply to user mikka here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Segger Microcontroller Systems thanks.Witchinghour 19:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep — with a conflict of interest on my part. ;) It looks to me like all of the embedded software articles follow the same basic format as the Green Hills Software article; see Wind River Systems, Segger Microcontroller Systems, MontaVista Software, ARM Limited. See VxWorks for one even further down the road to fancruftiness. I think it's just that there's not a lot to say about these tech companies except (1) where and who they are, which takes about two sentences; and (2) business cruft: who they compete with, how much they made last year, what their flagship products are, and other stuff that naturally looks very much like advertising. (Freescale Semiconductor is lucky enough to have had a buyout offer, so they can devote a section to that to make their article look less spammy. :) I do support merging µ-velOSity et al. into Green Hills Software. --Quuxplusone 04:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It isn't notably worse than any other company article and seems to meet WP:CORP. Henrik 07:03, 12

Delete per Nom. A backround check shows that this private company is not quoted on any stock exchange, and hence is only of interest to its owners and employees. Although this article is long, it is mainly comprised of lists of products, their components and attributes. Wikipedia is not an online catalogue, and spammy articles of this type with no encylopedic value should be speedily deleted. --Gavin Collins 16:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The company was somehow historically notable (which is not really shown in the text). I fully agree about the spammy nature of the article. Pavel Vozenilek 14:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trangshi[edit]

Sparsely used neologism -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 02:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Google search shows few results, almost exclusively in conjunction with the book. --h2g2bob (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Also, it is a very, very short article of no particular use to the normal being, anyway, it doesn't need to be here. --Thekittybomb 02:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microlinux[edit]

Low-quality article on non-notable Linux distribution. I never heard about this distribution, and used Google to make sure. It is unfortunately virtually impossible to check the hits for "uL". I checked with "Microlinux", which gave under 10000 estimated hits. There may be a conflict of interest from the article creator, as uL creator. Chealer 02:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability it seems to be very unused, the article is of poor quality. Redian (Talk) 06:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. /Blaxthos 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Magioladitis 09:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson tumewu[edit]

0 Ghits. If someone can verify the person/article, is he notable enough for entry here? 650l2520 01:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It turns out that there is a multimillionaire Indonesian businessman named Paulus Tumewu who is the chairman of a large retail corporation called Ramayana. [30] That matches part of the supposed biography of "Wilson Tumewu"'s father. But Paulus Tumewu is still alive and the corporation's name hasn't been changed. So this article is based on a false premise and should be deleted under WP:BLP, for portraying a living person as deceased. I have no idea whether Paulus Tumewu has a son named Wilson, but this can't be an accurate biography of the son if the son even exists. --Metropolitan90 02:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails BLP, if not a complete hoax. CitiCat 05:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete per jayvdb & citi. /Blaxthos 16:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TinyLinux[edit]

Article doesn't establish notability. Chealer 00:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not every linux distro is inherently notable. BlaxthosSuperEliteLinux anyone? :-) /Blaxthos 16:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm glad to see these continuous AFD noms of linux distros are getting into articles that actually claim notability in some manner, but there are no independent sources provided to back it up. Someguy1221 00:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, a small gathering of friends in a backyard, author has asserted inability to provide evidence of notability. Deiz talk 03:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Thricennial Festival of Kalahurkus[edit]

Ok, I seriously do not see the notability in the festival, but I didn't want to immediately tag it with a speedy delete. So the reason is: Notability of festival is not notable. Userpie^{talk to me!} 00:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Erm, I assume you mean, "Festival is not notable?" If the notability of the festival is notable, then I go, "Wha?" LaughingVulcan 00:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, fix'd. Userpie^{talk to me!} 01:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So this guy has a party three times a year in his backyard? How is that notable? Fails WP:ATT and WP:NOTE. --Charlene 00:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Delete, ~~speedy under A7 if possible.~~ Utterly unremarkable "group", article fails notability utterly. I'd recommend a friendly note on the creator's page, also. LaughingVulcan 00:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Withdrew speedy opinion request, per article creator below asking about time. LaughingVulcan 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that most of the world does not care about this festival, it is also true that it has become a major part of graduate life at the Math Department at the University of Texas, Austin. As a recreational activity, it deserves to stay on Wikipedia. For example, an article already exists for the game of flip cup, which is merely a drinking game. Not everyone cares about flip cup, but it's a recreational activity that people may be curious about. In the same manner, prospective graduate students or others may wonder what is the Thricennial Festival of Kalahurkas. This article serves that purpose.Salmanhb 00:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that no one cares, it's whether its notable or not. Userpie^{talk to me!} 01:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there are many festivals on Wikipedia already. I am not sure what makes them more notable than this one. I understand certain festivals are massive gatherings and obviously warrant notability. But that cannot be the only criterion. Granted this is a small festival among a collection of people in Austin, but I am unsure on why that disqualifies it being notable.Salmanhb 01:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consult Wikipedia:Notability, which is the guideline which establishes notability on Wikipedia. LaughingVulcan 01:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to Wikipedia:Notability. It seems that the major issue is that I do not have independent sources to verify the existence, attendance or significance of the festival. As I say below, I am not an organizer nor an attendee (as of yet). I am expecting others who know more about the festival to contribute and add this other information. But one cannot expect that to happen instantaneously after I start the article. My intention was to set up an article and then have others more qualified than myself contribute and flush it. I thought this was in the spirit of Wikipedia.Salmanhb 01:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that this festival is still in its infancy, though over a hundred people have already attended. Many festivals start as small gatherings, but they blossom into something much larger. There is nothing to preclude this festival from following a similar path.Salmanhb 01:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources are provided and there are no Google hits for this event. This sounds like a private gathering not open to the public. --Metropolitan90 01:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just started this entry about an hour ago. I got tired of typing and did not write down any references. As far as Google goes, I am not the organizer and shouldn't be held responsible for the organizer not advertising. It is in fact a public event, but spreads mostly through word of mouth.Salmanhb 01:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should note that I have never attended a single festival. I have just been told about it and thought it warranted a Wikipedia entry.Salmanhb 01:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's still time to source it if you REALLY think you can save the article. Userpie^{talk to me!} 01:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any sources besides the email I received. I am just surprised that an article won't even survive a few days so that people can add to it. Frankly, I don't want to fight this to the death. My feeling is that an article about a small festival is worthy of surviving more than a few hours.Salmanhb 01:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, if you're insisting on deleting it ASAP, that's fine. I will just try to get all the information up and ready and try reposting once I have some sources.Salmanhb 01:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is an Articles for Deletion discussion, which usually lasts five days. The original nominator said that he didn't want to immediately tag it for speedy deletion (if he had done so, the article potentially might have been gone in a few minutes). So you do have "a few days", but if you want to turn the tide in favor of keeping the article, you are better off improving the article sooner rather than later. --Metropolitan90 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Salmanhb 02:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as something with a strong whiff of attack page. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elaineadillo[edit]

Looks like a hoax/joke. No results on Google that don't mention wikipedia. No-one would name a species "Elaineadillo" because Elaine is a girl's name so people would think it was a joke. Therefore, this article is most probably a joke article. greenrd 00:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could an armadillo-like animal even live in Ontario? Nyttend 00:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete, delete: Armadillos in Canada and London??? Obviously a hoax and all searches on internet point back to this page. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 00:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Towers[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:N or WP:PORNBIO. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yechiel Man 04:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Let's not forget the user who created it's only edits are on the article. Mainly though is the above. Redian (Talk) 06:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete DES ^(talk) 03:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MuLinux[edit]

Non-notable dead Linux distribution. Chealer 00:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While no longer used, this version (yes I did some outside research) could fit on a floppy disk and install quickly, and be removed. I think that this determines its notability, whether or not its a dead distribution, it was a (big) step. Redian (Talk) 06:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entirely unreferenced & dead, and no, notability doesn't inherently exist for every linux distro. /Blaxthos 16:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I liked this old distro of Linux, I am going to say Delete. Other than an inclusion speech synthesis program, I don't see it as being notable: it isn't widely used; I don't think it has been in the news or newspaper. As much as I would like it to stay, Wikipedia isn't a directory. Perhaps there could be an article made that has a brief description of all the tiny Linux Distros? Madd the sane 19:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FDLinux[edit]

Non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 00:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above. Non-notable, not enough references.
Delete - Unreferenced & nonnotable. /Blaxthos 16:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete on grounds that this is pure spam. This article should have been deleted by the author years ago on grounds of obsolescence. --Gavin Collins 10:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly non notable and probably a hoax Xtreme racer 20:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. DES ^(talk) 20:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FloppyFW[edit]

Stub on non-notable project. Chealer 00:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A scan of search results from Google reveals no appropriate sources that would tend to estabilish a requisite level of notability. Erechtheus 01:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The term returns 54000 Google hits; and here's a NewsForge article comparing it to Coyote Linux. akuyume^T_C 09:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced stub. /Blaxthos 16:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of refs proving notability. Jacek Kendysz 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fixit, appears to be a current and useful Linux firewall distribution, with an update release this year. Ace of Risk 21:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deiz talk 04:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenn Hanna[edit]

Kind of a test case, User:Earl Andrew is clearly very knowlegeable about Canadian curling but has created and edited a great number of articles which strike me as being of questionable notability. This particular article is an unsourced biography of a curler who is clearly competent and plays at a national level, yet doesn't appear to have achieved anything notable. Deiz talk 03:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Competed at the highest level in amateur sports in her country, the national championship of Canadian curling. Has won one Grand Slam tournament. Seems to me she passes WP:BIO. --Charlene 03:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely if the nom admits that she plays 'at a national level' then by Wikipedia standards that's notable? The fact that it's unsourced isn't a reason for deletion, merely tagging for sources, and reading the article I see no evidence that anything in it is actually untrue. Curling may not be a huge sport in the world but I see no reason to delete people who play at a high level in it simply because of that. Nick mallory 03:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've left the author a note on his talk page. I would advise that this page not be deleted before he has a chance to respond. Yechiel Man 04:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory smith (chemist)[edit]

Possible hoax. No apparent matching Google hits, and the mis-named "Gregorian Principle" mentioned in the article does not appear to relate to the field of chemistry. Canley 07:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete So tagged with {{db-a7}}. The Sunshine Man 08:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable --Witchinghour 09:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable (probably a hoax). /Blaxthos 16:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless this and/or this is the guy. (If so, weak delete.) --Evb-wiki 17:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable. Is this a candidate for early close by WP:SNOW? -- Myke Cuthbert (talk)
Delete. Just as the article's creator wrote, he is fairly unknown. Delete unless sources are provided to both verify and establish notability. Someguy1221 20:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom, WP:SNOW should apply by now. RFerreira 06:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Over My Head 02:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Who'd have guessed it was snowing in June in North America? (See Myke Cuthbert's comment above.)

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

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

The result was Delete. Note that a merge is a form of keep, not a form of delete, as some comments seem to suggest. DES ^(talk) 20:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying goalscorers[edit]

Precedent states we delete lists of goalscorers. See here and here. It's list cruft, every county's goalscorers are listed in the pages for each group, alongside the group. There's also a list of top-scorers in 2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying, which covers any interest in who scored the most. HornetMike 18:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions.
Strong delete per precedent. I'm not 100% sure that the precedent is correct, but I think consistency must carry the day in any borderline case. Yechiel Man 20:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a difference between a scoring list for a complete season of a professional league and a scoring list for the major tournaments. The Premier League reference above should not be extended to cover a similar list of all scorers in the World Cup, or any of the confederation championships. However, qualifications for those championships falls into a gray zone. If my rough math is correct, the number of Euro qualifier matches (294) is not so different from the number of Premier League games (380) in a season. Other confederations probably have smaller qualifying cycles. Neier 21:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Svetovid 22:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think a major continental tournament should be categorized differently then a country league season. Also, in each qualifying group, we list results with goal scorers, so why not also have this available in an easily accessible sorted list format in a separate article. If the list should be deleted, then it seems like you are also suggesting that group results pages should be deleted as well? // laughing man 22:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into relevant group qualifying articles. Simple scores alone do not stand up as a Wikipedia article, even if it is for qualifying for the 2nd biggest tournament in soccer. However, the Euro 2008 group qualifying articles are not so large that the information can't go there. Resolute 13:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the consensus is to not keep the article I also think a merge should be first verified before closing (deleting) this AfD. // laughing man 02:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment by closer Note that if a merge is done or to be done the article is not deleted, but is retained, usually as a redirect, for attribution & history. "Delete" and "Merge" are inconsistant outcomes, you can't do both. DES ^(talk) 20:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete let's not keep qualifying topscorers, that's pretty excessive. --Angelo 02:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Resolute. The group articles already list each scorer in the match summary. But, expanding the table at the bottom or listing all goal scorers alphabetically or by team in those articles seems to be a good way of presenting the info in a better way. Neier 08:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too much detail. Qualifying's top scores, say the top 10, listed at the Qualifying article, looks fine. All goalscores is too much. - Nabla 14:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant list. Lists of goalscorers are already found in articles related to thier individual groups.--Kylohk 15:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Not quite a speedy IMO, but close, and no one indicated a desire to keep this. DES ^(talk) 20:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Miranda[edit]

Non-notable musician who fails WP:MUSIC. Claim to notability is a runner-up spot on a contest to perform on the Grammies - since then, seemingly nothing. fuzzy510 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Nothing there except talking about everyone else. Also speedy Brenda Radney as nominated. Vegaswikian 00:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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