Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 14

< June 13	June 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Josh Somerhalder. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JoshuaZ 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Patrick Reilly[edit]

An article on an individual who is ranked third as the Stone skipping champion in Northern Ireland. Fails WP:BIO. Complete with unexplained amazon.com link to a Rick Steves travel guide. Victoriagirl 23:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fairly obvious WP:HOAX. No information found on "stone skipping tournaments". --Dhartung | Talk 23:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and hoax. east .718 00:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 01:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - no not really, Delete Guroadrunner 21:49, 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 merge. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe the Bartender[edit]

Minor character - see WP:FICT#Fiction in Wikipedia. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the "Recurring characters" section of List of characters from Grey's Anatomy, along with the other separate articles for characters in that section. (The information in these articles isn't significantly more detailed than that provided in the list for recurring characters that lack their own articles.) I have to say, before I looked I assumed that this was going to be about the old Jackie Gleason character. Deor 00:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the list. Although I have some reluctance as we have articles on characters even more minor to their respective shows, like Frank Grimes and Sneakers O'Toole. Still I'd ultimately say "merge those too." Lastly I favor keeping the articles on the main characters, even Burke.--T. Anthony 05:04, 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 with no prejudice against recreation if reliable sources can be found. JoshuaZ 18:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Connor[edit]

Disputed speedy, then prod. Subject is not notable at all. No sources cited, cannot be verified. Google turns up no relevant links at all, except for WP and reflection sites. I'm not even sure this guy actually exists. Suspected to be a vanity article. Please delete. Realkyhick 23:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - not really that notable in the grand scheme of things. Guroadrunner 23:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - per nomination. The product of a single purpose account. Victoriagirl 23:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. east .718 00:10, 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 keep. Friday (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed Egyptian (Mormonism)[edit]

Sequoyah Syllabary^[1]>Non-existent language "reformed egyptian". No reliable sources to verify it ever existed. Article should be renamed if kept or merged into Book of Mormon rather than exist under a misleading title that implies a non-existent language existed when there is no verifiable source to prove such a claim. The only sources are self-published LDS sources which cannot be verified as accurate or reliable. The only source in the article from a third party source with linguistic background I could locate states in the lead this language does not or ever existed. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - based on personal attacks of "impaired mental abilities" and coercive threats of blocking by admin User:Visorstuff due to this editor attempting to provide scholarly analysis of the claims and materials related to this article and to either delete, merge, or enhance the article with encyclopedic quality and invite discussion by non-LDS admins and editors to comment on the article and review the materials as a community effort. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep The article has a history of existence and active editing since 2002, and was not created by a Mormon. The reason given for deletion is that it such a language does not exist. The same can be said for Jesus and a hundred other faith-based articles. Also, the lead paragraph clearly states that there is no evidence outside of Mormonism for the language. Master forger Mark Hofmann thought it significant enough to forge one of the samples. This seems to be a tantrum by the suggesting editor due to his original research on the topic comparing Reformed Egyptian and written Cherokee which no other scholar has done. The editor has a long history of citing controversy on Wikipedia. -Visorstuff 22:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the actual language itself never existed except among the first Mormons, and that the references listed in this article supporting the existence of it are not independent (and many don't seem to actually have anything to do with the supposed facts they're supporting). On the other hand, it is notable in the same way that the Mormon belief that Algonquin is similar to Hebrew is notable even though almost all of the words the Mormons use to "prove" this aren't actually found in any native language, and the rest appear to be mere coincidence. The belief in these unsupported theories (and they are part of the basis of the Mormon faith) is notable. --Charlene 22:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is a very odd AfD. Jeffrey Merkey has made a huge number of edits to this article in the last couple of days (apparently trying to improve it) and has now suddenly put it up for deletion (see the article's edit history and its talk page to see what I am talking about). I am confused and question the rationale for this AfD. I am in full agreement with Jeff that this language never existed, and have been involved in trying to get a sentence into the article which addresses this point (currently in the article intro as "Scholarly reference works on languages do not, however, acknowledge the existence of a "reformed Egyptian" language as it has been described in Mormon belief.") But I think this is clearly a worthy article albeit one that could use some work. Quite simply, Mormons claim this is the language from which Joseph Smith translated in order to create the Book of Mormon. There has been a great deal of debate (at least in Mormon circles) about what this language is, while non-Mormons have generally dismissed the language as one Joseph Smith made up and look for other sources for the foundational Mormon religious text. It is referenced and discussed in probably just about every scholarly book on Mormonism. It was mentioned just a couple of days ago in an article in The Scotsman and will be mentioned even more because of Mitt Romney's candidacy. Even without this revived contemporary interest (which is why I, a non-Mormon, came across the article in the first place), it's clearly a notable topic of historical interest. Just because the language probably does not actually exist (and again I utterly and completely agree with that--though LDS members would beg to differ) does not mean it should not have an article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick clarification, his research was actually preserved on the talk page until a reference could be provided. Incidentally, consensus will be needed to make such a move with out an admin... -Visorstuff 23:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC) this edit was in response to this retracted post] -Visorstuff 23:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It's also been in the news because some Aboriginal writers have received death threats from Mormons recently after having pointed out that virtually all the words Mormon scholars use to "prove" that native languages are descended from Hebrew and Egyptian don't actually exist in any native language. Someone made them up. (Edit to remove exciting bolding.) --Charlene 23:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene, Can you share with me those references? I've not seen that in the news... it would actually be a good addition to the article. Death threats...I thought I was the only one who received those... -Visorstuff 23:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find something online. The controversy was mentioned on APTN a few days back, but I haven't seen anything in print. --Charlene 23:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - i'll drop future questions on you talk page rather than here. -Visorstuff 23:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the sources in this article, the reasons given for deletion smack strongly of POV. And, hypothetically, even if the language doesn't exist, how about Tolkein's Elvish and Black Speech articles? Those have separate articles, even though they don't exist outside of fiction. Hmmm... Wrad 23:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As LDS perspective and views of history. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 23:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It smacks LOUDLY of POV and personal agenda. The name reformed Egyptian is only a term used to refer to it; Smith simply used to the term to describe what he said he translated. However, this article is valid for an LDS view of ancient history and how it coincides with their beliefs. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing smacks loudly of POV comments yet I cannot find anything POV about statements that non-existent languages with no proof or reliable sources should have articles. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious viewpoints scarcely come with proof. It is sourced within their religious text. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 23:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree religious viewpoints can be characterized this way -- until they make claims which are refuted by physical evidence -- like the fact there are three sentences in Cherokee in the purported Anthon transcript which is claimed to be written in "Reformed Egyptian". I am not Egyptian by ancestry, nor is our language. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are Cherokee sentences, and reliable sources say so, then the answer is to work that into the article, not to delete the article. I personally don't see any evidence saying that Muhammud was visited by the Angel Gabriel. I might even say I see evidence against it, but I'm not going to push for that article to get deleted, because a lot of people believe it. There are even articles on wikipedia about how 9/11 didn't happen, and Apollo 11 wasn't a moon landing. This isn't a reason to delete an article. "Non-existent languages" is, again, also no reason to delete. See my previous comment. Wrad 23:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Try placing those types of materials in the article and watch the tagging and edit wars that ensue. The article just gets slowly reverted back to the original when anyone attempts scholarly editing and sourcing of this language or the associated evidence claimed to back it up. If the article is just going to be a one-sided and unverifiable view view with a mongolian hoard of editors reverting out any serious study of the content, Wikipedia could do without the content, and/or it should be classified correctly as LDS teachings, not an authoratative article on a non-existent language. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Per all the reasons above. Just more POV maneuvering by the Merk. Incidentally, why was it moved from Reformed Egyptian to Reformed Egyptian (Mormonism)? If the concept only exists in Mormonism, no disambiguation should be necessary. In any case, the use of "Mormonism" should be avoided per the naming conventions. -SESmith 23:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved as some editors, including myself, thought that some readers may think it was a language that could be studied, or that it was not a religious text (ie the reason for this whole mess), which it cannot, as it is a faith-based topic. Every so often we have someone like Merkey come along and say they were mislead by the article. We wanted to make sure there was no confusion that this was mormon-specific. Like most Mormonism related articles, the Mormon editors err on the side of NPOV caution, and are overly sensitive that we are not pushing POV. -Visorstuff 00:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who bothers to read even the first sentence of the article will not be deceived by the lack of a parenthetical disambiguation. I appreciate and commend your NPOV caution, but I think most impartial observers would find it unnecessary. It's not like it's in other language categories apart from Category:Religious language. Anyhow, this conv. is not appropriate here so I'll shut up. -SESmith 00:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. east .718 00:10, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holkan[edit]

What is this??? It's nearly incomprehensible to me. Yechiel Man 22:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Incoherent article which is in need of serious overhaul before it's even possible to tell if it's encyclopaedic or not. At the moment it's bordering on patent nonsense. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 22:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation - it appears that this is an article about a "fantasy-science fiction comic and novel created by mexican authors Mardoz Lule and Hector Murguia in 2003" that gets its title name from Holkan, mayan word that means "Fierce" or "Warrior" . Guroadrunner 22:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. Incoherant and incomprehensible. May be worthy of an entry if rewritten. Victoriagirl 23:20, 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 no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Commander in Chief[edit]

Fancruft for the political series. A list of the main characters already exists in the main article; this is a list of the full fictional Senate and Congress, among other ficitonal politicians on the show. Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. Guroadrunner 22:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete particularly since a list of the main characters already exists. No reason that can't be added to. Edit, drag the cursor down the list, copy; edit the other article, paste. Voila. Mandsford 23:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the list is very long and would severely damage the main article to do a copy-and-paste job. Basically, it's a question of whether the information is notable to begin with. I say no. Guroadrunner 23:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC) (original nominator)[reply]

Weak keep as per parent comment. east .718 00:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the series article. 132.205.44.134 02:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is already a section for main characters on the show's article. If there's anything worth saving (it doesn't look that way from me) move that over to the main article then delete this. Radagast83 03:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe a rename to "List of minor charachters in Commander in Chief" but I see no compelling reason to delete this. It needs some clean up, but the information seems relevent to the show and this is a relevent fork from the show article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:55, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Evans (British writer)[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:BIO; 2 published works, article claims unverifiability, author's site is the only ref. Grease Bandit 22:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Authors site is not only ref - also refers to information on the authors books, presumably cleared by the publisher - Publication dates and book details can also be found at Amazon - links to be included presently Ophiicus 00:42 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. Clarityfiend 06:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Yes, the books are listed at the British Library but so what? Eddie.willers 12:04, 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 JoshuaZ 18:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Levine[edit]

Looks like a hoax, but that's not a valid CSD. He's not a baseball hall of famer as far as I know. Yechiel Man 22:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero hits in the New York Yankees hall of fame. "has perfected the art of manliness and having a porn star mustache" sounds like a hoax to me. SGGH ^speak! 22:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the authenticity of the baseball card seems off somehow. --Dhartung | Talk 23:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no relevant Google results and sounds like a WP:HOAX. east .718 00:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense and a hoax. In particular, the reality television series Levine is alleged to have starred in is a parody of the description of Bonds on Bonds (Barry Bonds' reality show). --Metropolitan90 07:13, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Quintus[edit]

Article about a minor character in the film Gladiator, which supplies no significant information beyond that supplied in the main film article's plot section, and is padded out with historical information about the character's position in the Roman government, which isn't particularly relevant to an article about a fictional character. The topic is not notable enough for a seperate article. SGGH ^speak! 22:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If/then - if character is purely fictional, then delete. If character is based on real person (research needed), then rewrite. Guroadrunner 22:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits turn up nothing unrelated to the film aside from references to Roman individuals with Quintus as a first name, mainly one "Quintus Fabius Maximus" who is also the only one mentioned when using google book search. SGGH ^speak! 22:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking for a Roman called "General Quintus" is like looking for a modern American military officer called "Centurion Fred". They didn't have generals per se back then, and Quintus was one of the most common men's names. --Charlene 01:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There you go then, unlikely to be based on a historical character. SGGH ^speak! 09:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- Jacek Kendysz 14:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gladiator. -- Whpq 16:17, 19 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. JoshuaZ 18:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flonix[edit]

Non-notable dead company. Chealer 19:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails in notability and reads like an advert. Useight 20:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:10, 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, Fuhghettaboutit 22:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It fails WP:ORG. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete -- kill it. Brief appearance as a company but no notability. Guroadrunner 22:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 20:42, 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 JoshuaZ 18:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time Travel Radio Show[edit]

Notability, advertising, not encylopedic Studerby 18:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 13 hits (11 non-Wikipedia) in Google, all of which are self, show schedules, or I was/will be on the show. Originiating user is linkspamming Wikipedia also. Studerby 18:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unreferenced. --Alvestrand 19:44, 12 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, Fuhghettaboutit 22:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Send it back to yesteryear - Indiscriminate trivia. Yechiel Man 22:47, 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 merge. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philbert[edit]

Not notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It certainly isn't asserting any significance. 650l2520 16:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/move to Wizadora article. Guroadrunner 16:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:53, 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, Fuhghettaboutit 22:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um...why is this important? Delete and maybe toss a sentence into the main TV show article. Yechiel Man 22:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge into the Wizadora article. GwenW 06:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - there's no sourced information here so it doesn't seem right to merge. -- Whpq 16:19, 19 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 JoshuaZ 18:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Siop[edit]

Not notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely not notable, only barely passes as existing at all. a search for "no siop" -wikipedia only delivers a couple of relevDarkAudit 23:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)ant Google results, and then mentioned only in passing.[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- --sparkit ^TALK 02:45, 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, Fuhghettaboutit 22:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No keep, hence delete. The last sentence says it's not notable, so I have nothing to add. Yechiel Man 22:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DarkAudit. No siop, radio. Deor 00:57, 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 08:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Ryan[edit]

WP:NN radio personality, does not meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Leuko 05:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:55, 9 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, Fuhghettaboutit 22:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - dude's only part-time and doesn't seem that notable. Guroadrunner 22:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It fails to meet WP:BIO. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 20:42, 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 07:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copland PPC[edit]

Non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 00:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possbile assertion of notability, but no independent sources to back it up. My own search didn't turn up anything special. Someguy1221 15:24, 14 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, Fuhghettaboutit 22:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article appears from review of Ubuntu forums to be part of an honest effort to develop support for a product that may become notable. The entry is merely self-validation at this stage. It can be recreated if it does reach that threshold for notability. Pever 12:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is spam intended to promote product through link to vendor's website. --Gavin Collins 13:55, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNSC Iroquois[edit]

Contested prod. Article is about a fictional ship. It is a plot summary but doesn't say of which game/book/show. Does not assert its notability per WP:N's "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." 650l2520 16:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Part of the Halo universe (key word Covenant, and per category.) AFDs tend to appear around articles missing context. --Sigma 7 09:55, 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, Fuhghettaboutit 22:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FICT, and I swear this is G4-speedy since we had an AFD about 6-9 months ago on the same topic. --Dhartung | Talk 23:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no context being added, Delete. --Sigma 7 10:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no context, no sources. -- Whpq 16:20, 19 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 06:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivor Talbot[edit]

Questionable notability; article written like an autobio almost Guroadrunner 16:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep based on the fact that the band has a page Corpx 18:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete nn Avalon 13:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom. Flubeca (t) 21:38, 13 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, Fuhghettaboutit 22:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable per WP:BIO, is not sourced reliably, and also smells of WP:COI. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Random. He's been involved with a few notable projects, but I can't find a source, other than his school bio, that discusses him as anything more than a sidenote. That, and the COI concern, are enough to make me support deletion at this point.--Kubigula (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to have enough source material to write a non-stubby article about. Any info about him can be put in the band article, or in relevent other articles about projects he has worked on. I can't see enough independant material existing to make this a stand-alone article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per The Random Editor. Eddie 20:41, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sackett[edit]

NN university sports coach in cross country running who is not even mentioned in the article for the school he coaches at. The sport he coaches is not discussed in-depth at that university's page either. Also, article is an orphan and uses peacock terms Guroadrunner 22:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think notability has been established and there are no sources. If notability was established using sources it would be worth keeping.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find any reliable sources. A google news search seems to have a couple of offline articles from a local paper, and its unclear whether he is the focus of the article. -- Whpq 16:24, 19 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 10:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerald F. Dirks[edit]

Absolutely no proof of notability in the article. The article lacks reliable sources completely. sefringle^Talk 21:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If one of his books was "award-winning," which award did it win? Yechiel Man 22:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to establish notability. Yes, his books are listed at the Library Of Congress, but so what? Eddie.willers 12:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reference is to his own website.Proabivouac 01:50, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Widows sons[edit]

This is a nn group, and there is nothing in the article that asserts notability. MSJapan 21:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - orphan article for a NN organization Guroadrunner 22:09, 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 06:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aric Gilinsky[edit]

Likely to be a hoax, Only returns 21 hits on google, with the majrity of those being from wikipedia and wikipedia mirrors [1] Exarion 21:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete as per Exarion. Guroadrunner 22:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and total WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 12:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Light Fisking. OK, the article claims that 'Gilinsky's' family included an architect with unknown lineage (possibly American born, possibly Byelorussian) and a businessman of Besserabian descent - yet Gilinsky's family are supposedly Polish and Lithuanian. Secondly, he goes to study theology in 1992 and joins a radical Jewish/Zionist organisation (which he leaves in 1996) but doesn't actually 'find religion' and begin attending temple until 1996. Thirdly, he is supposedly becomes a rabbi within three years of his becoming religious, even though the Wiki article says a man obtains semicha ("rabbinic ordination") after the completion of an arduous learning program. Fourthly, googling 'Newsnight' or 'BBC' with 'Gilinsky' turns up nothing that supports the claim of there having been an interview on said BBC program. What else? Eddie.willers 19:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC
- Comment Actually if you read it it says he refused the Newsnight interview.
keep It's all true. CicDog 12:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete as hoax.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 7 ghits when you filter out wikipedia. JodyB_talk 21:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete above reasoning. Acalamari 22:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I have some knowledge of these events but I can't understand the low press cobverage - it was a big story at the time... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.185.226 (talk • contribs)
Comment Same author as of Star of Poland. See my comment there at about new historians. greg park avenue 22:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep it seems too detailed and rings so truly that I doubt it's a hoax. Jimmy Deleter 10:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as per above StOfPo 20:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced hoax. Edward321 23:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep it's perfectly true 212.219.250.5 09:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the purpose of the article is to incite hatred towards Islam. Jackaranga 09:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the people who have voted keep so far are either unregistered or just registered today, and their only contributions are voting on this, with the exception of CicDog who is the one having created the article. Also it is not a hoax but more like political propaganda. Jackaranga 09:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Appears to be an elaborate malicious hoax. Huwlepolonais2 18:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pancakes Why would this article incite hatred towards Islam? If anything it would spark a negative reaction against radical zionism. MetricMilitia 22:38, 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 I am withdrawing this nomination in light of the unanimous and convincing response. The additional sources are particularly notable. Eluchil404 22:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Airlines Flight 1455[edit]

This article details a non-notable incident which resulted in no loss of life, no serious injuries, and no changes in policy or practice at Southwest. It should be deleted in accordance with WP:N. Eluchil404 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep After reading the article, I find it amazing that there were no serious injuries. This is what we describe as a "near miss" or a close call. The plane landed, ran out of runway, crashed through a fence, into a neighborhood and almost into a gas station. So yes, this is notable, just as it would have been if 150 people had been killed. Mandsford 21:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are other articles describing aircraft accidents and incidents without fatalities, including Hapag-Lloyd Flight 3378, Air Transat Flight 236, British Airways Flight 9, and Comair Flight 5054. In fact, Comair 5054 recovered from its icing conditions and landed successfully, so it's even less of an incident than the Southwest 1455 incident. Another similar incident, JetBlue Airways Flight 292, had no injuries, but a wide variety of news coverage. Based on these articles, we can safely keep this article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep For the same reasons Mandsford and Elkman have stated. Notability is not necessarily based on number of fatalities. This plane didn't just run off the runway; it ran off of it in a dramatic way that could have been disastrous. It is notable as much for what could have happened as for what did. Additionally, I would point out that Wikipedia is not paper. I think this incident does not merit an AfD nomination. --Janus Shadowsong | contribs 22:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable based on severity of runway excursion...but barely (no loss of life, aircraft, nor any sweeping safety recommendations issued, and I don't think runway excursions are all necessarily notable). For this AfD many editors (including myself) dismissed the argument that "it could have been much worse" as not valid. I disagree strongly that this accident is more significant than those listed above (excluding Jet Blue). But the NTSB classified it as an "accident" (as opposed to "incident") so I think it just meets the bar. Lipsticked Pig 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - regarding the "no loss of aircraft"...actually, the plane was damaged severely enough that it was scrapped on site. As for the "no safety recommendations", the article asserts that there were, specifically in the "Survivablity" section of this article.AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep - On the face of it, the incident seems notable, but, as alreeady stated, just barely. However, notability must be established by verifiable, third-party sources, and I think this means more than just the NTSB report. Surely there must have been some news coverage of this. But to be notable, it has to have coverage beyond the fisrt few days of the event. With more outside sources, this would merit keeping. It's definetley a borderline incident. A similar event happened within the week in Canada with Il-76, but all it did was tear out 150 feet of fence. The circumstances here are certianly more noteworthy. - BillCJ 00:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe just past the weak mark. I've added a couple of sources; at the time, it was the worst incident in SWA history (surpassed by the eerily similar one at Midway 5 years later, which killed a kid in a car). --Dhartung | Talk 00:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding the sources. I've upgraded to plain Keep, tho, as you said, just past weak. - BillCJ 00:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the second source is dated 2 years later, I think that satisfies the continuing coverage requirenment for notability. Also, is there an incident page for the Midway runoff? I'd like to read it, and it should be linked in this article too, with some sources on correlation between the two incidents, if possible. - BillCJ 00:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - And not just because I was a regular customer at that gas station, as I worked at BUR at the time (the station is now a park). Seriously, though, I'd like to comment here as this AfD is another that's going to be helping form our air crash notability guidelines. This one would, in my view, be judged as notable for a couple of reasons: first and foremost, it was the first really serious incident that SWA had, after a very long safety record, one of the best in the industry, in fact. There are some contributing factors to the notability (contributing factors? I've been reading NTSB reports far too long!), that being the unique layout of BUR that puts the end of the runway just feet and a chain link fence from a sidewalk, very busy street and of course, the Chevron station. Also, add to the mix, the fact that SWA flights landing there would turn off the runway right into the gate, if they timed it right, without any taxiing necessary. All these factors combined, and I'd say that this is a good example of an "exception to the rule" for the general notability standards we're developing. There will always be exceptions, but those exeptions need to be discussed and justified, just as this one has been by all the comments above. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it's a runway over-run that left the airport and went onto public roads. 132.205.44.134 02:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Akradecki; those were basicaly my thoughts on this, but he beat me to saying them owing to him having a head-start in terms of time zones. I'd view the notability here as something similar to Adam Air Flight 172 - the fuselage cracked during a hard landing with what most sources listed as no injuries and one or two described as "only minor" injuries. But it achieved notability because it resulted in Adam Air's 737 fleet, because it tied in with the then-recent Adam Air disaster, and because it resulted in safety checks for every 737 registered in Indonesia. Similarly, here we have a big airline's first and worst serious accident and an NTSB investigation that resulted in a reccomendation to upgrade an important safety mechanism. Also, AK's comments about the horrendous runway layout are valid for extra notability if cited and added to the article. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has several high points, each of which alone would probably make it notable:
- It was the most serious accident for SWA at the time
- The aircraft left the airfield and entered a high density public street area
- ATC was faulted by the NTSB
- The pilots were subsequently fired for their actions
- The configuration of the airfield was a factor, and is an ongoing concern
- An essential piece of safety equipment failed (escape slides)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was snow keep. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 16:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1967 NHL Expansion[edit]

Article is just an essay on the 1967 expansion, with lots of weasel words and some oblique WP:BLP violations (e.g., saying the owners "ruled with an iron fist"). Topic can be adequately covered in National Hockey League without all this editorializing. TheBLPGuy 21:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The 1967 expansion was one of the most significant events in the history of professional ice hockey, if not the most. For those who don't remember, the NHL played with the same six teams for decades. The decision to expand doubled the league's size, and it's continued to grow ever since and become a multi-billion dollar business. I think now they have six divisions, each with five teams, so it's five times larger than it was 40 years ago. Editorializing can be cleaned up. Otherwise, it's well-written.Mandsford 21:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with History of the National Hockey League. I don't think this is important enough to get its own article, although the history article would benefit from more on the circumstances of the expansion. -- BPMullins | Talk 21:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC) (former fan: California Seals)[reply]
Strong Keep: Possibly the single most significant event in the history of the NHL, and quite aside from the notability of the expansion, I've a few bones to pick. First off, perhaps nom could explain why he filed an AfD and placed an unreferenced tag ... surely the latter could have preceded the former? Secondly, the fact that this happened forty years ago might have clued nom in that it is extremely unlikely that the owners of major professional sports teams in the 1960s would still be alive to set off WP:BLP violations, and it is in fact the case that no NHL team owner before expansion is still living. Thirdly, other sports with such a massive expansion have dedicated articles to the event ... say, the AFL-NFL Merger. Ravenswing 01:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article documents very significant events in the sport's history. Cleanup is necessary to make a better article. Flibirigit 06:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the article, I concur thast this needs urgent cleaning-up, to remove the weasel words and the POV issues. If this is not done then, IMHO and in the interests of maintaining standards, the article needs mergeing into the parent article, and deleteing from here. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Beyond any question, this expansion was a pivotal event in ice hockey and worth much more than a mere paragraph, for example, in the history of hockey. However, the lack of citations is of considerable concern. Finally, while not raised in the nomination, 1967 NHL Expansion Draft could be considered in due course for merging into this article. Pever 12:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable enough to merit its own article, there's no question about that for me. It just needs to be re-written and improved.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 13:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Needing cleanup is by no means a reason to AFD. I suggest the nominator read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_AfD and Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion before nominating any other article. ccwaters 13:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Possibly one of the most important events in hockey history next to the purchasing of the Stanley Cup. --Djsasso 13:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A defining moment in professional hockey. DMighton 14:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like we have a lot of confusion here about the deletion guidelines and the reason for nomination - including two users who are so confused that they think that attacking the nominator is a valid argument in an AfD debate. I'm not arguing that the event isn't important; I'm arguing that it can't stand alone as a separate article. There's almost nothing here worth saving once you strip out the weasel words and the POV content. And a "major" event in what is in effect a minor North American sports league (at best, the fourth-most popular league in the U.S., and it's slipping). Coverage of this event belongs in History_of_the_National_Hockey_League, probably as a breakout of the current "Expansion" section - as long as it's sourced and is NPOV. | TheBLPGuy 14:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As previously noted in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_AfD, the procedure to propose a merge is outlined in WP:MERGE. ccwaters 14:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I am sorry you are so confused as to think that questioning the methodology and pointing out downright errors in a nomination are invalid AfD arguments, but it's stood alone as a separate article for years now, and so far you're in the great minority on its notability. Ravenswing 14:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I think you are missing the point of us saying that it is a very important fact. It is a single event that is very historically important that in an of itself it deserves a seperate article. I mean a good example to compare it to would be the US Civil War. It was a single event. Should it be only listed in History of the United States? I don't think so. I agree that it needs a cleanup but to say it can't stand on its own is rediculous. And your reasoning for the afd is totally invalid because all the owners have long since deceased. --Djsasso 16:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW and because nominator presents a request for cleanup, not for deletion. The 1967 expansion was a watershed moment for the NHL, and perhaps the second most notable period in NHL history after the formation of the league itself. Resolute 14:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep extremely notable event in the history of the NHL. Pparazorback 15:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep None of the owners of the Original Six teams are even alive ... the basis for this nomination (BLP concerns) is invalid.--Blueboy 96 15:54, 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 delete, author request. Sr 13 06:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superman III: The Junkyard Cut[edit]

A non-notable fan film that was in fact canceled. The article gives no director planned and only links to announcements on a forum (which isn't a reliable source) from an anonymous editor saying that he created the film. The article gives differences from the real Superman 3 film and the fan's reason to make it because of unhappiness with the real movie and nothing else. Delete. Phydend 21:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Superman 3 with only minor details retained for addition to article. Guroadrunner 22:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fan edits with concrete avaliablity would be better argued, not ones that have since been cancelled and it's better aspects put into other fancuts (such as "The Smallville Cut")

Besides, I was the editor, so delete away, I had actually brought the issue of deleition up on Fanedit.org, but was'nt sure how to do it myself here

Dr. R.KZ. 01:26, 15th June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete No reliable sources, no assertion of notability. --Phirazo 03:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this sourceless article about a nonexistent film. Doczilla 09:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, even when the bleeding editor of the film is telling the mods to delete the article, they wait for "other opinions". Just sodding delete it already.

Dr. R.KZ. 21:49 PM 16th June 2007 (UTC)

Delete does not assert it's notablity. Lacks any reliable sources. The Filmaker 23:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- These fanedits are coming one a day now. Yeah, computers are that fast...--Mike18xx 07:27, 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 speedy delete under CSD U1. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smokizzy/sandbox[edit]

Smokizzy (talk) 20:56, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle[edit]

Non-notable publication. there seems to be nothing in terms of reliable secondary sources covering the book from a quick google scan (virtually all are retail websites), and as such appears to fail WP:BK. article survived a previous AfD, but no rationale was offered as to why the book was notable. ITAQALLAH 20:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 20:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 20:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 20:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plain POV by a Christian 'Messianic Jewish' organization that tries to convert both Muslims and Jews to Christianity. The guy's history is probably a lie, considering his refusal to publicize his real last name. See the article on him. --Rabbeinu 21:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Since he hasn't been murdered or put on a talk show, the author must not be that controversial, let alone notable. Maybe the info can be incorporated into the article about the organization described above. Mandsford 21:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous Afd's--sefringle^Talk 21:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, there is nothing in the previous AfD establishing notability of this book. ITAQALLAH 22:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I'm not sure how to 'vote' on this... what exactly makes it different from Jerald F. Dirks or any of his books? Charisma House just seems like a Christian version of Amana. gren グレン 06:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. Previous "keeps" mainly argued it should be kept because the author is notable and not the book. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable book. The author appears to be notable, but not the work in question. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the last AfD. -- Karl Meier 06:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. We do not create article on each and every book.--- A. L. M. 08:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear to satisfy notability guidelines. The Behnam 18:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete origional research should be deleted from wikipedia.--Sefringle^Talk 07:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mark A. Gabriel or Weak Keep. Edward321 23:36, 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 no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Samurai Shodown characters[edit]

This is a placeholder I created for a bunch of non-notable characters to be merged into. After two months, nothing has changed. The characters themselves have no possibility of having any view on them beyond the games, so this is about the peak of their existence. The character entries are only a retelling of the various games of the series, so all of the information can easily be covered in those articles. TTN 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. QuagmireDog 20:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Hooray! A list of video game deletions. Hopefully, overly voluminous articles about TV episodes and songs off of an album are next. Mandsford 21:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't see a reason to delete the list. Given the length of the list if the main game articles contained the same information it would probably be split out to slim down the articles in question. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no way to cover it in an encyclopedic manner. Keeping it just for the reason of keeping it doesn't really help us. The information for each game pretty much takes up the normal length of a story section for a video game anyways. If it does become too large, all we have to do is trim it. We really don't need to cover each character's full story in the games. TTN 23:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, and wasn't this an anime as well? 132.205.44.134 02:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That implies that some sort of cleanup method has been found. At this point, not one single person actually wants to work on it beyond doing minor things. TTN 14:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as marginal-interest cruft. Or move to games-wiki -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If it were multiple articles, I would urge delete, on the basis of WP:NOT#IINFO - However, this is, explicitly, a list - Tiswas^(t) 09:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It originally was a bunch of articles, but I don't see how that matters. Lists must also conform to our writing and notablity guidelines (WP:WAF and WP:FICT in this case), so the fact that it's a list shouldn't make a difference. TTN 14:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:FICT#Fiction in Wikipedia#2 covers the list format. If the list were substantially shorter, it would be perfectly at home in the parent article. Which part of WP:WAF do you consider relevant? It is, after all, a long article in itself. - Tiswas^(t) 14:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't automatically mean the we just shove all characters of every series onto a list. A topic needs to show relevance outside of the series to be covered here (as shown in WAF). Every single fictional topic has characters in one way or another, but unless they can be separated from the plot, it is pointless to mention them. TTN 14:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. But neither does it preclude the creation of such a list, however much it is to your or my chagrin. Unfortunately, there are no clear guidelines, but there is clear precedent. I can't say that it give me much cheer. - Tiswas^(t) 14:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the Pokemon test page is used against that argument, not for it (They are also going under a large reconstuction, so it is best not to even talk about them). We cannot say there is a precedent just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. We only have two featured character pages, and both have at least a little bit of real world information, so that would be the precedent. TTN 16:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sentiment that I have expressed myself on more than one occasion. However, in this instance, we are considering a list that contains in-universe information, as opposed to multiple in universe articles. I'm not expounding a "better here than there" argument, more that WP:FICT and WP:WAF allow for this sort of cruft, and, whilst it would be best kept to the parent article, it is too long a list to be kept there. - Tiswas^(t) 18:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the guidelines allowing these (hopefully the rewrite of FICT will help in the future). Fans of fluffy fiction articles and people that don't believe in notability expressed by non-trivial sources allow them. If this were actually a true discussion instead of a vote as we claim they are, stuff like this would be quick. It's just an annoying flaw in the site's system. Anyways, the list won't be kept anywhere. The characters can easily be split off between the series article and the ten separate game articles. All of these paragraphs are just small parts of the overall story, so most would be trimmed to a sentence (not that they would actually be merged.) TTN 18:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not a vote, but there are legitimate arguments against your position simply as for what Wikipedia should be. I for one take the "comprehensive" part of Wikipedia seriously, but also think that proper writing style means that minutiae shouldn't be endlessly harped on in the main article. Hence, daughter articles with the details and summary style. That said, if this article is kept, by all means go ahead and clean it up and chop it down, if you think redundancy can adequately be reduced. SnowFire 06:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Child articles are created if they are a suitable sub-topic that has enough information to write about. If not, the main article is usually trimmed (This isn't how it happens, but that is the actual way that it should be done.). This article is going to be kept because people are ignoring the whole "These have no out of universe information, thus fail the criteria to be covered here" bit, and replacing it with "This is good information." TTN 12:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) I'm not familiar with Samurai Shodown, but "enough information" strikes me as a WP:V issue which is easily dealt with by using the games themselves. Obviously sourcing could be better and any speculation should be sourced or removed, but those are vanilla cleanup issues. More out of universe information would be good of course, but that's more the difference between a Start or B class article and a GA/FA article; if this information is adequately sourced, it would be proper to have in a comprehensive article on an individual game if it wasn't for clutter issues and summary style. SnowFire 15:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are completely irrelevant when dealing with fiction articles. They will always be there, so they are not part of the equation. Real world information must be present to assert the need to cover it. We can be lax only up to a certain point with these kinds of articles. This has become more than a simple split off or "It can/will get better" thing. If an article cannot even show the ability to meet the fiction guidelines, they should be merged or deleted as needed. After two months of sitting, nothing has been found, and even after searching a good while by myself, I found nothing. TTN 15:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are irrelevant for proving notability, but not for verifiability. Which is what I was referring to, and what (I believe) your earlier argument was getting at. As for notability, my thoughts are that a "daughter" article generally shares the notability of its parent article; it's just in a separate Wikipedia article for purely organizational reasons. And I fully agree that there is definitely a limit to "how far" this can go, but a single characters article for an entire series seems reasonable enough to me.

Honest question, just to get a feel for your position: what do you think of the Pokemon articles? I've been trying to avoid a "other crap exists" argument here, but I think this is on point. I'm not overly familiar with it, but my suspicion is that there isn't much strictly defined *individual* notability on 98% of Pokemon... but the Pokemon franchise itself is notable with scads of sales, newspaper articles, etc. and it's reasonable to think that people interested in the topic in-depth might be interested in the actual characters. I'm not referring to organization here (whether they should be merged or not, etc.), but simply whether the content is worthy of keeping on Wikipedia, which you don't seem to think it is in this case since you don't even want to merge. SnowFire 16:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those verify the in-game stuff, but that doesn't really matter. We need to verify real world information, which has been my argument the entire time. If the sub-topic is not large enough to stand on its own (notability), it doesn't need to be split in the first place, so just shoving a bunch of junk isn't going to help us organize anything. That information needs to be trimmed instead. In this case, a main character section in the series article can cover them in general, and more specific section in each game can cover the specifics, so there is no need to even split in the bad way that we do it. If this article could possibly look like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, it would be worth keeping. There is not enough information for that to happen.

Most of the Pokemon should be merged into lists, and the major ones like Pikachu can keep their articles. As a whole, they have enough information to warrant lists and stuff, just not articles. The Pokemon project is trying to accomplish a pretty large merger, by the way. TTN 16:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I actually enjoyed reading it. I don't see any reason to delete it. And Samurai Shodown is quite a notable and popular series of video games, manga, and (if I remember correctly) anime. It's not trivial. --Melanochromis 00:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to comment on every keep, but WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep it. The series is notable, but that doesn't extend to the characters. TTN 00:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If moved to articles on the individual games, it'd clutter them up horribly. Plus, I'm going to presume that at least some of these characters span multiple games, making a merge tricky? A giant merged character article is the best option here. This isn't an issue of notability so much (any reasonable article on an individual game would mention the characters in it) as proper organization of content. SnowFire 06:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't going to be merged. Each game has its own story that can be beefed up to like three paragraphs by including these. That is a fine length for a story section. Its also very possible to include a couple paragraph characters section. We aren't going to cover each character separately because they are not notable enough. TTN 12:01, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow car[edit]

PROD was removed without comment. This is a completely unsourced "game". Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. I suggest deletion. Isotope23 20:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually seems like a variation of the old classic Punch buggy. Merge and redirect as appropriate. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was just thinking the same thing, Tony Fox. But is this really an actual variant more than a made-up-one-day game among a few friends? I'd say delete per nom. DMacks 20:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I considered a redirect, but I didn't see any evidence this was a known variant.--Isotope23 20:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DMacks. The rules are very similar to punch buggy, but it just seems like some minor made-up playground thing.--Ispy1981 20:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yellow car, black car, car with white stripes. Nothing to merge. Pavel Vozenilek 23:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Punch buggy - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:03, 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 Keep. — Caknuck 17:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selim Deringil[edit]

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics) + no sources. Svetovid 19:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found and added some references from reliable sources. - Richfife 20:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Richfife. I'd also admonish Svetovid not to mark constructive edits (like adding a bibliography!) as vandalism. JavaTenor 20:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misunderstanding. I called his removing the WP:PROD without adding any sources to claim otherwise vandalism.--Svetovid 20:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would refer you to the policy page you link to, which quite clearly states that anyone can remove the prod tag at any time. Furthermore, you re-added it several times in violation of WP:PROD#Conflicts. The proper response to a contested prod is generally to nominate it for AFD, as you did later. (Further discussion on this issue should probably take place on one of our Talk pages, so as to avoid cluttering this AFD). JavaTenor 22:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup I made a mistake uwing TW (I thought it was AfD template the second time), sorry about that. Anyway, that's all I have to say about that. I'm still waiting for someone to show why he is notable.
Writing few books and have it reviewed by "colleagues" doesn't cut it for me.--Svetovid 08:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the NYRB review refers to him as professor of history, not merely giving lectures at--can this be confirmed?DGG 00:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That university's phone directory lists him as "prof. dr." and its history department faculty listing includes him as regular faculty. Even more clearly, the university catalog calls him a full professor. —David Eppstein 00:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, he's a full professor. It wouldn't have made a difference to me were he "just" a lecturer. The question remains: why is he notable?--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 04:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally,to be appointed a full professor at any university, one has to demonstrate notability to the satisfaction of the faculty in ones field at least three times with successively higher bars: when they hire you, when they give you tenure, and when the promote you to full professor, with fewer people making it through each time; the main factor in this determination in a research university is the quality of one's research, and the quality of research is what makes professors notable. I don't think we are qualified to do this better than a good university department does, & for a department in a university I know to be important, we should grateful accept the distinctions they make. In this case I said weak keep' not "keep" because the number of published works looks a little thin, and--with apologies to those who are in a position to know better--I myself do not know the standards of that university. There is however nothing more basic to the nature of distinction in the academic world than the difference between an instructor and a full professor. DGG 03:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 00:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 15:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While article need work, he appears notable enough to recieve an award for his work. Edward321 23:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia articles are not awards for someone's work. Such an opinion cannot be accepted when deciding about this.--Svetovid 00:29, 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 06:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Dance (Vanessa Hudgens song)[edit]

Non-article. No sources, no info. WP:CRYSTAL. - eo 19:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, obvious crystallization here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete--Svetovid 19:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. to High School Musical 2.--Edtropolis 20:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete in accordance with WP:CSD#G4, as it's recreated material. Acalamari 22:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- is Vanessa Hudgens even that notable ? Guroadrunner 22:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy it, WP:CSD#G4. east .718 00:13, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir James Stronge, 10th Baronet[edit]

Redirect to Stronge Baronets. Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO - titles do not confer notability - Tiswas^(t) 19:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as WP:BLP violation; unsourced living person bio with contentious claims; even if that were cured; notability is not inherited at this level. Carlossuarez46 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Try reading BLP first. It says that an editor may "remove any contentious material that is unsourced", not speedy delete the whole article. That means one sentence should be deleted, not the whole lot. His notability is a separate issue but please don't use policies to "support" your opinion that actually don't support your opinion. -- Necrothesp 00:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your uncivil comment; I have read BLP. How other than deleting the article (which we ought to do anyway because he's not notable) do you propose to remove the crap from our "history"? Carlossuarez46 20:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nothing uncivil about my comment, other than you not agreeing with it. I'm simply tired of people claiming that policies or guidelines justify their deletionist opinions when they actually don't. All that was needed was the deletion of a single sentence (which has now been done). It no longer fails BLP. Simple. Is your comment about "deleting crap from our history" supported in BLP? I don't think it is, otherwise it wouldn't be worded as it is (and as I just quoted it). It would instead say an editor may "delete any article that has any unsourced contentious material in it whatsoever". It doesn't, whether you want it to or not. And as I said, his notability is a separate issue and not one I was commenting on. -- Necrothesp 23:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Think as you wish, you're wrong. I didn't suggest the mere appearance of an unsourced BLP issue leads to the deletion of the article, here, however, the only possibly notable thing about this dude is a BLP violation and that violation dates to the earliest formation of his article. Carlossuarez46 21:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you'll find that your comment was "Speedy Delete as WP:BLP violation", so that's exactly what you suggested. -- Necrothesp 14:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as nom suggests - this definitely seems to have BLP issues, and there's not much notable about the subject even if he does have a title. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep re notability as Baronet, SqueakBox 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, turns out that he is not actually a Baronet at all! For this reason I am changing my !vote to a straight delete - what say you?--Vintagekits 02:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stronge Baronets. According to that article, this guy's baronetcy is "unproven"; and if one follows the link on that word, one finds that the Stronge baronetcy has been ~~officially vacant~~ "dormant" for about 25 years and that he is not therefore a recognized (by whoever officially recognizes such things) baronet. Deor 22:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is nothing here worthy of retention, merge on to a general page for the holders of this baronetcy. In fact I think the information given is intrusive into the life and privacy of a person who has clearly neither sought nor earned publicity or notability of any kind. Giano 22:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Deor. Agree that the article contains definite privacy problems as it stands. JavaTenor 23:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)|[reply]
Redirect or merge, since he should be mentioned in the article--but the present article has a simple and clear BLP problem paragraph that I have just deleted from the article. Why didn't anyone delete it before, instead of just talking about it? I don't think there's enough for an article in any case, with or without it.DGG 00:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable given what he succeeded in the wake of, i.e. a double murder. --Counter-revolutionary 01:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect This was really unnecessary as it has already been determined in numerous afds now that Peers, Baronets or any other type of noble who have very little notability except their title should be redirected to the relevant page for that title. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 02:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if that is the standard for this level of nobleman. Being an American I have no idea what a baronet is, except it must be somewhat lower in importance than a baron. Steve Dufour 04:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Concur -- the baronetage was a fund-raising stunt of James I and since then has provided a classic example of self-perpetuating parasitism. Not worthy of the Wiki, nor, in fact, of real-world surivival. Let us begin here, with one individual, then remove all holders of this title, then all baronets, and finally every article dealing with the anti-democratic English aristocracy -- SockpuppetSamuelson

Well I think that comment just speaks for itself! No reason actually given except a clear anti-aristocracy bias!--Counter-revolutionary 09:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have nothing against baronets and I didn't mean to imply that I did. Steve Dufour 15:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A baronet is basically an hereditary knight, and is superior to all but one level of knighthood, but is not a peer and was never entitled to a seat in the House of Lords (which is what makes British peers inherently notable as members of a national legislature). Therefore the person actually created a baronet is notable for being given the honour in the first place, but his successors cannot really be classed as inherently notable (although some obviously disagree). SockpuppetSamuelson's comments are not worthy of comment, of course, except to say that people created baronets in the last two centuries have predominantly been deserving of the honour. -- Necrothesp 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Counter-rev. Notable and referenced. This is not a paper cyclopedia. - Kittybrewster (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you appear to know something about baronetcies, could you provide some clarification on the status of his claim to succession? (i.e. what is the meaning of unproven in this context)? JavaTenor 06:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It implies that although his lineage is clear (set down in Burke's Peerage online, Cracroft, Debrett's, etc), he has not gone to the expense of proving his rightful claim to his cousin's baronetcy by formally proving that Sir Norman predeceased Sir James (who had no opportunity to lay formal claim) and that there are no intervening entitled potential claimants. It is relevant in Court circulars, London Gazette, etc. Another example of an unproven baronet is Jonathon Porritt. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Trugster 09:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing really notable about this individual. No achievements or even anything of minor public interest. Kitty, Jonathon Porritt is not really a valid comparison as he is notable in several ways and just also happens to be a baronet. Galloglass 09:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~and redirect~~~~, the position of a Baronet is notable~~.--Vintagekits 14:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, so why delete?!--Counter-revolutionary 14:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify the question please.--Vintagekits 15:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If "the position of a baronet is notable" why delete this article? --Counter-revolutionary 15:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake obviously it should say it is NOT notable.--Vintagekits 15:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have changed me !vote to a straight Delete from Delete and merge because it turns out that he isnt even a Baronet at all! How embrassing!--Vintagekits 02:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge the info here could be merged into the Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet of Tynan article, seeing as there is no proof to the claim of title. Either that or delete.--padraig3uk 14:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet of Tynan or Stronge Baronets article. Currently, he appears to only be claimant to the title and there no indication of other offices, actions, or writing that would assert notability. Edward321 23:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- notable as a Baronet of the United Kingdom Astrotrain 08:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - go one Astrotrain - even if a Baronet got automatic notability (which it doesnt) but it turns out this guy isnt a Baronet at all - almost laughable!--Vintagekits 02:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prove he isn't. That remark could be anti- WP:BLP. --Counter-revolutionary 02:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, the burden of proof it not on me - the burden of proof is on those that wish to claim he is something he isnt.--Vintagekits 02:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've provided the sources; Burkes, Debrett's &c., the say he's a baronet! --Counter-revolutionary 02:43, 20 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. --Tone 19:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme (skateboard company)[edit]

Non-notable company (despite addition of "world-renowned" in response to prod-ing). No significant coverage in reliable sources. Basicly advertisement. edgarde 19:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - as per CSD:G11. Blantant advertising.--Edtropolis 19:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as {{db-spam}}, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:44, 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 no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Dale Biddle Andrews[edit]

Claim to notability is that she was the "first woman to receive a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of California at Berkeley" in 1911. Beyond that she was a university math instructor and got a paper published in the journal of the American Mathematical Society in 1933. [2] Is this sufficient? 650l2520 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. - Notable.--Edtropolis 19:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and improve per above. "First woman to receive a Ph.D in Mathematics from UC Berkley" may be a bit awkward, but it does at least hint at notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep per Ten. Female mathematicians were very rare at the time. JoshuaZ 19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with University of California at Berkeley.--Svetovid 19:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or find somewhere to merge I added some more information; There is probably some further historical information, which would certainly help. But I really have doubts about notability for WP purposes: 1/she's probably somewhere like the 20th or 30th US American woman with a PhD in math. (the 1st was Winifred Edgerton Merrill in 1883 at Columbia 2/ there were a number of American universities where women had previous received PhD's: Yale, Chicago, Illinois, Cornell and especially Bryn Mawr; 3/ Many of the other women from that year and before had a considerably more distinguished career, either as a mathematician or mathematics educator, eg Christine Ladd-Franklin. 4/most of the ones with distinguished careers do not yet have articles.

So, do we make an article for the first in each school? We certainly do not merge the hundred of people each year who get phd's from berkeley into the main article, whether or not they are notable, not even the first man and the first woman in each subject--this has been done for no other subject.

What we should probably do is start making pages for major math depts-- & for the major depts at univs. like Berkeley--no US dept now has its own article, but Cambridge & some russian ones do--but that s a long-term project. I can see making an article for 1st women phds in general, but this would be a major project that would amount to OR, unless there is a good source. DGG 03:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't see how that would amount to OR as long as each was sourced as being first for something. JoshuaZ 14:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a special individual given the difficulty of obtaining the degree and especially pursuing that course as a female in an all-male world. I would certainly think that it could be expanded. Maybe the folks at Gender Studies WikiProject could help. JodyB_talk 21:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 00:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not sufficiently notable by WP:NN for a standalone article; in particular, she is noteworthy for only one thing. I'm against merging into Berkeley's article unless every school has such information included. One might consider merging her into List_of_female_mathematicians, but her mathematical work is not sufficiently notable for that (poorly maintained) page. In summary, not every local first achievement is encyclopedic.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 16:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Notable for only one thing is still notable, though the article definitely needs work. Edward321 01:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily so. From WP:PROF: Note that if an academic is notable only for their connection to a single ... event ... it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page, and to leave the entry under the academic as a redirect page.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 04:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. per above arguments. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UnityLink[edit]

Fails WP:ORG criteria of notability. —Visor (talk · contribs) 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blantant advertising.--Edtropolis 19:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Visor, no claim for notability, Wiki is not a YellowPage.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Visor, WP:ORG Marcin Suwalczan [our talk] 19:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, local ISP. Jacek Kendysz 19:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, needs some independent reviews, customer poll results or surveys, newspaper or business magazine articles about the service, etc. Since the company is neither a public service nor it ever went public, more information about its owner would be appreciated - what he did before and where the money came from? See Optimum Online. greg park avenue 01:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:58, 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 no consensus its clear from this discussion that they do need to be expanded, whether some should be merged into broader scope articles (aka Indian cricket team in Australia) or deleted is indeterminable given the sheer volume and variance in both subject matter and potential sourcing. Gnan garra 03:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003[edit]

Borderline speedy candidate as there is little to no context to this article. I am also including the following in this nomination (apologies in advance for the huge mass nomination):

No development

No development

Development or partial development

Okay. All of these articles are identical - a generic template, a couple references, and the body which states "The (country) cricket team toured Australia in the (years) season." No additional content, context or information. Perhaps there is a better solution to this problem, like merging this information into a single list, but I'm not sure. In any case these articles are superfluous and ought to be purged.

Note : I am in the process of tagging these articles with AfD headers, but it may take a while.

Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I STRONGLY OPPOSE this mass deletion because they are notable articles and even though they are short they should not be deleted as they will be expanded in the future. Each article is fully referenced and do believe that in the future these articles will be expanded so it wastes the time of the people that created these articles. I do not know if you are a cricket supporter but I hope if you are you re consider this mass deletion and appreciate the time and effort that fellow cricket lovers have spent their time creating

I hope you re consider and remove the deletion tags. I would like you to respond on this matter to my talk page. 02blythed 19:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually since the information is germane to this discussion, i will reply here instead of your talk page. With all due respect to yourself and all interested cricket lovers, I cannot reconsider this nomination at this time. You say the articles will be improved in the future - I look at the entire batch, created over 4 months ago, and the only edit to them has been to add a stub categorization. This does not indicate to me that these are a "work in progress". These articles have no useful content and all they do is repeat the information available in the included template. I do not believe that creating "placeholder articles" for future improvement is appropriate. Stub articles are fine, but these aren't even stubs. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per Comment. Nominator has bad nom faith.--Edtropolis 19:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon? What is "bad nom faith"? Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whilst the events themselves are notable, the articles contain practically no content other than a repeat of the title. I'd much rather they were left as red-links in the hope that someone might write a proper article on the tours down the line. Andrew nixon 19:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. If anybody really wanted to expand those articles, they have had 4 months.--Svetovid 20:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Andrew nixon. While international cricket tours may or may not be notable; there is no context or real content in these. I also question whether a cricket tour is really notable; most other sports we handle in the main article, or rarely by season (year) but not by each tour or part of the season, for example at the article Bangladeshi cricket team, the team seems to have gone to Zimbabwe and Trinidad, and played lots of other countries at unspecified venues; I would not want there to be an article about each road trip or each match. Carlossuarez46 20:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely fails context criteria. Whilst I have started expanding some of these, there is definitely no need to keep them in their current state: although it would be useful to have a record of where these were, for recreation *with* context at a later date. {{International cricket tours of Australia}} fulfills this for the articles in question, but in case any further articles are brought to AfD I'd like to make sure there was such a record made before deletion.

I do think these should be allowed to be re-created and kept at a later date, provided they're throughly expanded. I don't see any issues on notability grounds, however: cricket tours are a very important part of both of the year in cricket and of the history of two teams' relationship/rivalry/etc. AllynJ 20:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have added some content to the Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003, just because they are stubs does not mean they should be deleted. A national cricket tour is notable enough to deserve an article. Davewild 20:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether they're stubs, if they do not have sufficient context then they fail WP:CSD#A1. Notability is not *really* in question here, someone simply mentioned it in passing. AllynJ 20:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the exception of those articles that have now attracted some expansion: Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003 and West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1960-61. Johnlp 20:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have now expanded Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 2004-05, Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1999-2000 and New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 2004-05 as well and will expand some more. Davewild 20:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have substantially expanded West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1960-61 and intend to expand it further. JH (talk page) 21:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have now expanded Sri Lankan cricket team in Australia in 2004, Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 2002, South African cricket team in Australia in 1997-98, South African cricket team in Australia in 1993-94 and West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1992-93. Davewild 21:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge With all due respect to everybody, I'm sure these are appropriately sourceable, but I can't support a year by year history of cricket teams. Year by year for the sports? Maybe. Teams? It would be better to cover their history in one article. FrozenPurpleCube 23:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete except for those articles which have recently attracted attention. east .718 00:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep them all with the exceptions outlined below as they are all notable and sources exist for them all. I really dislike mass nominations of articles. The 1960-61 tour of the West Indies to Australia is one of the most notable in cricket history featuring the first Tied Test and the record attendance for a test match for the Melbourne test. The Bangladeshi tour referred to featured the first tests played in Darwin and Cairns. Each of these tours has sources and is capable of being improved by having notable events added. However, the New Zealand tours before 1974-75 are the exception to the rule as no tests were played. Capitalistroadster 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, notability is not in question here, and is not a suitable reason for suggesting keeping these. Questioning the sources is not why these have been nominated. Nor is disliking mass nominations. These are up for lacking context, and failing WP:CSD#A1. AllynJ 03:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this mass of contentless articles . Wikipedia is not a mass of indiscriminate information per WP:NOT. Fail WP:N and WP:A as well. Edison 03:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bangladeshi cricket tours of Australia, Indian cricket tours of Australia, etc. Most seasons are individually not worth individual coverage, I agree there are exceptions and those individual seasons can be recreated (it doesn't seem anyone has been in a hurry for the last four months). If multiple independent sources cannot be found for each tour than the tour wasn't notable.Ga rr ie 03:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CricketArchive and other official websites already provide excellent hosting for statistics and match results. If the most that these articles are going to offer is trivial cricket scores then they are not providing encyclopedic content. How about some analysis of who the tour was a milestone for? Were there any major events (Bodyline)? If nothing happened except people playing cricket then it was not a notable tour.2006-07 Ashes series is an example of encyclopedic content that is pretty much "English cricket team in Australia in 2006".Ga rr ie 04:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ga rr ie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeti Hunter (talk • contribs)

Perhaps I should elaborate: Merge ALL articles into a single "Australian Tours" article (or perhaps "Bangladeshi tours of Australia" etc), but keep any articles which might survive AfD on their own merits.Yeti Hunter 07:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: merging does not work as explained below. We have tried it and had to undo it. Each of these articles is notable in its own right but simply needs development and there is a mass of data out there. The problem is that it takes time to get through so much material. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are mostly likely to become paraphrased summaries of better quality info elsewhere on the net.--Limegreen 04:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You must be joking. Can you give an example of better quality info on the net re some of the cricket project's fully developed articles, such as the 2005 series in England, for example? Believe me, you cannot. The only contender is CricketArchive in a purely statistical sense and by definition that doesn't have the narrative or description that we have. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP These are notable tours between international cricket teams. The wikipedia cricket project is one of the best developed sports projects here but not everything can be done by magic. There are plenty of sources for each of these tours but it takes time to write them up. If an editor is embarking on a project to do so, and he's already doing a lot of work on writing up Bangladeshi first class players, then he should be allowed to do without the constant threat of his work being deleted. These are valid stubs and will be expanded over time. It's a lot harder writing articles than it is to glibly delete them. Nick mallory 04:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 2004-05 and any other which has been expanded significantly beyond the original stub. Delete any remaining as a single line stub, but if anyone is willing to commit to expanding them, they should get more time than a week to do so.-gadfium 05:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All, properly referenced articles detailing international sporting tours at the highest level. Lankiveil 07:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep (for the time being!): I think that all these articles are valid stubs. Give a fortnight and delete any article that is at current state. --Kalyan 07:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. International tours are certainly notable, and all those that are nominated are simply those that are still stubs, and haven't been expanded. There are tens of thousands of stubs on wikipedia, and they aren't deleted simply because it is hoped that eventually the article will be expanded. I believe those wanting deletion must give some reason besides "there's no context." Look at those tours that have received some attention:
English cricket team in Australia in 2006-07
English cricket team in Australia in 2002-03
West Indian cricket team in Australia in 2005-06
South African cricket team in Australia in 2005-06

Sure they tend to be the most recent tours, but isn't that the case for everything on wikipedia? Should we go around deleting all the old State and Federal election pages dating back to 1901, just because they're still stubs? Please give these some time. Recurring dreams 10:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per Andrew Nixon. I will never understand the rush to fill redlinks with one line stubs. If there is not the content, time or inclination to create a decent stub (i.e. at least three of four sentences with some meaningful content), rather than a one line restatement of the title, it is better to leave the redlink alone. If we are to think of the reader, the redlink at least tells the reader upfront that Wikipedia does not have any content on the subject. With these one line stubs, we force the reader to move to a new article to then tell them we have no content worthy of the name. These one line stubs are not just useless to the reader, they are harmful to the project. Better to be upfront and admit we don't have have an article rather than create a mere placeholder article. Of course, I would keep those articles that have been expanded since nomination and have no prejudice against recreation of any of the other articles pending creation of a decent stub. The subjects are clearly notable and should not be difficult to source. But, please, wait until you have the time and sources to create a decent stub. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 11:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Excellent points in the last two sentences. With hindsight, this is what should have been done and is what we will surely do in future if we have a similar "series scenario". --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That other sources retain records does not seem to be a good rationale for deletion of stubs that hold at least a promise of being properly developed by a clearly interested party. Time could be given to enable meritorious stubs to be more fully developed and then the remaining entries can be individually assessed. Pever 12:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for any that are beyond one-line stubs (such as Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003) - Cricket series are inherently notable. Delete, with no bias against recreation, those without worthwhile information that are just rephrased titles. -Halo 15:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to one decade to a page. There would be insufficient information to warrant each season having an individual page. Perhaps, for example, West Indian cricket team in Australia in the 1960s 리지강.wa.au 19:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You have only to look at West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1960-61 to see how much information is available about each tour and the potential that each one of these articles has for development. The fact that the cricket project has not yet had time to develop these articles does not mean there is a lack of available data. The issue for the cricket project is the availability of time and resources. Merging articles does not work and we end up splitting them again: we've been there and done it. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge it into its respective country pages - PokhranII 19:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by original author. I created these items with the intention of developing them but there are too many to do in the short term and I do have other work as well, so they haven't been taken forward. I agree with Andrew and others who have said the topics should exist as redlinks in a templates until someone has time to develop them to a reasonable level of content. I do not agree with the non-cricket people who question the notability of the tour articles. They are all notable as they involve Test cricket and / or limited overs international cricket, which is the highest tier of the sport. Merging them into collective articles about cricket in one country will not work: that idea has already been tried with The Ashes and it doesn't work. I'm not going to vote but I will be interested to see the outcome. If the items are deleted, I still have them all in offline text files so I can easily recreate them if and when I have time to develop them; or if anyone wants me to provide a template for one they have only to ask on my talk page. I would ask Arkyan to modify his list given that some of the articles are being developed and I would make a special plea re the 1960-61 West Indies tour of Australia. All the best. Enjoy your discussion. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd normally be amenable to the idea of striking from the nominated list those articles which have undergone some measure of expansion since I brought them up, as my original contention was that the articles lacked sufficient context. However as other editors have also expressed reservations regarding both the notability of the subjects and an interest in performing some kind of merge, I can no longer withdraw articles from the nomination. It will be up to the closing admin to choose whether to remove them all based on notability concerns, just the ones without improvement due to lack of context, or keep them all per consensus, whichever outcome proves to be the best. For what it's worth I do appreciate the effort some editors are making in trying to better the articles, in particular 1960-61 West Indies tour of Australia as you mentioned has been heavily improved. However most of the improvements still consist of mere statistical figures without additional context, which really doesn't satisfy WP:NOT#INFO, specifically item 9 regarding statistics. Again, for the record, my nomination has nothing to do with notability, just lack of useful context. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"However most of the improvements still consist of mere statistical figures without additional context..." Rome wasn't built in a day. As the person who has taken on the task of expanding the article, I began with the basic statistical information, but have now expanded the introduction and the section on the First Test substantially beyond that. Descriptions of the remaining four Tests will follow as time permits, though probably not at the same lenth as the first.

I think those who have suggested that a single tour is not notable, and should be merged into some overarching article don.t realise (a) the importance that tours by Test-playing sides have long had in cricket history and (b) the amount that can be said about a sinle tour, which would make detailed overarching articles very long. And there is no shortage of sources, both reputable online sites and books (most notably Wisden, the annual record of the game, which has been going for well over a 100 years). JH (talk page) 20:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me. I said that West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1960-61 was undergoing significant expansion (which is good), it was the other ones that have only been expanded minimally with statistics (such as New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 2004-05) that I mentioned as still not satisfying criteria. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Arkyan, it's your nomination and you can withdraw anything you want from the list. Your nomination is based on a sound premise (whether I agree with your view or not) and you should not be swayed from that by people who try to introduce their own variations to your purpose. The choices are simple: delete these articles because they lack content or keep them for a period to be agreed (indefinite or otherwise) to allow the cricket project to develop them. If other people start chucking in ideas about notability and merging which divert your purpose then it is up to them to propose their own nominations. Otherwise no one is going to understand what the nomination is about. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete those which are just a one-sentence restatement of the title (plus some boilerplate templates and/or categories). But they should be recreated when someone actually wants to write some content. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as empty. These articles for the most part have no content. If the result here is to delete, the template also needs to go since it is only a what links here mill. Merge would have been an option, but without content there is nothing to merge, in most cases. Vegaswikian 05:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You clearly do not understand the purpose of templates which are a useful guide for readers. If a tour template is placed in a developed tour article it provides the reader with useful, quick information about other tours and if some of those are redlinked then he knows there was a tour that year but WP hasn't got an article yet. Please remember that everything the editors do is for the benefit of the readers and templates do help the reader. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass delete; such esotera belongs on a dedicated sports site.--Mike18xx

Comment: phrases like "such esotera" do not help the discussion and your suggestion makes no sense, especially in the light of the stuff about stub deletion on your user page. You need to read WP:NOT wherein you will see that even secondary levels of domestic sporting competition are accepted as notable. The subject-matter of these articles is international competition at the highest level of a major world sport. Can we therefore please drop all this rubbish about notability? If an article about a Test cricket competition is not notable then neither is one about the Superbowl or the "World" Baseball Series or the European Cup or the Olympics: we would have to delete every single article on the site about sports competitions. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 50 "from" countries x 50 "playing at" countries x 100+ years x every sport under the sun = how many bazillion articles? While the internet is indeed theoretically infinite, there is a limit to how much a generalist site is willing to indulge; the criteria for exceeding the limit may be vague, but some things are arguably a lot more excessive than others. Mass compilations of sports trivia really do belong on a site devoted to it, and would be especially better served on a site where users are able to perform complex statistical comparison analysis of the sort just not possible with mediawiki. ... But this is all beside the point that the items being AfD'd here aren't even articles; they're just nearly blank pages awaiting the arrival of statistics. If I create a hundred articles which are all templates of each other, and then don't put anything in them, they're going to disappear on me. If I were to hazard a guess, I don't think their creator realized how big of a chore this was all going to be -- the poor guy would be typing for MONTHS.--Mike18xx 07:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete those that exist purely as one-line stubs per CSD A1/A3, Keep or Merge (depending on notability consensus) any that have been developed beyond that for now. Stubs are fine, but these are simply a restatement of the title. Orderinchaos 16:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Have reorganised the list into two columns which are the above one-line stubs, and a third which has undergone development. I hope this in some way helps the process of resolving the fate of these articles. Orderinchaos 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I like the reorganized list, it should be a little easier on the closing admin depending on how it goes down. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: yes, it's a very good idea that reinforces the point of the nomination which is about level of content and not about notability or any other vague issue. All the admin has to decide is if the under-developed articles should be set aside for now until the cricket project has time to reintroduce them as developed articles; or if they should be retained to give the cricket project time to develop them as they currently stand. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent? This case was exactly the same as the one here and the verdict was keep. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:36, 19 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 06:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Chomsky![edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC; band has not recorded an album, and is not the subject of multiple non-trivial sources. Prod removed without comment by anon editor. -- Merope 19:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. Wikipedia is not MySpace and Fails WP:CITE.--Edtropolis 19:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 19:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course.--Svetovid 20:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather surprising: a Google for "Yo Chomsky" gets 71,000 hits. ... wait, the "unique" hits ended at 76. Google messing with my head today. I scanned through a few pages of them, and the reliable sources are still a touch thin - we've got a BBC Nottingham interview, a mention on Drowned in Sound [3], a lot of club and blog chatter... They seem to be edging upward, but right now delete as not quite making WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn despite ghits. JJL 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say leave it, they're on the up swiftly, if the NME are talking about them then give them a chance surely... to be honest someone will only have to make the page again later when they get bigger so what's the point!! People look at it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.168.217 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Notability first, then the article. Besides, it'll be a better article with lots of good sources to work with. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 22:54, 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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 17:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mull of Kintyre test[edit]

This test is really just a joke in some circles and not encyclopedic. PatGallacher 19:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Person prodded this earlier, trying to get it deleted, even noting that Wikipedia is not censored, but he still wanted it removed. Valid test for many years on male nudity on BBC, and is referenced. SirFozzie 19:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-documented with reliable sources. JoshuaZ 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be an in-joke, but it sure is valid per many reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. More sources and examples (I don't mean pictures :)).--Svetovid 20:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep strangely, notable. JJL 02:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a famous in-joke/hoax of British broadcasting, which existed only as a peg on which to hang "silly season" stories in minor British newspapers, in the hope that the "colonials" would unwittingly take them up. -- delete and salt -- SockpuppetSamuelson
Keep - Needs better sources, but it does exist and is referenced by multiple sources. - Tiswas^(t) 09:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have to say, I'm having difficulty finding any verification, making this look much like an unsupported neologism - Tiswas^(t) 12:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above, needs expanding and sourcing, but I heard about it years ago (before the internet), even if it started out as a joke it still needs to stay, especially if the PROD and AfD were being used to censor. Darrenhusted 12:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes its an "in joke" but it well publicised.--Vintagekits 18:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate article (British broadcasting standards or some such). The term is informally but very widely used, you'll find a pretty high level of recognition among British television watchers. Not terribly well sourced, which is why I lean towards merge if possible. If you don't believe it, try a little original research and find a British TV programme with a stiffie in it. The term was used by Joan Bakewell in a review of British broadcasting standards on the BBC a year or two back. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could be expanded - applied to magazines for many years too. Johnbod 23:06, 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 06:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Blow[edit]

I can't find any references to an individual by this precise name involved in the Dred Scott case. Could this refer to Henry Taylor Blow? If so, and if he was indeed called "Harry" at some point, I'll withdraw the nom and redirect; if not, probably better to delete. JavaTenor 18:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never heard of him. Fails criteria of WP:BIO.--Edtropolis 19:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably a mistake; Scott's lawyers at various points were David Hall, Alexander Field, Charles Edmund LaBeaume, Roswell Field, and Montgomery Blair.[4] --Dhartung | Talk 00:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Dhartung that the article's author was probably confused. The Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford says that his case was argued by attorneys named Blair and Curtis. Deor 00:45, 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 06:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Sloan[edit]

If Wikipedia documented the death of every soldier killed in action in every war there would be hundreds of thousands of articles that would pose no real significance to the encyclopedia. While the sacrifices by soldiers should not be forgotten they do not all need an article on Wikipedia. This soldier does not meet the notability requirements and for this reason I am nominating this article for deletion. --Joebengo 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7: Nonnotable biography. 24.182.11.247 18:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)(My userpage is SuperDT)[reply]

Delete I greatly appreciate his heroism and sacrifice, and sympathize with his family, but the article is a memorial, and Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Edison 18:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per WP:MEMORIAL.--Edtropolis 19:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, of course.--Svetovid 20:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As a vet myself, I have unlimited respect to those that have fallen in defense of my country. That does not change the fact that the article fails to stand up to policies outlined under WP:N and WP:NOT. Trusilver 01:05, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter Sunday[edit]

Article details events which are best suited to being included in more encyclopedic articles, for example Scottish Premier League 2004-05, or Rangers F.C. season 2004-05. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 18:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, that's an amazing story. As the nom suggests, it can be trimmed and merged into the respective club articles, but it doesn't deserve its own article IMO per WP:NOTNEWS. Yechiel Man 18:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 18:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per above.--Svetovid 20:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or clean up. It sounds like a significant event, a Scottish version of "The Giants win the pennant!" but I've read it several times and I still can't figure it out. The significance of the helicopter in this isn't clear-- at all. Maybe it was bringing a trophy, and had to change course when Rangers lost and Celtic won the title, or the other way around. Difficult to read. Mandsford 22:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the helicopter refers to the helicopter that was used to transport the trophy, and due to the late nature of the change in scores had to change direction - "The helicopter is changing direction" is an often-used phrase by Rangers fans, coined after radio commentary that day. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 22:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is poorly written, somewhat like the "Immaculate Reception" being described without mentioning the NFL playoffs. Since it's a memorable incident (and added a phrase to sportscasting lore), maybe someone can clean it up. Otherwise, delete it and let someone else try again. Mandsford 23:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be no or very few reliable sources using this term to describe the game. --Dhartung | Talk 00:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This football match had no notable implications, such as those of the England 5-1 Germany game.--Kylohk 16:38, 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 speedily deleted by KillerChihuahua as "CSD take your pick: bad partial translation; nn web; nonsense". -- Merope 19:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnhordland palefiskarlaug[edit]

The subject of the article is obviously not of encyclopedic value or interest, rather someones ideas of amusement spilling over from Facebook. The corresponding article was deleted seven times during three days at nn.wikipedia and then the title had to be locked to prevent further re-creating of the article. It has also been deleted at wikipedia.no : [5] --Jorunn 17:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7, non-notable web content/group, so tagged. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 18:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- per Cquan. Eddie 18:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Edtropolis 18:14, 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 no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journey into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist[edit]

Non-notable publication. No citations. A quick google shows an extreme lack of coverage in secondary sources (the only hits seem to be retailers). It's been a stub since its creation sixteen months ago, with zero content edits made on it in all that time, outside the creation of the article itself. Furthermore, there is no encyclopedic content here, just a TOC. Ford MF 18:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established. I am also suspicious of Mark A. Gabriel and his other two books, Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad and Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle. Our article says his identity has not been "independently verified" and relies on an abundance of primary sources. It survived AFD in 2005, when standards were not so strict. --Dhartung | Talk 18:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, quite honestly there are a lot of articles in (and around) Category:Books critical of Islam that need to go for exactly the same reasons this article needs to go. No encyclopedic content, no secondary sources, &c. But taking that on is a serious project that I don't think I'm quite up for at the moment. Ford MF 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: That category isn't going to be particularly useful to anyone browsing Wikipedia for things to read if half or most of the books are removed from it. (Not to mention any names, but I've no doubt there are plenty of people who'd prefer it that way.)--Mike18xx 12:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- Jacek Kendysz 18:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- Jacek Kendysz 18:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ITAQALLAH 20:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not look notable, hence delete. We do not create article about each book. --- A. L. M. 08:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am in the process of researching and improving this article, and have found references to the book being cited as a source in journals.--Mike18xx 12:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've now fleshed out the entry with quotes and references, and thumbed-down the formerly huge picture. While I'd still prefer to have better sources for positive and negative reviews of this relatively new book, I believe they are at present sufficient in conjunction with the journal cite, as well as the fact that the author has other books, in addition to himself, listed at Wikipedia.--Mike18xx 16:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Better than before but, I feel, still does not meet WP:N for the following reasons:

In Touch magazine lists a number of books. It is not the subject of the review and the mention is trivial. In fact, the review actually emphasises Gabriel's notability and not the book's.
The Quarterly Journal, again, is not discussing the book and makes only two trivial mentions of it in the footnotes citing 8 pages of the book.
Future Islam (is this a reliable source?) does indeed cover this book but the reviewer appears to be non-notable too since there are 0 ghits.
Based on this, I'd still say it does not meet the notability guideline of "significant coverage" and should be listed in the article of the author as recommended here. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The sources that Mike18xx has now added makes it obvious that the book is notable enough to have an article. -- Karl Meier 19:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recently added sources.--Sefringle^Talk 00:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since there are two adequare references, (Reference 1 is amazon: not a RS for anything beyond the fact that it's been published. Ref 2 is "In Touch Magazine" is [6] "A Magazine of People and Possibilities A FREE Self-Help, Inspirational, Holistic Publication " I cannot tell if it's a RS in whatever its field may be, but it is not a RS for Islamic terrorism. JB, of the MB school of theology, who wrote there, doesn't exactly seem qualified either). But 3/ Connections, however, is very substantial: [7] , from ETH Zurich, as solidly academic & respectable as you can get. The cite is a section of an article "U.S./NATO-Russia and Countering Ideological Support for Terrorism: Toward Building a Comprehensive Strategy." 1-25 by Sharyl N. Cross" and does make reference to the book and praises it . "For an excellent summary of the contributions of the influence of these writings in the development of Islamist radicalism see Mark A. Gabriel, Journey Into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist (Lake Mary, FL: Front Line, 2006), 20–26. Future Islam seems a high quality liberal Islamist online publication, & has an extensive review. . Seems OK after all, despite most of the article being a quote from that well known RS, the book jacket. Good NPOV overall. DGG 06:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are enough 3rd party non-trivial reliable sources now. Thanks to the person who added them. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:12, 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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Hurd[edit]

NN Bio Pete.Hurd 17:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note appears to be disruptive creation of an article as part of the continuing (?) Patrick DeMeyer/Patrick De Meyer/Curious Gregor/Mad kemist/Timothy Boyle nonsense, see 128.40.76.3's contributions, etc. Boring. Pete.Hurd 17:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 17:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a blog.--Edtropolis 17:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't this argument apply only to articles created by the subject of the article? Pete's only edit to this article has been to add the AfD banner. —David Eppstein 00:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't hold a very flashy title or affiliation, but has attracted international media attention for his research as demonstrated by the sources cited in the article. (Sorry, Pete, for disagreeing with your nom, but that's how I see it.) —David Eppstein 18:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position completely, no need to apologize. The media attention was about my work (or more properly my grad student's work), meaning that *I* was not the subject of the media attention, per Pan_Dan below. That's my disagreement with the translation of WP:N to biographies, especially academic biographies, on WP. I think that my biographical details, my musical preferences and handsome features (or lack thereof) just aren't the sort of material that people look to an encyclopedia for. I don't see how it, and the other like it, impart any understanding of the world of knowledge. That's just my view on WP:N applied to this case (where think I can nominate without being accused of bad faith). Pete.Hurd 21:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless Pete feels very strongly about this, I think he's notable, and I don't see any BLP problems. I removed some of the more ridiculous content. See also Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. Yechiel Man 18:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just apply WP policy. I don't think whether I feel strongly about this or not ought to matter. I brought it to AfD, I didn't take it to OFFICE. Pete.Hurd 21:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, as Pete notes, this article was created as part of a (malicious?) campaign to create Wikipedia articles about Wikipedia users. Second, in response to David, every source cited in the article is about a study conducted by Pete—not about Pete himself. Those sources would support a small expansion of Aggression, or Hand perhaps. But they would not support an entire Wikipedia article on the topic of the study, let alone an entire Wikipedia article on Pete Hurd, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about living people notable only for one event. Pan Dan 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the digit ratio article covers whatever need to be kept about that study. Pete.Hurd 21:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not sure what all the drama between the subject of the article and others users was. Looking at the present version of the article purely as a question of meeting WP:PROF it appears to just do so, based on his 29 or so publications in refereed journals (in addition to theses, letters etc). The one finding of finger length as an aggression index gained quite a bit of popular notice, and is the deciding factor in judging that the subject satisfies WP:PROF. If a few active Wikipedians watchlist the article it should be simple enough to revert any vandalism or attacks which persons might add to it. Edison 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the article subject himself has calmly nominated the article for deletion (which of course, has no impact on his notability per se), I would rather support his request than make any comments evaluating his work with respect to WP:PROF. I think he has taken the correct course of action given the suspect motivations of this article's author.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While some of the subject's research may have received media attention, he personally was not the subject of the media attention. --Metropolitan90 07:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE-I did not create this article as some form of malicious campaign (Come on, that would be really petty, and assuming bad faith). I created the page to collect, preserve and acknowledge the work of Pete Hurd, which is the purpose of wikipedia (preservation of information that is). If the article does not meet WP:PROF, then delete the article. The argument that Pete Hurd is not notable but the research findings are notable, is rubbish. For example, Christopher Columbus discovered America and is notable for doing so. The significant finding is the discovery of America, but Columbus is still notable. Pete Hurd gained as much recognition and media attention as were the significance of his findings, therefore he is notable. R:128.40.76.3 09:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is difficult to take you seriously given your history of deleting warnings from your talk page [8] and your activity leading to those warnings.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 05:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~(Conditional) Keep~~ passes notability requirements pretty easily (independent interest in his work is crucial here). But I think for non-crucial articles, we should take into account requests from the subject--obviously we couldn't delete "Colin Powell" if he asked the article to be removed, but I think cases like these are borderline--so I'd like the closing admin to look at precedent, and if there is a precedent for deleting articles based on the subject's request, please do so. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing recommendation to Merge with digit ratio -- but I actually mean merge and not just redirect. When a person is mainly notable for a single concept, it is better to have information there--that is true--but information about the authors of studies can be appropriate to have on a topic page. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with apologies to Pete at not following his wishes. There are two types of academics & other people with respect to their articles--the ones who think they are more important than they are, and the modest ones who are surprised to be considered encyclopedia-worthy. (I've never seen anyone in the middle). For the vain ones, the job is to see what lies underneath, for the others, it's to see what there is that they don't put forward. Frankly, the vain ones are easier to deal with--one just has to cut, with the general skepticism that affects all COI. The others, you've got to find the stuff. (and, sometimes, negotiate with them asking them not to request deletion). Here, 27 papers, with citation counts of 77,75,68 for the most cited, in a small field. Definite specialty of his own. Attention for the general media as well as citations--work interesting to the public. Meets the normal standards. Agreed, we don't want to look like we're paying special attention to out own people. But it's even less suitable to pretend we don't know them. DGG 04:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Sorry, dude; you're notable! (I'd do something about that pic, though...unless you really like that shirt.)--Mike18xx 08:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comes from his user page.DGG 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and there's no independent verification that that's really Pete Hurd. There's not even any verification that User:Pete.Hurd is Pete Hurd. Not that I doubt User:Pete.Hurd, who (implicitly) claims to be Pete Hurd on his old userpage, but the point is that Wikipedia content must be independently verifiable (ya know, WP:V and all that). I'm glad to see Yechielman already removed the content from Pete Hurd claiming that he edits Wikipedia, and we should remove the picture from the article also. Pan Dan 17:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my recommendation to merge to Digit ratio, per the same reasoning that I already expressed, plus Pete's reply to me.
I note with curiosity that no one recommending "keep" has either explained how a list of citations and publications makes an encyclopedia article or addressed Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about living people notable only for one event. Pan Dan 18:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delete it or don't, but please don't merge any of my biography into Digit ratio! Pete.Hurd 19:18, 19 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 06:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Consciacratic Party[edit]

Non notable organization that by its own admission is an "unoffical" US political party. Seems more like a vanity page than anything else Rackabello 17:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up to annoy a teacher one day. --Charlene 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per Charlene. Eddie 18:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Wikipedia is not a democracy.--Edtropolis 20:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ↑. Founded in "early June 2007." Wikipedia is not for things made up yesterday. --Evb-wiki 21:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The party does not appear to be an actual organization yet. --Metropolitan90 07:40, 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 06:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of books and films about hobos and freighthopping[edit]

Further WP:NOT issues. Amalgamation of books and films that have absolutely nothing to do with one another. I especially like how it says in the header that the list features films in which hobos and/or freighthopping exists. Big Fish is on the list because "Edward Bloom mentions how he once hopped three trains" Bulldog123 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as nom Bulldog123 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NOT#DIR.--Edtropolis 17:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per Edtropolis. Eddie 18:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. What, no The Flim-Flam Man? Deor 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. Far too vague of a category, and quite possibly hard to verify too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the reason given for deletion is that the "books and films...have absolutely nothing to do with one another". I think this explains why there are 400+ articles based on a TV show like "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (not to mention hundreds on other TV shows) while lists are frowned upon. In the case of, say, Buffy episodes, there is not a problem of the episodes being unalike, since they all have Buffy and her friends. Is it a valid reason for deletion if the books and films aren't part of a series of related works?

As I've said, lists didn't start with Irving Wallace. Back in the old days, I could find, if I wanted to, a "list of books about hoboes" -- it was at a public library, in the drawer of a card catalog and each card was like a blue -tag, linking up to a book on the shelf. It was actually very convenient and quick, having all those cards next to each other. Sure, the article can be strengthened, and some stuff doesn't belong, such as a person saying that he once rode the rails; but the list of the books alone is worthwhile. I think Wikipedia has way too many articles on childish topics like TV episodes, video games, album tracks, superheroes, etc.-- and not enough on things like homeless people. I don't think that was the original intent, but that's the downside to Wikipedia. Mandsford 22:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its about time we got rid of this stupid artical!!! XNYTV 23:29, 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 Moved to RFD; see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 June 14. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Horizon[edit]

inaccurate and unverifiable - "Pink Horizon" is not an alternate title, nor has any relationship whatsoever to Pink Five Lepto Spirosis 17:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Close and take to Redirects for Deletion. This is actually the wrong place for this. --Charlene 17:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not proper redirects to Pink Five. Author needs to read WP:REDIR.--Edtropolis 17:52, 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 06:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films about trains[edit]

WP:NOT violations. The list also seems to think that every movie with a train featured in it is about trains. Bulldog123 17:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as nom Bulldog123 17:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- Jacek Kendysz 17:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory.--Edtropolis 17:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what makes a film "about" trains seems to be entirely subjective and hence POV and OR. E.g., Murder on the Orient Express (I'm an Agatha Christie fan) is about a murder with a contained group of suspects a scene à faire in Christie's writings – there are at least three other stories about murders on trains, The Mystery of the Blue Train, 4.50 From Paddington, and The Plymouth Express, some of which have been made into films, and plenty of others on isolated islands, archaeological digs, on planes, or in closed rooms). In any event, whether its "about" trains is in the eye of the beholder, about as much as the movie Titanic is about cars because the steamy love scene occurs in one. Carlossuarez46 18:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 18:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to omitting of The Station Agent. I mean, per above. Propaniac 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insubstantial list. Like I've said in previous list AfDs, the role of trains in films would be more appropriate as prose with real-world context, as opposed to a list of trivia. There is no definition for what films would be appropriate to list, so the list is entirely subjective. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft per above. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate list, apparently just featuring an appearance by a train is enough for a film to be included. Masaruemoto 00:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Notwithstanding the fact that this is actually a list of any film at all in which at least one train appears, List of Films about x articles are inherently going to fail WP:UNENC unless x is something absolutely extraordinary. Trains are not. A1octopus 18:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT and WP:OR. Since when are films like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind about trains? Since never. Indiscriminate list of every film that even shows a train = not fit for an encyclopedia. María (críticame) 15:25, 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 06:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-Index[edit]

NN website, no sources. Corvus cornix 16:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB: "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers." Does not meet (or even assert) WP:Notability, and provides no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 17:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like an advert.--Edtropolis 18:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 18:20, 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. — Ocatecir ^T 01:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Mongan[edit]

Non notable horse jockey. Search engine reveals no reliable sources besides her official website. Other Laura Morgans are mentioned, but they are researchers and doctors, but not jockeys.--Kylohk 16:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL 17:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable as mentioned above. Searched as well and got same results as above. Xtreme racer 20:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO and has no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 21:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The nominator seems to have looked for Laura Morgan, not Laura Mongan. (Also, Laura Mongan is a horse trainer, not a jockey.) See [9] and [10] for references to her in reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 07:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That was an erro on my part. I did type (Laura Mongan, -wikipedia) on the search engine. And I see her site, and the page of her stable.--Kylohk 15:41, 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.

Article was speedy deleted. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 00:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subterranean Pandas[edit]

Amusing, but clearly a hoax and not found in search engines Drfoop 16:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and BJAODN. --Charlene 17:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN, clearly a hoax but bizarre enough to warrant BJAODN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and BJAODN- per all of the above. Eddie 18:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete bollocks and I'd say to avoid the BJAODN in case the people mentioned in the "article" (the one fellow mentioned as having AIDS, for example) are real and are being poked at by the creator. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I am sorry, and I really do not intend to disrupt AfD procedure, but this article is absolute and total nonsense and I am going from here right now to delete it. It should never have received a WP:AfD tag.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE since it is at most a redirect, and as a redirect would have fallen under CSD. gren グレン 17:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND CONSTITUTION[edit]

Poorly written duplicate of articles at United States Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States Rackabello 16:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, possibly Speedy as nominator Rackabello 16:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. Ravenswing 16:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listing as CSD G1 This was my inital inclination, but I went with AFD to be on the safe side. If someone agrees that its patent, then lets list it. Rackabello 17:11, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling Commerce[edit]

No evidence of notability for this company. Only external link is to their website, hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to meet WP:CORP. Walton^talk 16:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. This company is a large international organization with thousands of employees. The reason they're not well covered in third party sources is that their focus is on Business to Business sales. The kind of promotion or advertising done is therefore rarely seen by the general public. Additionally, there is only one external link because the page is complying with external link guidelines. Any other links would likely be considered spam.--Analogue Kid 16:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep and cleanup to make it less ad-speaky. There are over 500,000 Ghits for "sterling commerce", even removing all of their international websites and Wikipedia mirrors. The death of their CEO made CNet: [11]. There are lots of other third party hits: [12], [13], [14], [15]. Corvus cornix 16:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a subsidiary of AT&T, and AT&T is certainly notable. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. Request speedy closure per WP:SK. Although notability is not inherited (hence it isn't notable for being an AT&T subsidiary), the sources provided by Corvus cornix above adequately demonstrate notability. Walton^talk 17:16, 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 05:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Terrorism Battalion (Reserve)[edit]

Does not provide a reference or sufficient context. I think it may be the same as Anti-Terrorism Battalion. Can anyone make a case for the article? 650l2520 15:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Jacek Kendysz 16:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only hits are Wikipedia or mirrors. --Dhartung | Talk 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nom. Eddie 18:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Wikipedia is not a mirror.--Edtropolis 19:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomTaprobanus 20:01, 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 05:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Paradise[edit]

Completely non-notable fanmade expansion pack, no reliable non-trivial secondary sources to allow any verification. Prod was contested by article creator (and 'studio' founder I should point out.) Delete. DarkSaber2k 15:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. DarkSaber2k 15:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Polar pardise is NOT made-up, it is REAL. It is going to come out later this August. Us designers can create actuall animsl and objects for ZT2, and this is no exception. Blue Fang has also stated, that they are happy to see that we are creting things for ZT2, and giving up our time. After all, if EA is gonna be the last XP, all we are doing is helping Blue Fang out. Redpanda REX 15:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, and yet at the same time completely unrelated to any of the reasons I've given for this article to be deleted. DarkSaber2k 15:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment As compelling as the argument to keep is, this smacks of fancruft to me. Also spamming for a product that hasn't come out yet. I'd like "more experienced in AfD" editors to weigh in on my comment before I decide. --Ispy1981 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strike my last comment and delete No outside reliable sources other than the studio for this article. A search of Polar Paradise turns up a whole lot of hits, none of which pertain to the article. Zoo Tycoon II:Polar Paradise turns up 0 hits.--Ispy1981 16:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We ARE making this. This isn't official anyway, so it wouldn't turn up on google. Panda-Baiji 17:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:ATT, WP:NOT, WP:NOTE, and even W:COI. Wikipedia is not for drumming up publicity; it's for things that are already noted by independent non-trivial third parties. It doesn't matter if it's real or not: if it's not NOTABLE and ATTRIBUTED per the specific contents of the above policies, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Charlene 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above. Wildthing61476 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Existing is not enough. You need coverage from independent sources. Wickethewok 19:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - and add spam to the reasons.--Svetovid 20:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per creators comments. Sorry folks, but Wikipedia isn't your free webspace. Try one of the many hosters for your content like Geocities or Myspace or whatever. FrozenPurpleCube 23:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete obviously, but I sure do love that cover art. — brighterorange (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stong delete - This should have been speedy deleted in the first place. Turlo Lomon 08:38, 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 delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MC Vittumeitsi[edit]

Laaaaaadies and gentt-lmen. May I present you the equivalent of GNAA in Finnish Wikipedia (think of "clearly more notable/less notable than MC Vittumeitsi"), finally deleted after three highly sparky deletion debates. However, I'm kind of hoping deleting this article here would not be quite as controversial as in fi.wikipedia; how this artist fulfills WP:MUSIC is somewhat shaky indeed. There's precious little online coverage; I get 173 distinct google hits for "MC Vittumeitsi" and 150 for "MC Vittumeitsi" -wikipedia. There's one single and one album, both from (what appears to be) very minor label that has a dead web page. Official home page appears dead as well. Online reviews of the music appear rather slim; Google-cached version of fi.wikipedia article didn't have print mentions and only mentioned four shows where this artist appeared, between 2003-2004. I admit I'm doing this on a kind of hokey grounds in that I haven't checked the offline availability, but the online presence seems extremely minimal and it doesn't appear to reliably confirm notability as per WP:MUSIC. wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for the record, I argued for keeping the article in fi.wikipedia but after researching its visibility further, I'm not so sure anymore. Besides, en.wikipedia supposedly calls for much more verifiability. I'm not so sure it will materialise in this case; the claims of fame would be pretty weak if sources would materialise. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per nom. Rather than a transwiki, this surely fails to meet criteria of WP:CITE, WP:MUSIC, and WP:Notability.--Edtropolis 15:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - articles are not deleted on the basis of styrl guidelines, surely - Tiswas^(t) 15:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The question of notability can be answered by whether or not the artist passes WP:MUSIC (or even WP:BIO). Chart success is the only apparent criterion that might be achieved. Otherwise, delete - Tiswas^(t) 15:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MC Vittumeitsi has not charted on the Finnis charts [16]. Finlux 20:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not very well known but verifiable and notable enough. --Zzzzzzzzzz 22:28, 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. Sr 13 05:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs covered by Dream Theater[edit]

Delete - as with the many recently deleted lists of cover songs, an artist's covering a song, especially "in part" as some of these songs were apparently covered according to the article's lead, is not in itself notable. If Dream Theater performed notable covers of any of these songs then they should be noted in a D.T. discography and/or an article for the song. The "semi-official bootleg" information may be notable as a separate album article or as part of the aforementioned discography, if there is the requisite reliable sourcing for it, but in looking for such sourcing I was finding nothing but blogs, fansites and MP3 download sites, which don't satisfy sourcing requirements. Otto4711 15:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced list of songs which, while notable themselves, most aren't notable in the Dream Theater discography.--Ispy1981 15:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is listcruft. Unless there are criteria denoting notability (e.g. songs covered whilst curing cancer) - Tiswas^(t) 15:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violates WP:LC and Wikipedia is not a directory.--Edtropolis 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonencyclopedic. JJL 17:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:UNENC. A1octopus 18:38, 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 delete. Sr 13 05:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Area 51: My Version![edit]

Contested prod. Unverifiable, no sources, reads like a piece of fiction instead of an encyclopedia article MisterHand 14:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability & no sources. Also noting that there is no talk page rationale contesting deletion. I would note however that being written in an in-universe style is not a sufficient reason for deletion. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 15:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Possible Hoax - Possible Patent Nonsense. Agree with nom. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. WP:SNOW? Propaniac 15:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete -- No assertion of notability. Along with that, no sources. I don't get it...so it's supposedly a game. Alright. What system? When was it released? Mmhhmmm. Yeah. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the very first iteration of the article it seems the system it's being created for is "Computer". Very precise. ChrisTheDude 15:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...very precise. C'mon now get real. Computer eh? Ok...PC? Mac? Linux? Tandy? IBM? Any screen shots? Reviews? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's yet another encyclopedia article about a video game. Mandsford 15:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Made up one afternoon. Possibly {{nonsense}} - Tiswas^(t) 15:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is fictional. The actual Area 51 game article would be upset. ;_; Deletion Quality 16:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Unverifiable, unsourced, speculative. "Area 51: My Version! Is a game scheduled to be completed mid/late July 2007; based on the game Area 51" was the original claim. Unreferenced crystalballery without any sort of source. If it comes out in Mid July, or it appears in gaming magazines etc., and becomes notable and verifiable, then a proper article with screenshots etc. can be re-created. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per violation of WP:RS. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 14:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for obvious reasons. ...what? It's not gone yet?--Mike18xx 08:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete... I too am surprised it's not gone yet.--Iknowyourider (t c) 15:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Provides no information. ~ Wiki hermit 15:44, 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 05:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buckfenhaim Park[edit]

I can't really find much to suggest this book is notable. The fact it's in Hebrew doesn't help, though noting that the author is a redlink is suggestive. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not-notable. Fails WP:BIO.--Edtropolis 14:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't even come close to satisfying WP:NOTE for books. Only ghits are Wiki, answers.com and Wiki mirrors.--Ispy1981 15:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing notable about the book - Tiswas^(t) 15:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 68 Ghits for the Hebrew version of the title, though I have no clue as to whether any of them are reliable sources. Corvus cornix 17:00, 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 Boldly redirected to Natural rate of unemployment by yours truly. Non-admin closure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenPoundHammer (talk • contribs)

Natural unemployment[edit]

Orphaned article providing a definition. Maybe more suited to wiktionary per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 14:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom.--Edtropolis 14:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Arbitrary economics neologism] with no sources - Tiswas^(t) 15:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dicdef neologism.--Ispy1981 16:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Natural rate of unemployment. It's a notable concept in economics, one of the first things someone doing a course in economics might learn about in fact, and a perfectly good article, under the correct term, already exists on wikipedia. Nick mallory 16:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)*What Nick mallory said - I couldn't remember the usual term - Tiswas^(t) 16:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge and Redirect to Natural rate of unemployment. If there is anything useful in Natural unemployment that is not already stated better elsewhere, then carry the essential information to the talk page for merging by the "residents". Otherwise redirect. Clearly someone created the one, probably in good faith, unaware of the existence of the other. If it is a subject likely to be searched for, then the redirect to the proper article makes perfect sense. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:14, 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 05:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of superheroes who wear suits in their secret identities[edit]

Author pretty much admits this is a case of listcruft and WP:ILIKEIT on the article talk page. DarkAudit 13:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely ludicrous indiscriminate list, as surely any superhero whose secret identity isn't a hobo will wear a suit at some point.....? ChrisTheDude 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft, indeed, but I'll be mirroring this into my user-space, in case it is worthwhile info. Is it against policy to make this a redirect to the copy in my user-space? It's at User:JNighthawk/Deleted Pages/List of superheroes who wear suits in their secret identities. - JNighthawk 14:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 14:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non notable. scope_creep 14:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOT#IINFO. Yes, cross-space redirects are disallowed. (edit) Oops, didn't sign. Otto4711 16:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is probable that most superheros wear suits, depending on the circumstances. And what kind of suit? Bathing suit? Business suit? Leisure suit? Clown suit? Birthday suit? --Evb-wiki 15:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to JNighthawk, since said user has expressed interest. Note that simply cut-and-pasting a page which is then deleted leads to a GFDL violation because the history is lost. -- Visviva 15:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. If the article is to be deleted, I'd like to have it moved to my userspace instead. If allowed, I'd also like to keep the redirect from WP mainspace to my userspace. If not, that's alright, but I'd definitely like to keep the article around. Is it against WP policy to have a mainspace article redirect to a userspace page? - JNighthawk 02:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is ChrisTheDude 07:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. If it's to be deleted, can it instead be moved to my userspace with the mainspace article then deleted (so the link from WP main space will be removed). I guess I'm actually requesting a new WP feature, "copy," so maybe I should post in the village pump. - JNighthawk 13:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. If you move the article to your userspace, all the history is preserved. And then we just delete the redirect link. Shall I do it for you? --Tone 21:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add to the "List of articles deleted for being a collection of indiscriminate information." Violates WP:NOT. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because after this, it will be superheroes who wear blue jeans, superheroes who wear hats, superheroes who wear jewelry, etc. Mandsford 15:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT Rackabello 16:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NOT#DIR.--Edtropolis 16:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. JJL 17:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & most of the above; what's next boxers or briefs or going commando? Carlossuarez46 18:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I'm waiting for List of superheroes who wear spandex costumes as yet another example of sprawling list-building. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. This is not a notable criteria. --EMS | Talk 20:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who cares? —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 21:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sexism; what about tasteful pants suit and pencil skirt wearing super-heroines? J/K, delete per nom, WP:NOT, etc. María (críticame) 17:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons mentioned above. Useight 00:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy (as requested above) and Delete. I think the author says it all on the talk page. -MrFizyx 16:02, 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 05:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization of Thebe[edit]

No evidence that the idea ever been considered by anybody. The article says nothing about the colonization, describing the physical conditions instead. No souces supporting the idea exist.--Dojarca 13:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably could be speedy as nonsense. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 15:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entirely lacking in astronanotability - Tiswas^(t) 15:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The editor responsible for this article has created a substantial number of these for outer solar system moons. Many have one-off mentions in science fiction sources, and thus may need to be considered on their own merits. Serpent's Choice 16:19, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of passwords used in fiction[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. The listed items, indiscriminately drawn from multiple forms of fiction, have nothing in common in terms of genre, theme or style beyond the happenstance of using a password for something at some time for some purpose. A similar list, of films in which an attempt is made to guess a password, was deleted a few months ago and this list is broader and more indiscriminate than that one was. Otto4711 12:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bleh. I can't believe this list lasted for a year. María (críticame) 12:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is one of the best examples of an indiscriminate collection seen in ages. --Charlene 14:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep After I read it, I can see that it has a place. It's just as valid as a list of current slang terms, and a bit of an etymology for words that are widely known among certain groups. "Caput draconis" apparently is a reference that Harry Potter fans all understand right away, but not the rest of us. "Swordfish" is apparently an inside joke that is understood by a legion of password fans. The only time I was a Password fan was when Allen Ludden (GRHS) was still around, but they apparently exist. Mandsford 15:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List of slang terms and List of current slang terms do not exist, and if they did, they would likely be deleted as being indiscriminate. Whether any other article exists has no bearing on whether this list is appropriate for Wikipedia. Otto4711 16:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, indiscriminate list of passwords that are the same as the combination on my luggage. - Tiswas^(t) 15:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per WP:LC.--Edtropolis 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This list is tightly focused on one thing: passwords in fiction. It's the very opposite of "indiscriminate " or "loosely-associated." Passwords are central to modern computer security. Wikipedia has over two dozen articles that deal with aspects of the topic. Password use in fiction is both indicative of social attitudes and helps form those attitudes. I can easily see a security researcher finding this article helpful. Please explain why this article has less merit than List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck", which has survived AfD 6 times, I believe.--agr 16:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a lot of blanket statements, but do you have proof to support them? What are your reasons, based on Wikipedia policy, to keep this list? As it stands now, the list is a repository of loosely associated topics and therefore violates WP:NOT. I could see having a list of passwords in fiction that play an important role in theme or plot, and therefore lends to the importance/notability of the work itself, but listing things like "one of several passwords spoken to the Fat Lady portrait to access the Gryffindor dormitories" is very much indiscriminate and overwhelmingly unimportant. Also, please remember that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. María (críticame) 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which statements would you like me to prove? That passwords are central to modern computer security? That should be obvious, but I'd be happy to dig up a reference or two. That Wikipedia has over two dozen articles that deal with aspects of the topic? See Category:Authentication methods. That the way something is treated in fiction is indicative and formative of societal attitudes? Opinion, to be sure, but one I think is widely held. As for Harry Potter, I invite you to peruse the Category:Harry Potter and its 12 subcategories. In particular, take a look at Spells in Harry Potter and Non-canonical spells in Harry Potter. The later, of course, covering those spells in HP movies and games that are not in the books. If there are too many Harry Potter passwords for this list, they can be broken out into a separate article Passwords in Harry Potter which would fit right into the in-depth Wikipedia coverage of Hogwarts culture. Tell me again why you think passwords in fiction is less worthy of coverage than all the Potter material???--agr 18:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why lists about spells are found to be notable are because spells are widely accepted to be crucial to the Harry Potter universe. I can promise you that passwords are not, as they are not notable in a variety of other examples of fictional works. I agree with Otto4711 below that "Fiction" is too wide a reach, and it allows many trivial instances of password usage in any form of fiction to be listed. I ask again, are you able to provide, with Wikipedia guideline and policy, why this list should be kept? María (críticame) 18:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed out that passwords and public attitudes toward them are an important area of academic research. See the refs section of password for several papers on the topic. I'm not aware of any serious academic work on spells. Yet you argue that spells in one fictional work are notable. So passwords in fiction are at least as notable. Since verifiability is not an issue here and there is no more original research in this article than most other lists on Wikipedia, QED.--agr 10:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magic (Harry Potter) exists. Passwords (Harry Potter) does not, but you're getting off topic. The fact that passwords are an area of academic research is irrelevant, since we're discussing this article in particular which deals with passwords in fiction. My point is that this list and its examples are trivial. You have still yet to provide Wikipedia guideline and/or policy that backs your claims, so I'm guessing you cannot. María (críticame) 12:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As i pointed out several times, password use in fiction is reflective of societal attitudes and therefore of interest. You asked for proof and I tried to provide same. "Proof" assumes some set of standards, consistently applied. Otherwise we just have a popularity contest. Harry Potter and scatological words in film have strong constituencies and are therefore safe. A serious topic like password use doesn't and can be hooted off Wikipedia.--agr 15:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're implying some sort of bias against your topic of choice, which is not the case. This article violates several instances of WP:NOT, as stated in the nomination, and has a lack of encyclopedic value. That's what it comes down to, not comparisons to Harry Potter, which is frankly getting old. Passwords =/ HP; I merely used the example on the List of passwords used in fiction article, and now I'm regretting it... ;) María (críticame) 15:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting bias, just arbitrariness. If you disagree, please explain why Non-canonical spells in Harry Potter and List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" have encyclopedic value while this list does not.--agr 16:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. María (críticame) 17:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument --Kickstart70-T-C 18:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator of one of the "fuck" AFDs, I would agree with you whole-heartedly that this list has exactly as much encyclopedic value as that one, specifically, none. Regardless, as noted, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:WAX are not compelling keep arguments. And naturally I would strongly dispute the notion that this list is tightly focused. "Fiction" is an enormously wide focus and this list currently draws together instances from four different forms of fiction with the potential for who knows how many more, which are widely disparate in topic, style and genre, united only by use of a password by someone to do something. Otto4711 18:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Yes, the list is well-defined. No, its content is not significant. I could also make a reasonable argument for original research because nobody else has compiled such a list AFAIK. Yechiel Man 18:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT#INFO as well. However I do recall a similar list that survived AFD a couple years ago that listed fiction with things hidden in boxes. Apparently there's some sub-genre of academic literary study that actually gets off on that, so maybe someone can make a good case from an academic basis to keep this list. Otherwise I see WP:SNOWBALL happening. If there are WP-notable works that have significant use of passwords, create a separate article discussing them. If a password itself somehow becomes independently notable, then it can have its own article and if there's enough of them, a category. 23skidoo 20:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NOT#IINFO. Masaruemoto 00:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The format of the page may violate WP:NOT, but the topic does not necessarily do so. Unless List of sex positions, List of rail accidents, and more similar pages also qualify under this. WP:NOT, as I understand it, refers to avoiding having pages for every non-notable person, place, and thing under the sun. Lists have always, and will always be considered differently. Disclaimer, I started the page...I hope that that in itself does not factor into the argument. --Kickstart70-T-C 06:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your examples are lists of notable events / article worthy subject - each elements in each list have their own articles. Lists must be discriminate to that degree. - Tiswas^(t) 08:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each work cited in List of passwords used in fiction does have its own article.--agr 10:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Each work cited has its own article, each password does not. The is a fundamental difference in that the works are not the subject of the list - The analogue would be an article entitled List of fictional works with passwords - Such an article would in itself be unmaintainable listcruft, and no doubt deleted. - Tiswas^(t) 10:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's not true for either of the articles I presented. Neither one is comprised of list items each with their own article. In the password article, each entry should cite the page for the work of fiction. --Kickstart70-T-C 14:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm unable to comment on the List of sex positions article, due to somewhat restrictive internet filtering - The List of rail accidents, however, does link to articles on the individual list items in many cases. The existence of those articles, however, is moot. If the article in question were worthy of inclusion, each constituent, i.e. password in fiction, would have its own article. Such as 12345 in the film Spaceballs. A subtle, but distinct, difference - Tiswas^(t) 14:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spells listed in Spells in Harry Potter and Non-canonical spells in Harry Potter generally do not have their own article.--agr 15:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And? Your point is? The two list articles that you cite are in-universe style forks, as recommended by WP:FICT#Fiction in Wikipedia#2, minor treatments. This article would at no point have been part of a parent article, and is merely a loosely associated collection of trivial plot devices. - Tiswas^(t) 17:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a style fork. Of course. How could I be so stupid? I think we need a List of spells in Wikipedia. --agr 20:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indiscriminate junk, what encyclopedic purpose could this possibly hold? This is nothing but trivia. Until(1 == 2) 13:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--JayJasper 20:44, 19 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 04:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tubman's law[edit]

Describes a "law" much along the lines of Godwin's Law, but appears to be largely original research and POV-pushing with nothing reliable to back it up. Has not reached anything like the level of recognition of Godwin's Law (compare 85 GHits for "Tubman's Law" with 269,000 for "Godwin's Law"). ~Matticus ^T_C 11:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I'm sure it's entirely possible that this is a well known term/phrase to many people, this article as it exists is a clear delete. 1) No assertion of notability, 2) No citation of any kind, 3) Awash in nearly the definition of original research (specifically that the article states which applications of the "law" are fallacious or not). That third is something that of course could be cleaned up but is currently intrinsic to the entire article (for that matter if for some reason this article were kept, it would need a complete rewrite anyway if only to make it clear what exact the law is). There is no evidence in this article that Tubman's Law exists, no assertion or evidence that it is prevalent in any society and no given reason why there should be a wikipedia article on it. If this can be strongly improved before the end of this AfD debate I'd be happy to change my opinion, but as it looks today I find that unlikely. -Markeer 12:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Quite aside from the above, a turgid mess that has the feel of having been made up in school one day. RGTraynor 13:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Screams original research. No sources, basically what was said above. Turlo Lomon 13:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not attributed and likely not attributable. Appears to be verging on an attack page against certain non-conservative beliefs; incredible (and I'm guessing to many highly offensive) POV that, if removed, would leave the article roughly ten words long. --70.73.252.78 14:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, that was me. --Charlene 14:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like stream of consciousness, badly written, no sources... scope_creep 14:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Made up, unsourced, nonsense. It could be worse - Tubgirl's law anyone? - Tiswas^(t) 16:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. As per CSD:G1 and A7. Has no sources.--Edtropolis 16:57, 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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 16:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of warez groups[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Although I have removed a lot of unreferenced material, the article is still very poorly written and sourced. In the two years that it has been given to mature and develop, little has come of this opportunity and seems to be serving as a dumping ground for various non-notable and current release group hearsay. This list does not appear to add much more value than Warez groups category that it is in already. The last time I tried to remove unreferenced sections, my changes were reverted.

In summary, this article is not important for an encyclopaedia, is a breeding ground for hearsay and shows no signs of improvement despite ample opportunity.

Keep - How many AfD's must an article survive before people stop trying to delete it? Geez. It's not listcruft. It's useful information that I have referenced before. - JNighthawk 14:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, there is a lot of useful information here. scope_creep 14:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User has no contributions. Bilge [T C] 22:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This is an out and out lie, BBilge. I'm trying to AGF, but I can't see it. User:Scope creep has *plenty* of contributions. - JNighthawk 18:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Sorry, that was my mistake. I hit history on their user page instead of contributions. In light of my mistake I hope that you can continue to AGF. Bilge [T C] 12:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OT comment: it is missing explanation what is a "courier group". Pavel Vozenilek 15:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article should have some context added like one unfamiliar with the terminology should get a one-liner early on that tells us that the article has something to do with hacking or file swapping or some such. Not a reason to delete it, however. Carlossuarez46 18:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I never suggested that readers being unfamiliar with the topic was a reason to delete it, and neither did anyone else. The reasons for deletion are very clearly expressed and still wholly relevant. Bilge [T C] 19:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...and for goodness sakes...GIVE UP ALREADY!!!! The article does need to be improved though. - T-75|talk|contribs 20:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator to delete was never in the scene and wishes to remove it. Don't you have some other page to edit or mark for deletion?
- Comment User has no account or significant contributions. Bilge [T C] 22:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What does a user having few/no contributions to Wikipedia matter? This isn't a vote. Listen to the arguments on their merits. - JNighthawk 02:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Policy has to do with the matter. Single purpose accounts are typically afforded less weighting. This is particularly relevant since comments like "GIVE UP ALREADY!!!!" and "Nominator to delete was never in the scene" are as unobjective and poorly written as is this article. Bilge [T C] 08:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment BBilge I see you JNighthawk and others all over this page, deleting text like the group GLoW. A person who was online using MODEMS in 1996 and actually was a member of the underground scene should have way more pull than some 'elite lamer' as yourself and other pure 'deletion editors' who did not in fact contribute one morsel of data to the article and yet continue to pound others for their lack of sources. This is what is meant by the comment "Nominator to delete was never in the scene" Sad really thay you need a small paragraph of words to understand the real meaning behind a short comment as that. Realize this: these groups were on the underground not on public bulletin boards and you had to be fairly elite or actually know someone to get in. This is why it is very hard to find sources to cite for their existence. It's just foolish for you to force others do so. You are like an English major who types well, knows how to punctuate and perhaps make thinks look neat but sadly being able to do so does not make you intelligent. I could write or "code" a program with your characteristics. Much much more credibility must be given to individual authors (Like the GLoW author) who even uploaded an image. But you and others with their sense of delete chose to remove that too. The author of that image "Black Knight" knowingly used an alias and created that artwork intentionally for all to see, but someone had to have that removed too. I guess the real history of what really happened will have to exist only in the minds of those who were there at the time. I again find it laughable that you deletors choose to prune something you know nothing about. Thanks for continuing to ruin a piece of history you obviously were never a part of yet feel it is your "english major" birthright to prune.
    - Comment There's no need to be un-civil. BBilge is acting in good faith. What you're suggesting goes against Wikipedia's policies, specifically the fact that there are no/few external, credible sources, so only well-known groups can be talked about on the page. - JNighthawk 04:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Right, so take the comments on their merits. The ones you mentioned have no merit, and treat them as such. It should also be noted that WP:SPA is not policy, guideline, or anywhere near official. It is merely an essay. Wikipedia user-name policy has something to say about SPA, but that is to say to WP:AGF unless there is a known case of sockpuppetry. Either way, a little/no contribution account or an SPA (assuming no sockpuppetry) should be given the same weight as any other editor in an AfD: think about what they say, not about who they are. - JNighthawk 13:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment "Anyone acting in good faith can contribute to the discussion. The author of the article can make his/her case like everyone else. As discussed above, relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone but the opinions of anonymous and/or suspiciously new users may be discounted by the closing admin. Please bear in mind that administrators will discount any obviously bad faith contributions to the discussion when closing the discussion. On the other hand, a user who makes a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy and does so in a civil manner may well sway the discussion despite being anonymous." Pretty much says it all. Judge their comments based on their merit, not on the fact that they're a little/no contribution editor. As always, pure opinion and WP:ILIKEIT have little/no merit in an AfD. - JNighthawk 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tidy. It's quite an interesting article, but needs to be policed against random nn groups. Fin ©™ 17:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons stated in the previous AfDs. Also, cleanup per Fin. --Myles Long 19:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article was intially a spin off from the main Warez article. Clean it up once again, remove linkspam, and we'll be fine. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this AfD is heading straight for a unanimous keep, I'd like to take the opportunity to suggest renaming the page to List of historical warez groups and divide the groups currently listed under the Historical groups heading into appropriate categories based on the main focus of their efforts. In this way, it is avoided attempting to list current groups which are typically non notable and for which there is almost invariably no verifiable material. I would also suggest semi-protection in lieu of the various edit wars with new and unregistered users adding unreferenced material. Bilge [T C] 21:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure that's possible, as CLASS and FAIRLIGHT are both historically notable and still active... unless you wanted to list them twice. - JNighthawk 04:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Why would they be listed twice? They would be listed once, on this page, that I propose be renamed to include only historical groups. Historical and active are not mutually exclusive as you just pointed out. The section in the page that is currently called Historical groups could be eliminated on a page that was of the same disposition and then re-organized into apporpriate categories like the ones on the rest of the page. Bilge [T C] 10:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Why would you only want historical groups? New, active groups are just as note-worthy. - JNighthawk 18:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment But as stated at the top of the nest, they are also invariably unverifiable. Also, please see the response to roy's keep. Bilge [T C] 08:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though the idea about restricting the article to the historical groups only sounds ok to me. --Methem 10:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You have given no reason for keeping the article. Bilge [T C] 08:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: It's a list of things that seem to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Removing the most unreliable pieces of information and otherwise cleaning it is fine, but there's no good reason to delete the entire article. --Methem 11:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I am in agreement. Bilge [T C] 11:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the nature of the article that you have to rely on eyewitness reports and use the actual output of "releases" of the warez scenes with their mfo files to verify the claims. Only in few cases, like after a major "bust" that was covered by the mainstream media can you refer to that to further support the content. Not everybody got busted and mainstream media coverage because of it though. For the subject it covers is it relevant and the amount of activity in this area makes the subject itself notable. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Only in few cases, like after a major "bust" that was covered by the mainstream media can you refer to that to further support the content. Then this is the only instance in which the group should be listed on this page in the first place. Until that point they are unverifiable and is precisely why I have suggested renaming the page to list only historical groups, because usually it is only after they are busted or disbanded that any information is ever formally published. Bilge [T C] 08:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Disagree. I believe a .nfo would be a valid source for a warez group. - JNighthawk 09:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't meet my criterion for deletion. --MichaelLinnear 07:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So in other words, you like it. Bilge [T C] 08:58, 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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 16:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeny & Zory[edit]

non-notable singers jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Extremely weak notability and few references to diversify bio. Appears to me more like a vanity page than anything else. --XLR8TION 10:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - when looking at the article strictly on the basis laid out in WP:MUSIC, it meets the criteria to have toured internationally, and the criteria to be featured in a legitimate media outlet. It seems like it might be non-notable at first glance, but other than a lack of references, it does pass. Plm209^{(talk •contribs)} 12:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 12:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep-it's teetering on the precipice of notability, and the major reference appears to be in Spanish, but if the summary in the article is correct it's probably notbale. Needs a rewrite and all those ugly red links removing, though.--Rossheth | Talk 12:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There could be some notability here, the article needs rewritten completly from scratch. Also I does not link to anything. scope_creep 14:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but tag for cleanup - Satisfies multiple criteria, such as appearing on Bienvenidos - Tiswas^(t) 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tiswas, Bienvenidos is the name of their act. They WERE NOT on the television show with the same name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by XLR8TION (talk • contribs)

Ooops - My bad there. There are other examples of where they meet WP:MUSIC criteria, however.

Keep and improve. Passes criteria of WP:MUSIC and WP:NOTE.--Edtropolis 16:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edtropolis. IP198 14:44, 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 Keep Per WP:SNOWBALL, Notability has been established for the article subject just needs appropriate referencing, and should be tagged with cleanup until this problem is actions. Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glyn Davis[edit]

Subject does not pass WP:BIO & WP:PROF There are no published secondary sources, They have not demonstrable wide name recognition or received significant recognized awards or honors. ExtraDry 10:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Dry, you do not appear to have done much research into this nomination. Google News shows 34 references [17] and Google News Archive has over 500 including [18] and this. Strong keep if not speedy keep. Capitalistroadster 11:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This mans achievements are overwhelming. A Google Australia search provided 19,300 results, most of which (from what I can tell) are about him. Have added some references. This article just needs some work, not deleting.Loopla 11:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 11:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as above. Recurring dreams 11:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as above. Nominator, did you even bother to do any research whatsoever on this person before taking this to AfD? Lankiveil 11:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep as above. This is just amazing. Do we have a lot of disgruntled students who can not understand how senior academics are notable. Lack of sources for an article that is clearly notable needs work, not deletion; and not work done by holding a gun to our heads. Comment on the appropriate project pages for example. --Bduke 12:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Somehow, I am not surprised. Yes, this is a pile-on, but it deserves to be. Can some kindly admin invoke WP:SNOW here? Beyond that, this isn't the first AfD of an Australian university vice-chancellor nom has made, and good faith is increasingly shaky. RGTraynor 13:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This article needs sourcing not deleting. if it's any help to people out there I hear that he own a rare pokemon card - which generally demonstrated notability on wikipedia. --Fredrick day 13:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SNOWBALL Nothing else that needs to be said on this one. Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:38, 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 no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Noemí[edit]

non-notable actress jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Extremely weak notability and few references to diversify bio. Appears to me more like a vanity page than anything else. --XLR8TION 10:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Her last name is González. She is notable. Starred in Creature From The Haunted Sea.--Edtropolis 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Edtropolis. Creature from the Haunted Sea is a Roger Corman film. I wouldn't mind removing a lot of the redlinks in the article, though. Corvus cornix 17:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I can't find her in es.wikipedia.org. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Spanish Wikipedia only has 100,000 articles. Corvus cornix 20:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough for the English Wikipedia.--Svetovid 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm a native Puerto Rican, and Sonia Noemí is one of the pioneers of Puerto Rican television. She was the star of one of the first television shows broadcasted in Puerto Rico in the 1950s, called: "El Show Ford", with Tito Lara, and famous voice quartet: Los Hispanos. She was the host of a famous television game show called: "A Millón" in the 1980s with Hector Marcano, and Rafael José, among other notorious achievements as a singer and actress. Currently she's had leading role appearances in Telemundo's dramatic series, Decisiones, and has performed important roles in famous Telemundo's soap operas, El Cuerpo del Deseo, and "Tierra de Pasiones". Her maiden name is Sonia Noemí González, but her artistic name is Sonia Noemí, and it's specified along her stage name in parenthesis. It must be kept and not deleted.--Entre-Nos 09:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've edited, cleaned up some redlinks and wikilinks, added important information and re-arranged some informations too. Check it, it's worth it. Best regards. --Entre-Nos 10:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kym Wilde[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 09:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, any day one learns something new is a good day, I had been unaware that editors has discussed and agreed on some criteria for adult actors, but WP:PORNBIO seems to be a good set of guidelines to me, and this article clearly does not pass under them. Beyond that guideline though, this article makes no assertion of particular notability and has no secondary sources, so fails under the more general guidelines of WP:BIO anyway. -Markeer 12:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom.--Edtropolis 14:42, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Jagger[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 09:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom.--Edtropolis 14:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom.scope_creep 14:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: does the 189 movies (SFW) sound as too low? I am aware that the required movies # was moved up an down and finally removed but if nobody cared nobody would produce the movies. Is the porn crusade really needed? Pavel Vozenilek 23:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that people overemphasize the easiness to shoot a porn and underestimate how hard could it be to sell and to do it consistently over long period. Shelf space is always limited and to convince people to pay for what is available over the Internet is not that easy. Pavel Vozenilek 23:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL 02:05, 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, almost reluctantly, no consensus. Reading this was actually a pain, with the keep side and the delete side just attacking each other. Here are the facts:

1. NEITHER side bothering to fix the article until Noroton did on the 5th day. This means that I had to give more weight to conversation afterward.

2. Do the references pass notability? It depends how much a high school needs to show in its article to be notable. Certainly there's less needed than in elementary schools. It passes sourcing, but does it pass notability? I don't know.

3. Is AfD'ing an article 3 minutes after creation in bad faith? Yes. Is whining about it and subsequently leaving the article in that shape also acting in bad faith? Yes.

4. In terms of arguments, the delete side was slightly stronger, but I'm reluctant to go either way on this due to all the civility problems.

What this needs most of all is a cool-down period and possibly a new AfD nomination a month or so down the road, since it was fixed up so late. I'm disappointed by both sides though.--Wizardman 03:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Middle/High School[edit]

NN middle school/high school, recreated after prod. Morgan Wick 03:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The nominator seems to be laboring under the misconception that this is a middle school. It is a combined middle AND high school. As the AfD was created within a mere three minutes of the article's creation, without any opportunity provided to expand the article beyond a stub, it would seem that this nomination is in staggeringly bad faith. Alansohn 03:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Additional material added to establish notability addresses any and all issues raised by teh nominator and by those who have voted to delete the article, despite the rapid-fire nomination. Alansohn 16:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? I don't see any notability. Semantic debates and (considering the prod) timing issues have nothing to do with it. Morgan Wick 04:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article was created and then nominated three minutes later. There's semantics and then there's a display of bad faith. The apparent failure to look at the article, as evidenced by the hasty correction of the nomination, seems to be further evidence of bad faith. Alansohn 04:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What sort of "bad faith" could possibly be involved? I didn't even see the earlier version of the article. Morgan Wick 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You need some reasons why starting an AfD three minutes after an article was created is in bad faith? Let's take a look at Wikipedia:New pages patrol and tick off a few problems: 1) "Special:Newpages logs new pages as they are created. It is advisable to patrol new pages from the bottom of the first page of the log. This should give the creating editor enough time to improve a new page before a patroller attends to it, particularly if the patroller tags the page for speedy deletion. Tagging anything other than attack pages or complete nonsense a minute after creation is not constructive and only serves to annoy the page author."; 2) "Improving new pages: Style problems. First, try to fix any style problems yourself. If you cannot, add one or more specific cleanup tags for pages which need tidying up. In particular, the following tags are common:... {{unreferenced|article}} -- for articles that conspicuously lack references."; 3) "Articles without sources The best time to ask for sources is when an article is fresh and the contributor is still around to ask about the origin of the information in it. Tag articles with {{unreferenced}} and let the contributor know with {{subst:sources-warn}}, or try to find some yourself. If there aren't any, it might need to be deleted." Note that article "might need to be deleted" only after legitimate attempts have been made to obtain sources.; 4) "Be hesitant to list articles on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion if there's a chance they could be improved and made into a meaningful article. Tag them for cleanup instead. Try not to step on people's toes. Many times, users will start an article as the briefest of stubs, and then expand it over the succeeding hours or days." There is a well-defined process for handling new articles. Read and learn. Alansohn 20:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 04:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keep. This article ~~obviously fails~~ in its revised form now satisfies WP:N due to multiple, nontrivial ~~as notability is not even asserted, so it should be speedied, and it fails WP:V as none of the asserted facts are cited to~~ reliable sources. Also, could we please try to assume good faith and lay off the bullying and rhetoric? This is a place to discuss content, not other users. Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When an editor nominates an article for deletion three minutes after creation of a stub, there is simply no time to add the sources necessary to establish notability. This AfD is some of the most shameless bad faith I've seen. Alansohn 04:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually you had five days before that to establish notability, as this page existed before, was prodded, and was deleted. And you knew that. Evidently the five days that the prod was up wasn't enough for you either, or else it wouldn't have been deleted. And even if it hadn't been sourced, could you have at least tried to assert notability? On Wikipedia, we tag pages for speedy deletion and prod them the instant they're created (I could cite a gazillion examples but they tend to be, well, deleted); I see no reason why AfD should be any different. Don't use a long series of edits to get an article to the state you want it in; use the Preview function if need be. You better be ready to defend it the instant you create it. Morgan Wick 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did not know that. If you had ever created an article here on Wikipedia, You would know that's not the case. This article wasn't prod'ed. You clearly hadn't even read the article and nominated it for deletion three minutes after creation. You could have tried to wait a few minutes more, but you failed to do so. When you nominate an article you have to be prepared to justify your actions and you have utterly failed to do so. Three minutes is shameless. Alansohn 04:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - This version was never prod'd, but a prior version was. And you knew, at the very least, the article had existed before and been deleted, because when you recreated it it was with an edit summary of "recreate article", as I've already cited before. Now, I think you might have a better chance at getting your "time" to establish notability (which, again, YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE BEFORE YOU (RE)CREATED THE ARTICLE IN THE FIRST PLACE - you actually have all the time in the world to write an article to your standards before you send it in, did you know that?) if you actually, I don't know, ESTABLISH it (you do have another 5 days, this isn't speedy, sheesh) instead of questioning my faith when even a cursory glance at the facts causes your argument to fall apart. Morgan Wick 05:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:CIVIL. That's all I'm going to say. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and bulk up High Schools are inherently notable as are all towns and cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

There is no consensus that high schools are or are not inherently notable, as evidenced by their frequent deletion at AfD. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting an article up for deletion three minutes after creation is inherently uncivil. Alansohn 06:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not that is true, it doesn't excuse others from compliance with WP:CIVIL. And some might argue that it is inherently uncivil for an experienced editor to post an article that obviously does not comply with WP:N and WP:V, to the point where speedy deletion is appropriate. --Butseriouslyfolks 08:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Where does it say that in WP:CIVIL? I'm sure the many newpage patrollers that tag pages for speedy deletion or prodding within one minute after creation would love to know that they've been "inherently uncivil". And I hope you removed my comments unintentionally, instead of trying to prove a point by doing so. Morgan Wick 06:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You still refuse to justify your utterly uncivil actions. You put up for deletion an article that you clearly never read, as you have had to do research to correct your inaccurate nomination and come up with rationalizations after the fact to justify why you had created this AfD. Was the nomination unintentional, perhaps? The fact that other individuals are even less civil than you are does not justify putting up an article for deletion three minutes after creation. Alansohn 07:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um, AfD nominations are rather complex and involved for them to be made "unintentionally". You keep resorting to ad hominem attacks (and demonstrating your complete unfamiliarity with Wikipedia deletion process) instead of actually demonstrating the subject's notability. The entire text of the article, aside from a listing of the administration and some external links, is "Clayton High School are a comprehensive community public high school that serves students in ninth through twelfth grades from Clayton, in Gloucester County, New Jersey, United States, as part of the Clayton Public Schools." That doesn't sound like it's more notable than any other high school. Now, you have a choice. You can demonstrate why the subject of this article is notable and deserves to have a Wikipedia article, or at least why you felt it deserved one (because surely you would never create an article if you didn't think it belonged in Wikipedia, being the experienced, dating-to-2005 editor you are, right?) or you can continue questioning my motives on incredibly shaky grounds. Morgan Wick 07:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, a few random examples of articles tagged for speedy or prod within five minutes or less of creation, most of which might not survive for you to see them: [19] (admittedly by me) [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] ...need I go on? Morgan Wick 07:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think I will: [26] [27]. Morgan Wick 07:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless non-trivial coverage or reliable sources documenting multiple notable alumni can be found. Also regarding the timing of the AfD: sources are not an afterthought which you go looking for a few days after you've created an article, they should be used for every single fact you put into the article in the first place starting from the first edit. Articles which lack sources and assertions of notability not only run the risk of being put up for AfD quickly, they run the risk of getting immediately speedily deleted. cab 10:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly what I've been trying to tell this guy. Morgan Wick 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The article should be merged into a more encompassing article on the school district. See Wyoming Area for an example. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 13:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as failing WP:V, WP:NN. At very first glance I was going to agree (rare as that is) with Alansohn that AfDing a high school article three minutes after creation is indeed obnoxious. I'm afraid my view's flipped 180 degrees when I see that Alansohn recreated a deleted article. He is no rookie, and should know better both to recreate a deleted article as an unreferenced stub almost entirely lacking in content, and to keep on hammering on the three minutes point knowing full well that the article had far longer than that to be sourced and receive more than barebones content. While we're citing rules, how about the one that it is up to the editors who want to save a threatened article to provide proper sourcing and content? Ravenswing 13:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I did not know the previous article existed, and I did know it had been deleted. In response to a request from a new user, I created the article, with the indication that the user had committed to expand the article with addition material as he has done for dozens of other school articles. I only discovered that the article had been deleted when I clicked on "edit" and saw a mention that an earlier article had been deleted. I have no idea what was (or was not) in this earlier article and had no expectation that the article would stay as a stub for long. While it is possible to create an article as a user page and then make it a regular page after the article has been improved to meet the demands of the instant deleters, it is far more difficult to collaborate with other Wikipedia editors in this manner. I'd love to create fully-formed Featured Article candidates as new articles, but any non-rookie editor would know that that is not the case. 99.99% of the best articles on Wikipedia start as stubs. Featured Article Buckingham Palace began with seven words. While Clayton Middle/High School is no Buckingham Palace, three minutes is simply an unreasonable and unjustifiable period of time in which to create a fully-formed article. Alansohn 13:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You go tell that guy he can create his own new articles. And that's the sort of thing you should have said at the very start of this debate, or at least when I brought up that the article was deleted before, so you didn't come off as uncivil and skirting the issues I was raising. I'm a bit skeptical we should be creating articles for new users at all, certainly when we don't know why we should (if you wouldn't vote for it on an AfD you shouldn't create it for them), but I'm baffled why those people don't make that clear at the start when those pages are inevitably listed on AfD. I don't expect articles to be fully-formed featured articles at creation, but a good stub article should have at least a claim to notability, while this has none. Morgan Wick 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stop already with the 3 minutes. From the time it was nominated until right now has been over 12 hours. Instead of sitting on the AfD hitting refresh to every reply, get some reliable sources and improve the article to keep it (although I highly doubt this Middle/High School is notable anyways -- listing links to the homepage of the school does not count for notability). This article will NEVER survive if you just sit here arguing, without backing up your claim. If you just recreated it for a different user, then it should be on them to assert it's notability, but since you have been arguing over 12 hours on this, you apparantly have some sort of interest in the article. Get in gear and work on the article instead of going back and forth and accomplishing nothing. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: A system that places a gun at the head of any individual creating an article by allowing creation of an AfD within three minutes is unjustifiable. The individual who requested the article has been adding sources and other material demonstrating notability to area schools and noticed that this article didn't exist. The burden is on the user who asked for this article to establish notability. I don't blame the newbie who requested the article for backing away from this inherently destructive process and the abusive editors who won't tolerate a stub. Where are these perfect articles supposed to sprout from in under three minutes? What is your interest in deleting this article? Alansohn 16:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My intent? How about keeping crap off of wikipedia when I see it? Having to argue with you is a waste of my time, and I refuse to do it any longer. Either assert it's notability by providing WP:RS or it's going to be deleted, simple as that. You repeatedly doing this non-sense about 3 minutes is complete absurdity. I don't care if it was nominated .00000000001 seconds after creation. It must be NOTABLE to stay in Wiki. Assert the notability. Prove it should stay. If you reply again with your same nonsense, it will just show you are not able to assert notability, and just wasting everyone's time. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:N is not part of the Afd deletion criteria. - T-75|talk|contribs 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another nn school. Eusebeus 16:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not a Wikipedia expert so I don't know how to use those WP:xx reasons every one seems to be giving, but here's what I can say: There is no reason to put this article up for deletion yet. As Alansohn has said repeatedly, it was only up for three minutes. Give me a break. High schools are important entities that should be included in Wikipedia because many of them, especially in South Jersey (an old and historic part of the US), have deep roots with their respective towns and are rich in tradition and history. If anyone looks at the edits I'VE made since I first started using Wikipedia it won't take them long to see that I'm obviously a Woodbury resident and that I have a vested interest in both the town's page as well as its high school's page. But, one will also see that I frequently edit and contribute to MANY South Jersey high schools' pages (ask Alansohn). If Clayton Middle/High School were to be kept up, I promise that I will add anything relevant or useful to it as time progresses, just like I've done with other schools. I can't promise a long, extensive write-up on it right away, but I (as well as other future contributors) will definitely be adding to it. Keep this article to let it grow! Nothing starts out immediately perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrcla2 (talk • contribs)
- It would really help if you started doing that now, while the AfD is still going. Morgan Wick 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claims of notability, should have been speedy deleted per the CSD rules about non-notable organizations (Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content). Alansohn is being disingenuous by trying to claim that the article was only up for three minutes when it had to have been on PROD for five days before it was deleted, and he knew it had been here before since his creation edit summary said recreation. Regardless of the semantics of who is or is not being civil, the fact of the matter is that Alansohn would rather argue about the merits of the nomination rather than the merits of the article and its subject. Until reliable sources are produced that this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill school, it should be deleted. Corvus cornix 17:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alansohn has already spoken for himself on some of those points above, under Ravenswing's comment. Morgan Wick 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the "new editor" had been here 7 months and had over 400 edits. --Butseriouslyfolks 17:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I have. But I never studied the wiki how-to's or sat down to learn an in-depth understanding of everything. I basically know how to edit, upload pictures and create links. And most of that I learned through trial and error. In regards to the 400+ edits, most of them are minor touch-ups or one-line links, it's not like I was sitting there writing paragraphs for 400 edits.

400 edits is a fairly slow week for many editors; spread out over seven months it's a very small body of work to be promoted past a newbie. A review of the user's edit history, which (as I read it) shows that he has never created a new article, a read of the individual's request and of his comments above, should help wipe off the uncivil tone of the "new editor" remarks. Alansohn 18:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, it's the old trial lawyers' adage: if your client is unpleasant, argue the fine points of the law; if the facts are against you, argue pathos and human factors. Ravenswing 17:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And when that doesn't work, start slinging insults with self-righteous truculence. Eusebeus 18:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the saying goes, if the facts are against you, pound the law. If the law is against you, pound the facts. If the facts and the law are against you, pound the table. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And when you have absolutely nothing to say, quote trite, but meaningless, adages. No facts, no law. I assume that's why all of you are pounding the table? Alansohn 20:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That glove's a bit small on me. Perhaps you should try it on? --Butseriouslyfolks 21:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And when you have absolutely nothing to say a second time, quote trite, but meaningless, adages. No facts, no law. I assume that's why all of you are pounding the table and pulling on the gloves? How about addressing the Wikipedia:New pages patrol listed up top. while you're working on witty ripostes. Alansohn 21:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to say? You're missing a good AfD. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have to admire the tenacity despite the vacuity. Let's wait for the "votes" to be declared invalid next.... Eusebeus 22:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the ability to ignore multiple violations of Wikipedia:New pages patrol that I find most impressive. The silence on these multiple violations speaks volumes. Alansohn 18:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get excited. We just don't think it applies. --Butseriouslyfolks 22:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a pathetic joke? Why should anyone else observe Wikipedia policy if all one needs to do is wave it off with an excuse of "We just don't think it applies"? Alansohn 04:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstood. We're not rushing to explain the perceived NPP vios because we don't agree with your position that those guidelines apply to this situation. You might as well ask us to explain all of the WP:TPG violations, then dance about giddily when the resulting silence speaks volumes. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is a new page patroller. The Wikipedia:New pages patrol lays out clear policy for how new pages are to be handled. These rules were violated. Which part doesn't apply? For which situation do they apply and why don't they apply here? Putting an article up for AfD three minutes after creation is inexcusable and inherently uncivil. Excusing the violations doesn't help. Alansohn 05:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I've just looked over this WP:NPP a couple times now, and for the life of me, I can't find a single sentence referencing this checklist as being a "policy" or "rules" for which one can claim "violations" (I did note that the entire first paragraph explicitly pertains to not biting newcomers, which tends to suggest that the stroking of veteran editors' sensibilities wasn't foremost in the minds of the author/s). Could you kindly point me to the section of that page which does proclaim WP:NPP to be policy, or to a section anywhere enacting a time frame within which filing an AfD is prima facie uncivil, failing any other consideration? Thanks. Ravenswing 07:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, the nominator's proudly proclaims himself as a member of the Wikipedia:New pages patrol and seems to take some delight and pride in being an active member. While I have rather low expectations of other individuals (which have been met with great frequency), the nominator does not abide by the rules, policies and procedures he himself has adopted. It is these violations that are prima facie uncivil. Alansohn 12:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What? When did WP:NPP become a sacred fraternity with initiation rites and contracts? I thought "The patrol is entirely voluntary and carries no obligation," but maybe I imagined that part of WP:NPP. Anyone can flip through Special:Newpages and look for articles in need of improvement or tagging for deletion, and consider themselves new-pages patrollers. Do I need to cite a more current round of examples of pages nominated for speedy or prod within five minutes of creation? Morgan Wick 06:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a speedy deletion candidate. Speedy deletion criteria do not cover schools, which are not really organisations. People are too fond of pushing speedy deletion without realising that it doesn't cover every class of article (or maybe trying to fool the rest of us into thinking it does). This criterion is intended to cover such things as fan clubs, university societies and minor pressure and political groups, not edifices such as schools. -- Necrothesp 22:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Clayton Public Schools. Then set up redirects for this and Clayton Middle School and at Clayton High School (a disambig page), just in case someone wants to create stubs for those as well. Too short a stub, extremely unlikely to be expanded to a good article with so little notability. Little to nothing notable per WP:SCHOOL (athletics, academics, location, design, alumni, facilities, news reports, other accomplishments, etc.). Ranked 219th out of 356 schools - therefore notable(?) for being in the bottom third of their class? Seriously now, you want people to know this? --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm T-dot, sounds to me like I'd be "promoting" Clayton High School if I were to knowingly leave out a FACT that doesn't represent the school well. Just because they're in the bottom third in the state doesn't mean that it's not something that can't go on Wikipedia. Now, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of this website to include all human knowledge about every possible subject, regardless of if it's a positive or negative fact? Like I said, give this page time and you'll see the good appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrcla2 (talk • contribs)

Actually, the point of this website is not to include all knowledge. It's supposed to be a digital analog (pun intended) of an encyclopedia, so it's supposed to be a good overview that could be used as a reference. It's not supposed to be comprehensive. I know you've been here a while, but I don't think I'm out of line in asking you to read through WP:WWIN for some categories of knowledge that are inappropriate for posting at Wikipedia. As for the specific example here, if the school were notable for being low quality, that might warrant a mention, and it might be POV pushing to omit that fact. But I don't think either the school or its ranking are sufficiently notable for inclusion here. If a school was consistently ranked last (or close to last), and that fact was picked up and discussed in a nontrivial manner by newspapers or other published sources, both the school and its ranking would probably be notable. Hope that helps. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think my point was that the only in-situ claim for notability, other than perhaps the short list of non-notable executive staff members, is that the school is essentially in the bottom third in the state. This is not particularly inherently notable, either for grandiose goodness or blithering badness, which notability in a school might require. Perhaps if it was DEAD LAST out of 356 schools - now that might be entertaining for the world to see. Anyway, although you raise a great point, I don't see selectively including or excluding the "School Digger" ranking statistics as particularly POV - unless perhaps someone from the rival school across town and ranked in the top 5% was posting it to make a point after losing to them in a baseball game or something. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above discussion.--trey 19:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Svetovid 20:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for my usual reasons. -- Necrothesp 00:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, solid reasons Necro. Good work. -jrcla2

Close this AfD without prejudice, tag for notability, and give the author, and others, a reasonable chance to improve it before relisting. Come on, 3 minutes before opening an AfD for a school article! What's the hurry? Dhaluza 17:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Certainly those advocating Keep feel no hurry. It's been three days now, and the article still hasn't budged a jot. The previous version hadn't budged from an empty stub either. Ravenswing 17:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindsight is 20-20, but Morgan Wick's nom sure looks spot on now. How prescient! --Butseriouslyfolks 17:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but when exactly did WP become a contest with winners and losers and time limits? I thought a wiki was supposed to be a collaborative process, where people help each other to create something greater than the sum of its separate parts. Silly me. What's the problem with sticking a notability tag on this, and helping the author understand what is expected. It's not hard to see why people may give up on editing articles when the hungry vultures are circling waiting for unwitting victims they can pounce on. Dhaluza 00:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points, Dhaluza. Perspective, people! --Butseriouslyfolks 16:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationalization acknowledges that the nomination was improper and that it is only via "hindsight" that the multiple WP:New pages patrol violations can be "justified", and that otherwise it would be improper. I wouldn't blame anyone for being reluctant to try to improve an article in the face of a refusal to acknowledge the impropriety and inherent incivility of nominating an article three minutes after creation. After the pack has moved on to another kill, there will be ample time to recreate the article to meet the consensus standards of notability. Alansohn 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you announce in advance that you plan to violate the rules and recreate a deleted article? While I shan't address the contradiction inherent in loudly proclaiming the inviolability of a custom while trampling over black-letter policy, to refuse to improve an article while an AfD is underway only to claim that you'll do so when "backs are turned" is nothing short of petulance. This is neither a playground or a schoolyard, and we're out of elementary school. It is no bullying to ask for proper sourcing for articles -- that is what AfD is bloody about in the first place -- nor yet to suggest that doing so is a more proper way to save an article than whining about the unfairness of it all. We wouldn't swallow that from a SPA newbie; why do you think it is any more attractive behavior from a veteran? Ravenswing 05:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I especially love how his accusing me and others of rationalizing away "violations" of something that isn't even a guideline is itself a way of rationalizing away the fact that he created an article on the suggestion of another user without knowing a thing about it, including whether it was notable. Morgan Wick 06:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Back to the article. There are some problems with the article, and, personally, I don't care how they get corrected as long as they do get corrected, but the article cannot really be kept until they are. So it would seem that the best time is here and now. The 2 problems are that first, only directory information is given, and we do not keep articles about subjects unless there is something notable. Typically a high school has an involvement with the community, some notable sports teams, some notable alumni. Generally there is something worth saying about how & when the school was built. But there has to be more than student & teacher count & building size & names of the staff. The second problem is that there needs to be sources to show that the notability is recognized outside the immediate community. One or two good newspaper articles from more than the town paper are want is usual.

If the 2 requirements are met, the article will be kept. If they are not, it won't be. If they can't be met now, the article can be re-created when the information is available. But there is no point in re-creating it without the necessary additional material, for it will be quickly deleted. People keep track, and notice.

There is a good deal wrong with the speed at which articles can get removed, and suggestions for how to do better are always welcome. But there isn't any actual harm here, because as it is the article cannot really be kept, & it doesn't seem you have the material at hand. So either find the material now, or find it later, or most likely of all add a little to the section for the school on the Clayton Public Schools article, and expand into a separate article when ready. Everyone will be glad to see a good article.DGG 06:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Number one, articles about high schools are not unusual. Nearly every person of note in this world graduated from a high school, and nearly every city on Earth has a senior high school that is an important part of its community. The deletor appears to have had some "issues" with the author even before this discussion began, and I don't think that's a reason for deletion. I agree that it's kind of weird that the article was deleted, and then recommended for deletion as soon as it was posted again. It's either an incredible coincidence, or somebody was waiting. I don't like that type of practice. If the article needs to be fixed up, fix it up-- there's no 12 day deadline or whatever to perfect an article. Mandsford 23:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What? What "issues"? I hadn't even encountered this guy before. The only reason Alansohn was screaming "bad faith!" earlier in this discussion was because he found some errors in its initial listing and thought "oh, he must just be out to get me!" Take a look at User talk:Jrcla2 where he calls me "some jerk" - I doubt he'd use that exact wording if he'd had problems with me before. Morgan Wick 06:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this is the nominator's 15th response in this discussion. When one presupposes to bulldoze someone else's house, one should expect some opposition from the builder. At this point, you have written more words in defense of your original nomination... than had ever been written about the Clayton Middle/High School. Suggestion: change title to "Clayton High School" (as it's referred to in the press, and mention that it has a middle school as well).Mandsford 12:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I have no idea who the nominator is or was, nor have I ever knowingly dealt with this individual in any other context. The only reason I am screaming bad faith is because the nomination -- submitted within three minutes of creation of the article -- was made in inherent bad faith, in violation of the protocols and guidelines of the WP:New pages patrol the nominator so proudly participates in. The nominator has steadfastly refused to consider the possibility that it was his failure to follow the rules he has signed up for -- which explicitly dictate that an appropriate amount of time should be allowed to improve an article before trying to destroy it and that efforts should be made to help improve the article -- that have created this problem. If your house were surrounded by a pack of bulldozer operators threatening to knock down your house, would you start building a second and third floor, in the hope that the pack will leave you alone, or would you just walk away and start anew after the bulldozers move on to knock down houses in some other neighborhood? I know what I would do. Alansohn 15:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're a builder whose house is about to be destroyed, do you appeal to the bulldozing company about the family that will be displaced from the house and the historical nature of the house, or do you make baseless charges that the bulldozing company is out to get you and didn't follow a process that isn't law and that no one follows anyway? (Okay, so some people might actually do the second part, but which will net you more favorable coverage on the local news?) Morgan Wick 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Not only are all high schools inherently notable because of the wealth of independent information that high schools inevitably generate in their local community, but this appears to be an inappropriate nomination (which is not a comment on the motives of the nominator). It's ironic that more work (and certainly more emotion) has gone into this discussion than into the article itself. Noroton 14:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are several of us now who have made exactly that point. Ravenswing 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: WOW! Another convert to the "all high schools are notable" side who agrees that this nomination was inappropriate. Congratulations, RG! Alansohn 15:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, a convert to the premise that you have (a) repeatedly been called upon, in vain, to point out where WP:NPP is declared to be policy; (b) repeatedly been the subject of a suggestion that your energies can and should have been directed to sourcing the article; and (c) that for someone who here as elsewhere repeatedly waves the bad faith flag, it is no less than hypocritical to claim (as you did in your most recent edit summary) in breach of WP:AGF that Delete voters would not change their positions even were the article to be properly sourced. I for one would, and have in the past on school AfDs when proper sourcing arrived. I'd review WP:OWN were I you; there are no "enemies" here, people who disagree with you aren't packs of rabid dogs, and this isn't (in theory, anyway) an adversarial process. Ravenswing 15:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never claimed to WP:OWN this article; As stated repeatedly above, it was created at the request of another user who had planned on expanding the article, but didn't have a chance to do so within the alloted three minutes. Wikipedia:New pages patrol lays out a rather clear policy for addressing potentially non-notable articles. A few highlughts include 1) "Special:Newpages logs new pages as they are created. It is advisable to patrol new pages from the bottom of the first page of the log. This should give the creating editor enough time to improve a new page before a patroller attends to it, particularly if the patroller tags the page for speedy deletion. Tagging anything other than attack pages or complete nonsense a minute after creation is not constructive and only serves to annoy the page author."; 2) "Improving new pages: Style problems. First, try to fix any style problems yourself. If you cannot, add one or more specific cleanup tags for pages which need tidying up. In particular, the following tags are common:... {{unreferenced|article}} -- for articles that conspicuously lack references."; 3) "Articles without sources The best time to ask for sources is when an article is fresh and the contributor is still around to ask about the origin of the information in it. Tag articles with {{unreferenced}} and let the contributor know with {{subst:sources-warn}}, or try to find some yourself. If there aren't any, it might need to be deleted." Note that article "might need to be deleted" only after legitimate attempts have been made to obtain sources.; 4) "Be hesitant to list articles on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion if there's a chance they could be improved and made into a meaningful article. Tag them for cleanup instead. Try not to step on people's toes. Many times, users will start an article as the briefest of stubs, and then expand it over the succeeding hours or days." Our nominator, a proud, active member of this group (see Morgan Wick, where the WP:NPP tag is the first item on the page), refused to follow these guidelines, and does not recognize that proposing an article three minutes after creation might be inherently uncivil, regardless of participation in this group. As User:Noroton has wonderfully demonstrated, there are dozens of sources regarding this school, several of which have been added. There is no way that they could have been added within the three minutes alloted. Given the persistent refusal of many participants to consider notability as an option, regardless of the number or quality of sources, it will be interesting to see how many (or few) of those clamoring for sources can now justify their stand. Alansohn 16:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment I just did a Google News Archives search (Go to Google, go to Google News, click on "archives" at left once you've done the Google News search for "Clayton High" and Gloucester). I came up with dozens upon dozens of articles about various features of Clayton High School appearing in the Philadelphia Inquirer since the mid-1980s (along with a lot of minor references, but there are 71 articles in total). Unfortunately, each article costs about $3 to access. There is no doubt that this high school has received coverage establishing its notability. Then again, there never is any doubt of that with any high school, which is why they're all inherently notable. Noroton 15:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Notability is now established with multiple, reliable, independent news articles giving substantial coverage to the school. There is no longer a notability argument for this deletion discussion. I ask those previously in favor of deletion to look over the article again and reconsider. Noroton 16:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My opinion has not changed by viewing these "sources". Those sources don't establish any sort of notability whatsoever. (edit) Here is my reasoning. My high school, which was around 400 students, in a small town of 6500, had the same type of coverage when the Middle school received fiber-optic lines so we could have a class taught by a teacher in the next town over by using TV/microphones. However, that isn't anything special, and my high school is not now, or ever was, notable. I strongly disagree with those articles establishing anything special about the school. I love my high school, especially the teachers there, because I went there, just like you go to this high school...but no matter how much you love it, that does not make it notable. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response:sumjim, in your comments higher up you specifically cited WP:N and said the article needed verifiable, reliable, independent sources, and I quote: Instead of sitting on the AfD hitting refresh to every reply, get some reliable sources and improve the article to keep it (although I highly doubt this Middle/High School is notable anyways -- listing links to the homepage of the school does not count for notability). This article will NEVER survive if you just sit here arguing, without backing up your claim. If you just recreated it for a different user, then it should be on them to assert it's notability, but since you have been arguing over 12 hours on this, you apparantly have some sort of interest in the article. Get in gear and work on the article instead of going back and forth and accomplishing nothing. Now that I've done just what you requested I see you're raising the bar higher. I see no reason to question your good faith, if only because in a long discussion people can get confused and even change their minds. But regardless of your motives, your argument now lacks credibility. You should think about it and either change your mind or show how your inconsistency is justified. Again, I'm not addressing you or your character, just your arguments. Noroton 16:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not raising the bar higher, or changing my reasoning. Just because a newspaper wrote an article about the school (ie: getting videoconferencing cameras) does not make it notable. The middle school of my 6,000 population town got that 12 years ago. Nothing special. If the NY Times wrote an article on page 54 about a student who skipped school that day, would that make the school notable? Nope. You have to look at the article in question and see what it's about. if it's trivial, then it doesn't count. I'm sorry to say, but your school is NOT NOTABLE --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 19:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I never went to the school and have nothing to do with it.Noroton 17:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're raising the bar higher because nobody forced you to cite WP:N, which has a definition of notability that you're now ignoring. It also has a definition of "trivial" coverage that you're also now ignoring. Then you suggested that you'd change your vote if only notability standards could be met. You also repeatedly urged that efforts be made to meet the criteria in WP:N and WP:RS. I repeat: You encouraged editors to make improvements to the article to meet THOSE standards. And now you won't admit what's plainly in black and white with your Wikipedia signature on it. "If the NY Times wrote an article on page 54 about a student who skipped school that day, would that make the school notable?" Well if that's what you believe, why didn't you say that when you cited WP:N? Or did you read WP:N before you cited it? You could say you weren't careful, or you could say you changed your mind, but you can't say you've been consistent. Why should we take your statements seriously if you don't? Noroton 20:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are taking this way too seriously. At this point, I don't even understand what you are trying to say. Yes, I told you to to get WP:RS, however just because a newspaper wrote an article about something that virtually every school has these days, does not make it special, or notable. Big whoopdie doo, the school has cameras. That is not notable, no matter which way you slice it. This school has does NOTHING special to garner attention, there is NO ONE now or before that has does anything notable (at least we don't know unless there are sources to confirm there has been). I've said my peace, and I doubt I need to reiterate the same thing over again. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 20:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of WP:N is not to show that an article meets YOUR standards of notability but that it meets the standards of notability of reliable, independent sources who are willing to publish reliable information on the subject of the article. So when you urge others to improve the article and provide a link in your comment to WP:N, indicating that WP:N is your standard, you are misleading those others by then setting up your own personal standards without telling us. In WP:N the point of demonstrating that there is independent coverage of a subject is to show that some responsible third party cares about the subject of the article, not that the coverage itself shows the subject to be the best thing since sliced bread. I agree that there's some room for subjective judgments in Wikipedia, but this isn't one of them. Noroton 20:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion has not changed, either. Creating a cable show? Having counseling? Still no notability. Corvus cornix 16:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above as well. Eusebeus 16:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebeus, your initial posting on this page reads: "Delete as another nn school. Eusebeus 16:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)" and "nn" in your post is a link to WP:N. I specifically met the criteria of WP:N, so, just like sumjim, you give your objection, I meet your objection and ... what? New objection? Problem with the way I met your objection? Again, as with sumjim, I'm not questioning your motives, but your contradictory stances don't contribute to the discussion. Again, please give it more thought. Noroton 17:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does confer notability, because it's not our subjective call whether a subject is notable. WP:N is defined as significant coverage by WP:RS. If a major metropolitan newspaper has determined that a subject is newsworthy, it satisfies WP:N, even though we might think the reasons for coverage are marginal or worse. --Butseriouslyfolks 16:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is up to editors to consider sources and not just accept everything someone, even for a newspaper, wrote.--Svetovid 17:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess a major metropolitan newspaper writing multiple news stories about the school just isn't terribly reliable, is it? What higher standards would you propose?Noroton 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a general approach and a good one at that so no need for sarcasm, which does not prove anything. See CRITICAL EVALUATION OF RESOURCES for example.--Svetovid 20:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no -- once we've established that it's The Philadelphia Inquirer, a major metropolitan daily -- the onus is on YOU to show it's an unreliable source. And for purposes of THIS discussion about deletion on the basis of non-notability, when notability is defined at WP:N as having a reliable, independent source of information giving substantial coverage to a school on multiple occasions, it's a wee bit hard to say that that didn't take place, given the Web links. Did they cover the school multiple times in substantial ways as defined by WP:N or not? If you have doubts, please state them. Noroton 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the people above have made the point that most high schools receive similar coverage. In other words, if WP:RS alone is your sole standard of notability, you're advocating the "all high schools are notable" tack. Morgan Wick 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Good thing we're not a paper encyclopedia. Noroton 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't follow, as plenty of high school articles are deleted on notability grounds. (See Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive for examples. Many of those had the benefit of experienced inclusionist editors searching in vain for WP:RS to show WP:N.) So what we do is examine each one on its own merits, just like any other subject at Wikipedia. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a high school is in a poorer, more rural area, the local newspapers are less likely to have much of a footprint on the Web, therefore those of us who search for that stuff online are less likely to see it. But it is not possible for a high school to exist in the United States without multiple, independent reports about it (off line). Not possible. So we're really just playing a game here when it comes to deciding what's notable enough under the current Wikipedia notability rules. And really, we all know it. We know that there is reliable information on a public school's own Web site because it's just a little too difficult to lie much as a local government agency. We also know that the No Child Left Behind Act mandates that reports be generated on every school. But we prefer to do this dance. Noroton 20:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- All of this reasoning fails utterly to convince me since schools are generally not notable. If the topic is inherently unnotable, trying to satisfy the exigencies laid out at WP:N is irrelevant. The German, French and other foreign langauge wikipedias do not accept most schools as notable, and I agree with the logic of those arguments. Disagree - that's fine. But don't pretend that somehow the guidelines of notability offer a magic solution for determining notability that trumps good judgment. That is absurd. Eusebeus 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebeus, you've completely avoided the question I asked you: Why did you cite WP:N if you really just want to make your own judgment? If only your personal judgment in each case is what you go by, then why should anyone try to start any article on any school if editors like you will come by later with some unpredictable judgment that the article should be deleted? What are your standards, if any? And why did you cite WP:N if you don't believe in it? Noroton 23:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apathetic Keep. I have read the article, all of it's sources and all of the mostly unnecessary comments in this AfD. I don't buy into the "all schools are notable" line of garbage, but I do have an issue with an article not being given the chance to prove itself. I have nominated more than just a few school for deletion in the past due to non-notability, but I prefer to give them a minimum of a few months to allow to article to grow and mature before I start the AfD proceedings.

I do not feel that the article currently meets notability guidelines, but there is enough information out that which suggests to me that this school has the potential for notability. I would like to see it given the chance to prove itself before deleting it. Trusilver 20:19, 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.--Wizardman 03:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Hill High School[edit]

unreferrenced, notability not demonstrated Mdbrownmsw 14:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 12:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - A high school is not notable as of itself. Consider merge into an article about the school district. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 13:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N as notability is not even asserted and WP:V as no asserted facts are cited to reliable sources. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup and expand. — RJH (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly merge some info.--Svetovid 20:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for my usual reasons. -- Necrothesp 00:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dozens of state sports championships and multiple notable alumni add up to a strong claim of notability. Alansohn 20:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn school. Eusebeus 22:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Will you share a particular reason why you feel that this particular school is not notable, or is this one of the "no schools are notable, regardless of the number or quality of sources" votes? Alansohn 23:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - the last two delete 'votes' will be ignored by any closing admin unless they are amplified to explain why the notability asserted and sourced in the article is not sufficient. TerriersFan 02:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Closing admins would have to be quite new not to know the extensive arguments back and forth on this debate, but have no fear TF, Alan will helpfully note that my vote doesn't count, since, as he knows, I am nada mas than a committed deletionist intent on ruining wikipedia as part of the deletionists general plan for world domination. Eusebeus 19:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have never made any claims about world domination being sought. The rest, about "ruining wikipedia", is dead-on accurate. Will you share a particular reason why you feel that this particular school is not notable, or is this yet another one of the "no schools are notable, regardless of the number or quality of sources" votes? Alansohn 05:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a high school with a long history, significant place in the community, notable athletics achievements and two notable alumni. TerriersFan 02:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd say this is a fairly well fleshed out article, and there is little point in merging it, then splitting it back out when it is expanded. If you object to it's WP:IMPERFECT state, improve it yourself, or leave it alone. Dhaluza 17:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as inherently notable, as I argue here. Noroton 14:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC) -- added link Noroton 23:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apathetic Keep. Although I don't subscribe to the whole "all schools are notable" garbage. I think that this article would have been better off with an expand tag than a deletion. I think that there is material here to suggest at least enough notability to warrant a rewrite and then reexamine it at a later time per WP:N. Trusilver 03:04, 19 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 Already redirected. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Glocal forum[edit]

There already exist a page named Glocal Forum (with F capital letter)I edited, being a member of the staff of The Glocal Forum. To the page Glocal Forum are already linked other pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talleyrandnet (talk • contribs) 2007/06/13 16:58:43

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:27, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H. Wood[edit]

Not up to par with Wikipedia's policy quite yet. Non-notable rapper and actor and the page, to me, reads like an advertisement or something. Fanficgurl 1:04 June 12 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC - When he achieves something, the article can reappear. - Tiswas^(t) 16:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, the primary contributor in the page history has no other edits, so he probably has a conflict of interest. Yechiel Man 18:58, 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 redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inferno match[edit]

This article provides no notable information that List of professional wrestling match types#Inferno match doesn't. The win/loss list is cruft under the guise of history, the Kane stuff is on his page, the whole second paragraph to the intro is OR. Article was PRODed for days, then contested. «»bd(^talk _stalk) 21:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete and redirect per nom. The second paragraph should probably be removed, but I think something is lost if this article is deleted altogether. Not much, though. Yechiel Man 19:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant & redirect' there is very little that's not already covered under the match type listing, add that there but remove the match results and the trivia unless it can be worked into it's entry under "Match types" MPJ-DK 16:03, 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. Sr 13 04:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshon[edit]

Possible Hoax, no sources cited and zero google hits for "Joshon" that indicates it is any hypothetical particle in physics or research at Cambridge. For a theory that supposedly has "received world wide acclaim" it cannot be verified easily. Wingsandsword 16:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. As per CSD:G1.--Edtropolis 15:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per CASD:G1 -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy D - Nonsense & not very good - Tiswas^(t) 16:18, 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.

Wrong namespace. Please use {{db-author}} or miscellany for deletion, also see WP:USER. --Dhartung | Talk 09:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Panosfidis[edit]

I quit user:Panosfidis

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:27, 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 Keep. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 18:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preston High School (West Virginia)[edit]

Unreferenced, no notability Mdbrownmsw 14:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 12:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High schools are generally considered inherently notable, especially when the article is more than a stub like this one. DarkAudit 13:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That is definitely not true. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The school does not appear to have any claim to notability. The content is all directory-style information and not at all suitable for an encyclopaedia. Dahliarose 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment erm, not now it isn't; all the directory information has been removed and replaced by sourced, encyclopaedic content. TerriersFan 23:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been much improved, is very well referenced and notability has been established. Dahliarose 23:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, all schools are not inherently notable. This one fails to establish any notability and there are no third party reliable sources which show that it's notable (such as awards it has won, famous alumni, anything. Give us something to work with.) Corvus cornix 17:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based upon Alansohn's edit. Corvus cornix 02:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N as notability is not even asserted and WP:V as no asserted facts are cited to reliable sources. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep new version of article as Blue Ribbon status satisfies WP:N. Thank you for creating a quality school article. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Eusebeus 19:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possible merge some info into relevant articles.--Svetovid 20:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for my usual reasons. -- Necrothesp 00:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a mildly encyclopedic subject with multiple non-trivial reliable sources. Burntsauce 19:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as updated, the article makes rather explicit and strong claims of notability with national recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, and multiple state athletic championships. This just might be the type of material that is "something to work with". Issues regarding "directory-style information" has been addressed. As with the overwhelming majority of high schools in the United States, there is ample material to demonstrate notability. It's amazing what can be found in just a few minutes when your goal is to improve articles. Alansohn 20:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that Alansohn fixed the article and showed its notability. I ask the deletors to rethink their stance, as their "vote" was for a very different version of the article now.--Wizardman 01:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as a Blue Ribbon school, and now it has been well sourced up. TerriersFan 02:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep blue ribbon schools are in the topmost percentile... they are therefore notable in my book. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. --Myles Long 00:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a "keep" vote above from some moron in the U.K. who reverts good faith edits to articles. Zero tolerance for arrogant power tripping geeks! Puppy Mill 00:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has improved dramatically from where it was at the time of the nomination. Trusilver 16:17, 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&redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Charles Stronge, 7th Baronet[edit]

No events of notability shown - existing and getting married does not pass WP:BIO possible redirect to Stronge Baronets. Vintagekits 14:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - JP, Deputy Lieutenant, High Sheriff and Baronet. Part of a series of articles, which it adds to.--Counter-revolutionary 22:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- all Baronets are automatically notable Astrotrain 07:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, According to a member of the Arbitration Committee and the Peerage Project The presumption of notability for peers has never rested on them being peers in itself, but rather on the fact that up until 1999 most hereditary peerages earned you a seat in a national legislature, and members of national legislatures are presumed notable. Baronets have no such claim, and individual baronets must attempt to meet WP:BIO as individuals], so baronets are not automatically notable. --Vintagekits 12:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - JPs and DLs are not automatically notable - Otherwise, this fella has done zip. Titles do not confer notability, unless awarded to that person - Tiswas^(t) 16:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and it says that where exactly? --Counter-revolutionary 16:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and it says that they are notable where exactly? - Tiswas^(t) 17:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per contra, baronets are inherently non-notable, and parasites on democracy -- SockpuppetSamuelson 09:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think that comment just speaks for itself! No reason actually given except a clear anti-aristocracy bias!--Counter-revolutionary 09:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As opposed to a clear pro-aristocracy bias. AfDs are not the place for discussing whether you like or disklike the subject, but whether the article satisfies various criteria for inclusion in wikipedia. - Tiswas^(t) 09:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it needs pointed out that a user's only reasoning is based on not liking it!.--Counter-revolutionary 09:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The reason given was "baronets are inherently non-notable", albeit embellished with redundant socio-political comment. I think we've already covered likes and disklikes- Tiswas^(t) 10:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. As per Counter.--Edtropolis 17:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Counter-revolutionary. JJL 17:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited at this level; as I have explained lengthily elsewhere, being a JP is beneath a municipal or circuit judge in the US, and a deputy lieutenant is a mid-level or minor county-level official. All in all, nn. Carlossuarez46 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not seen a Wikipedia policy or even a guideline which achieved consensus saying that "all Baronets, JPs, Deputy Lieutenants, or High Sheriffs are inherently notable on the basis of receiving or inheriting a title." Per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a genealogical site or a mirror site for a directory of people with listings in a peerage book. Where are reliable and independent sources with more than directory listings? Edison 19:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless this guy actually did something (rather than just inherited a title) I don't think he should be considered notable. If this is part of a "series" of articles I suggest a suitable redirect/merge. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 21:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect This was really unnecessary as it has already been determined in numerous afds now that Peers, Baronets or any other type of noble who have very little notability except their title should be redirected to the relevant page for that title. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 02:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of value or interest here - non-notable redirect to Stronge Baronets Giano 11:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Counter-Revolutionary. He was several things besides just a Baronet. Edward321 01:52, 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 & redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Roger Clifford, 7th Baronet[edit]

Reason No events of notability shown - existing and getting married does not pass WP:BIO possible redirect to Clifford Baronets. Vintagekits 14:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As suggestion by administrators.--Edtropolis 14:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - No notablity / achievements in his own right. Titles to not confer notability. Fails Pokemon test - Tiswas^(t) 16:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsourced WP:BLP about a non-notable guy: notability is not inherited at this low level and his marriage and issue - even his inability to produce a male heir to his title, but there's still time - are not notable. Carlossuarez46 18:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete" Per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is also not a genealogical site or a mirror site for a directory of people in a peerage book. This article does not even reference such a directory. Edison 19:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect This was really unnecessary as it has already been determined in numerous afds now that Peers, Baronets or any other type of noble who have very little notability except their title should be redirected to the relevant page for that title. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 02:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Baronets are inherently non-notable, and parasites on democracy -- SockpuppetSamuelson 09:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Clifford Baronets unless additional sourced info can be found showing individual notability. Edward321 01:59, 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 04:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free and Easy[edit]

Almost certainly a hoax - no evidence that the programme was ever considered, let alone made, and a non-broadcast show would be non-notable Stephenb (Talk) 08:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Dave Mash and Christopher Holton. I believe there's a consolidated hoaxing effort. Stephenb (Talk) 08:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if this is true, it never aired, and hence is not notable. There are thousands of shows that never make it to the air. --Hnsampat 10:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the original article is sound, but that subsequent edits are just vandalism. The show is worthy of consideration, just because it wasn't broadcast does not mean it had no notable impact. The ideas and style may have had an impact on future productions, as the article clearly states. By the criteria that because it didn't air so had no impact is an incorrect one, by that method articles such as Operation Sledgehammer should also be deleted because 'they only happened on paper'. --PraiseTheLordy 12:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, complete lack of sourcing, fails WP:NN. PraiseTheLordy's comments are pure speculation (quite aside from it being a single-user account whose sole contribution to Wikipedia is this AfD); no evidence that a forty-year old unaired pilot had any impact on, well, much of anything has been proffered. A Google search of "Free and Easy" + "Thames Television" on Google UK turns up only this article. RGTraynor 13:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article -- please note the implausible plots, and the overuse of really bad puns (e.g. "Diana Might") -- please delete as hoax (also applies to assocaited articles) -- SockpuppetSamuelson 09:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as WP:Complete Bollocks. Parts of the text have been cut & pasted from http://www.thesweeney.info/ so we have a WP:Copyvio here as well. Eddie.willers 12:33, 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 04:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Mash[edit]

Probably a hoax - no evidence that such a person existed, cited programmes never existed, non-notable bio Stephenb (Talk) 08:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Christopher Holton and Free and Easy. I believe there's a consolidated hoaxing effort. Stephenb (Talk) 08:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - By its own admission, this is about a "little-known" actor. "Little-known" = non-notable. (Also, I suspect it is a hoax, since the tattoo inscription actually translates to "Shilpa's birthday", which is a far-cry from "live life to its fullest.") --Hnsampat 10:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above, fails WP:BIO, probable hoax. Coronation Street does not, in fact, list him as a cast member, and the sole hit for his name on Google UK is this article. Ravenswing 13:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. As per CSD:G1 and A7.--Edtropolis 15:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Complete Bollocks. Kudos to Hnsampat for the tattoo translation info. Eddie.willers 12:39, 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 04:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Holton[edit]

Probably a hoax - no evidence that such a person existed, no such part existed in EastEnders, and no notability asserted Stephenb (Talk) 08:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Dave Mash and Free and Easy. I believe there's a consolidated hoaxing effort. Stephenb (Talk) 08:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three. There's strong evidence from Google to suggest these are hoaxes, and even if not, they're not notable anyway. Yechiel Man 19:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One obvious piece of evidence that this is a hoax - the article claims the actor died in 1983, yet he somehow managed to appear in EastEnders, which began in 1985. Forget the acting - let's write an article on the time machine he obviously owned! Smurfmeister

Delete as WP:Complete Bollocks. Was checking Eastenders but Smurfmeister got it right first. Eddie.willers 12:37, 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 Speedily closed as repost --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 09:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gassim Abdelkader[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Recreation of deleted content. The reason for deletion was that he is not notable. Arielle72 07:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per CSD: G4, so tagged. Charlie-talk to me-about what I've done 08:00, 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 04:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Rubalcaba[edit]

(The previous prod was removed without any changes made to the article). Being a pro wrestling referee is not in itself enough to give someone "Notability" unless that person has been involved in angles & storylines that take them outside of their normal job. WP:PW has been discussing this for a while with the general consensus that only a few select referees deserve an article, this is not one of them as he's done nothing but refereering matches. Fails WP:N big time MPJ-DK 07:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Nikki311 16:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Govvy 11:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Not only does this fail WP:N, but WP:A, WP:BLP and WP:V as well. Burntsauce 22:14, 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 bold redirect to Harry Potter (films) per precedent. Non-admin closure.~~ Actually, after a brief discussion, result is delete, non-admin closure. Kwsn^(Ni!) 16:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film[edit]

Although it's probably certain that this film will be done sometime in the future, there's no indication that there is anything official as of yet on which to establish an article. It should be back when the film enters pre-production. Would suggest protection for re-creation of this, correctly titled, of course. SkierRMH 07:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. Wasn't this deleted before recently? Clarityfiend 07:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incidentally Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (flim) (note flim not film) redirects to book Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows; correctly spelled Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) redirects to Harry Potter (films). cab 08:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of course the film's going to be made, but give it a few years to actually garner some development info and then it will be of encyclopedic value. Keep the correctly spelled version as a redirect, but delete both (film and (flim) versions. María (críticame) 12:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Yes, the movie is a foregone conclusion, but aside from the name nothing more is known about it - no point for an article. Not even worth redirecting as the title is mangled. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP not a Crystal ball. Also, article is small, and has dodgy formatting anyway.
Delete A predictable outcome but doesn't deserve its own article yet. -Vcelloho 15:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably a hoax.--Edtropolis 15:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Harry Potter (films) or Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. As per Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film). - Tiswas^(t) 16:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for a page about a film that might be made about a book that has not hit stores yet. Gothnic 16:24, 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 04:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tidal (band)[edit]

delete not a notable band. Please delete the image as well. —Gaff ^ταλκ 07:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertation of Notability. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy D - Does not assert notability - fails to meet WP:MUSIC - Tiswas^(t) 16:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO.--Edtropolis 17:06, 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 04:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Up! WA[edit]

Delete Spam/advert article for a non-notable small time television show. —Gaff ^ταλκ 06:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article fine - deleted autobiographical elements - what else needs deleting? - article made due a group's request to view every week. can this article still exist if shorten and no pictures and minor details, i understand if article not relevent - Dgio 18:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Huge Rewrite Needed or Delete - It reads like an advert. It should included information only. (There is no mention of what TV/Radio Channel it is on. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it's a pretty poor advert if it doesn't tell you where to get the product!Ga rr ie 21:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Fails criteria of WP:NOTE and WP:SPAM.--Edtropolis 15:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy D - As spam - Tiswas^(t) 16:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOTE and sounds promotional rather than encyclopedic. Not quite clear-cut enough for me to feel comfortable speedy-deleting it, though. MastCell ^Talk 21:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if page is not suitable for wikipedia, then take a look at other channel 31 shows that have pages. are those other shows notable or worthy enough for a page? Dgio 13:51, 14th June 2007
- Channel 31 Perth, or channel 31 generally (which is used in every Australian city as a community channel frequency)? Some eastern states community TV shows are far more notable than ours. Generally they (Perth ones) should all be headings on the Access 31 article unless they are standouts. Orderinchaos 16:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 11:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite. I think it is sufficiently notable given the 2006 Best New Producer community TV award (although maybe that really justifies an article for that un-named producer?) plus it's life of 300+ episodes on community TV. BUT it needs references otherwise delete it.Ga rr ie 21:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and keep this mess, please! :-) Yes, it appears notable, but expert work is needed on this one. Bearian 01:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given that I can find no sources for this on Google News or Google News Archive. Capitalistroadster 07:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & fix: Methinks us Brits and Yanks sometimes forget there are other people speaking English that have TV Shows that are household names as far as they are concerned.--Mike18xx 08:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't even a household name in their home market of Perth (my home city, where it broadcasts). The national programs Today and Sunrise carry the early morning demographic. Orderinchaos 16:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable show on a community station with a tiny demographic in its home market (it's not quite the same as Melbourne's equivalent), and very unlikely to have WP:RS. Alternatively, I have no objection to it being rewritten per Garrie and ors. Orderinchaos 16:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or redirect to Access 31 with history intact. Minor News Archive and .gov.au hits make me lean towards keep. For international Afd participants, note that Australia only has one community TV station in each region. John Vandenberg 11:12, 19 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 by Kusma (nonsense / context / A7?). Non-Admin closure. --Tikiwont 13:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AdjutantReflex[edit]

patent nonsense. Only reference / link is to a forum. Arthana 06:04, 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. Sr 13 04:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable teenage parents[edit]

List with an arbitary inclusion criteria Ga rr ie 05:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Throughout history, becoming a parent before turning 20 was not an unusual event.Ga rr ie 05:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not likely to become a complete or even near complete list (even with the "notable" proviso). Arbitrary criteria. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Categories with arbitrary cutoff points are specifically mentioned as bad by WP:OVERCAT#Arbitrary inclusion criterion; does the same apply to lists? "Teenage mothers" feels vaguely like an attack term also, but women who bear children at a young age (and men who impregnate women at a young age) are probably notable and featured e.g. in the Guinness Book of World Records. cab 07:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an interesting list, but I would delete it because it seems to serve an agenda. For the same reason, I would say to delete articles that were called "List of teenage suicides", "List of persons who killed their parents", "List of unplanned pregnancies that weren't terminated" or "List of celebrities who had abortions when they were teens". The point of the article seems to be that if a teenager gets pregnant, she should carry the child to term and raise it (or, alternatively, that it's OK if a teenager gets pregnant because Oprah did, and she turned out all right). Mandsford 11:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 12:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the list and no, it doesn’t have any “agenda”: it was merely a way of splitting off information from the increasingly-long teenage pregnancy article (see Talk:Teenage_pregnancy for the discussion). However, I’m not particularly attached to the list and I’ll remain neutral on the AfD.Fionah 12:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated above, unmaintainable list. There is little noteworthy in being a parent as a teenager, particularly in a historical context. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I recomend merging this into Teenage Pregnancy or keeping this article. -Vcelloho 15:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate list. This article could conceivably include almost every woman born before 1800 outside of the English-speaking world. (Other than nobles, the English tended to marry late - the average age at marriage in 1600 was the same as it was in 1960.) It could also include a huge number of men, of course. --Charlene 16:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I put the unsourced tag on it three weeks ago and it has yet to be sourced save for one entry. OR. Corvus cornix 17:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing more notable about being a parent at 19 years 364 days old than when one is a day or two older. Carlossuarez46 18:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate and unremarkable. Yechiel Man 19:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have nothing new to add, as its all been covered nicely above. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This could potentially be made to work, like List of famous people who died young, if specific conditions for inclusion were drawn. Working with the criteria from the ...died young list, "notable" could be defined as "notable for reasons other than being a teenage parent," while "teenage parent" could be defined as "a person who has their first child under the age of 20." The latter criteria could be further refined to only include people who became teenage parents during time periods and in cultures in which the incidence of teenage parenthood had declined enough for it to become something notable. Also, as I understand it, the information is sourced from the individual biographical articles of the people on the list. -Severa (!!!) 22:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Potentially useful, and interesting, but per WP:IINFO, it's probably going to go down the plughole - no vote.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First off, I really don't care whether or not this list is deleted, but I would like to point out that the "notability" aspect of this list is not due to the persons being a parent before the age of 20. The list is a list of people notable for other reasons that were parents before the age of 20. Therefore the argument "there is nothing notable about being pregnant before the age of 20" is irrelevant in this instance.--Phil McGowan (user:PhilyG) 03:25, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of companies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Such a list has no encyclopedic value. This is why categories exist. Zubdub 05:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and the sublists by country - equally as unmaintainable, incomplete and indiscriminate as list of people by name. Not to mention the red links of speedily deleted articles which encourage people to create articles on non-notable companies. Sure we may have "List of companies listed on $MAJOR_STOCK_EXCHANGE", as these generally are notable and well defined in scope. But not this. MER-C 08:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and we aren't the yellow pages either. MER-C 08:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This appears to be an alpahabetical index to other Wikipedia articles, most of which are blue-linked. The categories in red (list of Malawian companies, for instance) show that, thus far, there are no articles written about corporations in that particular nation. I would rename the article, however, to "List of Corporations by Country or Industry". Mandsford 12:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 12:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic and adds nothing to category. THF 14:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as indiscriminate list of information and as a directory. Useight 16:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is this list going to include all 200 million or so registered companies worldwide or just the thousands on Wikipedia? This would work much better as a category, or even better as a series of subcategories. --Charlene 16:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per WP:NOT#DIR. Transwikify to Yellow Wikis.--Edtropolis 17:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep since no one has bothered to nominate all the sublists, to which the arguments really seem directed, there's nothing to be gained by

deleting this article. Carlossuarez46 18:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see List of Japanese companies. I nominated that list for deletion (it was the first one I came across). If the result was a deletion, all the other country companies lists would be next. List of Japanese companies is my test case. Zubdub 22:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of country-specific lists and this encompassing list are different. For non-global, yet notable, corporations, the national lists do a good job at finding companies which may have been overlooked for articles so far. So, the current direction of the sub-list discussion (keep) and this discussion (delete) are not contradictive. However, this list does very little that a category cannot. Neier 06:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lot of the sublists are nothing more than directories as well. This is not the yellow pages. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin consider whether any of the arguments made here apply to the nominated article or whether they apply to the unnominated sub-articles. Carlossuarez46 18:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the fact that the sublists should (probably) also be nominated for deletion has little relevance to this debate. The "article", as a collection of these lists, serves little purpose that is not covered by categories. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 21:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list and all of its children. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 21:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I can see this list article being deleted, its deletion should have no impact on whether or not any individual lists related to it are deleted. Each of those should be considered separately, especially if they are country-specific lists. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because this discussion has been done outside the frameworks of Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics (or any other possibly relevant project). Discussion should have first centered around how to salvage the article if at all possible. Also, linking this discussion with all other similar "lists of companies" without specifying them is a breach of the rules here at AfD... Those other articles are notable in their own right, and hence that is another reason for me to vote "Keep" here.--Endroit 00:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Endroit 01:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and the following specific concerns:

The list doesn't do anything above what the category structure currently in use can do (no added value. More to the point, what value could be added here that couldn't just be included in each company's article?).

Increases maintenance work for company information, unnecessarily in my opinion (adds yet another place to go if a company merges/changes name)

Scope of list is too broad (how would you know when the list is comprehensive/complete/useful?)

Criteria for inclusion is indiscriminate, potentially leading to inclusion of a lot of companies in the list that are not notable enough for Wikipedia --Richc80 01:54, 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 03:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cail[edit]

No google results. He is not mentioned by any other reference. All of his awards are local, inter-school awards. Alcemáe T • C 05:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a no brainer. Horribly fails WP:BIO --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. As per CSD:A7. Nothing special about him but still one blog.--Edtropolis 16:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Such extraordinary claims in those articles require extraordinary sources, and none can be found. Had he won all those awards, he should have at least received mentions on some educational related webpages.--Kylohk 15:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 00:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unverifiability kicks in even before lack of notability does. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable subject Jack1956 12:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:NN--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 16:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think "He has received numerous awards during his tenure" is enough of an assertion of notability that we can't just speedy it, but this is not even close to passing notability. —David Eppstein 20:33, 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 speedy delete. Sr 13 07:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Groening[edit]

this person not notable. Sstephens 05:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as non-notable bio, and tagged as such. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:34, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Barker[edit]

I don't think the subject qualifies for notability as a race/drift car driver. Unsourced. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. Fails WP:NOTE.--Edtropolis 15:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Should have been speedy deletion as the article states no sources but in any sense isn't notable and should be deleted. Xtreme racer 20:24, 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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese companies[edit]

Such a list has no encyclopedic value. This is what categories are for, and numerous ones already exist for Japanese companies. Zubdub 05:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The list is unannotated, and really ought to have a bit more than simply a list of names, but as long as there are redlinks in the list it is doing something a category cannot do. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Sjakkalle, but who will see the red links? I don't envision a lot of people going to that article just to read a list of company names. :-) And do all of the "red link" companies really exist? References? It seems like fertile ground for vandals to me - creating ficticious company names to add to such lists. Zubdub 06:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ... or make a reorganized list. It would be more useful to separate the companies by category-- electronics, auto manufacturers, groceries, etc. I agree that it's subject to vandalism, and additions and edits should be restricted. Otherwise, we probably will see names pop up like "Teriyaki Beef Co." or "Cheapashita Electronics". Mandsford 12:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 12:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't the category Companies of Japan cover this? -Vcelloho 15:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per WP:NOT#DIR. The problem I have with the "has red links, categories can't do that" justification with this type of list is that there is no oversight to make sure that redlinked companies inserted in the list have any kind of notability and should ever be an article. Much along the lines of what Zubdub is saying. There is no reason to encourage the creation of articles for companies that may not even exist, and the appropriate forum to encourage article creation is WP:AFC or WP:REQUEST, not redlinks in a directory-style article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Endroit 17:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — This article is just one of many similar lists belonging to the Category:Lists of companies by country. There may be room for improvements, and similar guidelines should apply to all articles within this category, but deletion would be premature. The concept of "Lists of companies by country", in itself, is an encyclopedic one, and that's what makes this article notable.--Endroit 17:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Endroit and Mandsford. It may improve the usefulness of the list (and distinction from the category) to make the list into a table (or tables) where the Japanese is given for the company name as well. This would significantly increase the usefulness of the list. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've started doing this so everyone can see what I was suggesting. If anyone else wants to help converting the list, please do so. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was leaning toward delete as redundant to Category:Companies of Japan, but given Lists of companies it seem appropriate. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional rationale - I nominated this list for deletion and would like to put forward additional reasons I believe this (and other such lists) don't warrant their own articles.
- I have also proposed Lists of companies for deletion. If my proposal for this country-specific deletion resulted in a delete, all the other country's company lists would be next. This is my test case.
- The changes recently made to the list to include company names in the native language do nothing but replicate what should already be in the wikipedia article for each company. The changes look nice, but exactly what real "use" does it add? If I want to see "Sony" in kanji, I'll look at the Sony article.
- I claim that such a list represents a form of original research and does not satisfy Verifiability. It can be argued that the linked-to articles represent sufficient sourcing, but that does not apply to red-linked companies having no article on wikipedia. Where is the reference providing proof that a given name represents an actual company? Kazu's Lawn Mowing Service might be a real company, but is it notable, is it a real small business in some small town in some prefecture somewhere, or did I just make it up? It seems to me there is no end to the minor insignificant companies that could be added to such a list.
- If, then, the desire is to only have notable companies on such a list (companies having wikipedia articles) then we're back to this being nothing more than a repetition of a category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zubdub (talk • contribs).

Kazu's Lawn Mowing Service is such a bogus example. Never heard of it, and will never make this list. If you try to add some obscure stuff like that to this list, I'll delete it myself!--Endroit 23:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that list was only for company names that you personally had heard of. Zubdub 23:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the list is changed as I'm doing it, your arguments will be invalid. Adding the Japanese makes the list infinitely more useful, and makes it so it's not simply a duplicate of a category (which doesn't have the Japanese). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useful for what? I'm not trying to be obnoxious, I just don't see any real "use". As I stated above, if I want to know a company's name in the native language, I will go to that company's article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Zubdub 22:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Based on your comments here and your contributions, I'm guessing you have very little interest in anything Japan-related, so of course a list of Japanese companies (no matter the format) would be of little use or interest to you. You may not see any use in having a listing that lists both English and Japanese, but for those who are actually interested in finding a Japanese company (and any article about it), having a list which shows both makes it much easier to find the company in question as a search can be performed using either. And having them both in one place makes it much more useful than a category (which serves a similar, but different purpose), especially if you only know the Japanese title and are trying to find the English article (if any). This has happened to me several times, and a list like this would have made that much easier. Also, as I indicated above, I'm in the middle of changing the format of the list to make this possible. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sigh right back at you. The only reason I chose the list of Japanese companies is because it was the first such list I came across. You state that such a list helps you "find" a company (and any article about it). I disagree. Consider for a moment that, without this list, your search would find any existing article about said company without the needless step of hunting down the name on that long list. Secondly, rather than adding various language versions of the company name to the list, add it to the article about the company. THAT is where it will most benefit readers.Zubdub 02:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to hunt it down. Just use the find feature in your browser once you're on the page. And this list is useful for those companies without an article yet, as Endroit indicates. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the English Wikipedia articles that are not yet written (and show up as red links here), the majority appears to have links in the Japanese Wikipedia.--Endroit 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I'm adding interwiki-ja links. (I've started from letter Z and am working backwards). This greatly enhances interwiki cross-referencing, for those who wish to access the Japanese Wikipedia for further information.--Endroit 23:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nihonjoe. One thing I like about Wikipedia is its global view, rather than the American tradition of not venturing past the fifty states. "Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages" might apply to Tsutomu's Barber Shop, but not to large manufacturing or service corporations. Wikipedia's not the yellow pages, it's "TV Guide". In addition, I can search de:Wikipedia for a German corporation and translate, but searching the Japanese wiki is tough-- even if I knew the name of the corporation to begin with. How else do I find a Russian manufacturer than to go to a list? And what's wrong with articles about businesses? Isn't the employer of thousands of people as worthy a topic as Coldplay's latest album? Mandsford 23:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The new format with the addition of the Japanese and Romaji spellings make this list a notable and useful resource. Cross links to the Japanese company articles (in Japanese) also provide a unique reference that will help researchers who may or may not be familiar with the Japanese language. NipponBill 00:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sheesh. JJL 02:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The added language names are good, and other things & arrangements can be added to a list that cannot be done as a category.DGG 04:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and others. Neier 06:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — extremely useful and notable list. I also agree with Nihonjoe, Endroit, Mandsford, NipponBill, DGG, and several of the other editors. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 17:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My official vote.
- Arguments for usefulness of name translations are misguided. Editors should spend their time adding those to the actual company articles than to this list. There is no point in "finding" a company on this list in order to "find" the wikipedia article on that company. The company article itself should be improved with the useful name translations.
  - For example, look at the Joan Chen article. It includes multiple language versions of her name so that a search for her using any of those languages finds her actual article. No need for a list to "help" find her.
- The red-linked company names lack Verifiability. They could be non-notable or fictitious. Easy vandal territory. Zubdub 23:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — WP:V is a lousy excuse for these handful of trigger-happy people, going around deleting articles rather devising ways to make them more encyclopedic. For example, WP:V can be easily resolved by adding notations such as: Sony NYSE: SNE, TYO: 6758 (in Japanese). Why destroy the article rather than improve it? Anyways, the new interwiki-JA links help with WP:V already, and makes this article encyclopedic.--Endroit 23:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Endroit 01:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and Zubdub's comments. Anything of value that could be included in the list can just as simply be added to the articles for each company. All companies with an article should already be in Category:Companies of Japan, and major public companies would be covered on List of members of the Tokyo Stock Exchange. I'd also add that I'm working on setting up a sub-project or task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics to work on company articles, and would think it would be much more efficient to set up a process through that for the addition of companies that are missing, rather than indiscriminate lists throughout Wikipedia that, as mentioned above, could be full of companies that are non-existent or non-notable. --Richc80 02:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: This is NOT an "indiscriminate list". It is a list of notable Japanese companies, albeit we don't have a specific criteria yet, for listing. Consider: "Category:Lists of companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange". If we were to make a similar "Lists of companies on the Tokyo Stock Exchange", the list would be similar to THIS list we already have here. However, I believe people are more interested in finding companies that are actually from (or headquartered in) Japan, rather than whether they are listed in the Tokyo Stock Exchange. I believe it is only a matter of determining the acceptable criteria, either for Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics, or for Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan. I suggest that "Tokyo Stock Exchange" would be one acceptable criterion. Another criterion can be an existing listing in the Japanese Wikipedia plus another extra qualification for notability. Any one of these criteria would be sufficient qualification to make this list.--Endroit 03:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If we were to make a similar "Lists of companies on the Tokyo Stock Exchange", the list would be similar to THIS list we already have here."
We already have List of members of the Tokyo Stock Exchange.
"However, I believe people are more interested in finding companies that are actually from (or headquartered in) Japan".
Hence, the already existing Category:Companies of Japan. Zubdub 04:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick review... List of members of the Tokyo Stock Exchange is a non-list. For example Sony is not even listed. Perhaps we can merge the 2 lists?--Endroit 04:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So List of members of the Tokyo Stock Exchange should be updated to be accurate certainly, but should remain its own list. --Richc80 04:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For most readers, the List of members of the Tokyo Stock Exchange is of less value than the List of Japanese companies. The List of Japanese companies is maintained by WP:JA, is checked for accuracy against the Japanese Wikipedia, and will be guaranteed to receive the full attention of WP:JA. People should face up to the fact that the List of Japanese companies is already significantly more notable than the List of members of the Tokyo Stock Exchange. You can even thrash the latter (which is junk anyways) and replace it with the former, and you will have a VERY respectable List of members of the Tokyo Stock Exchange, after few modifications. You should be making good use of our efforts and cooperating, rather than wasting them. Assume good faith.--Endroit 07:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The faith of the editors of this list is not in question, I'm sure that the creation and maintenance of it is a genuine effort on their part. It's great to hear that WP:JA is taking the time to keep this list up to date, but I don't think that invalidates any of the arguments put forward here for deletion. While you may feel that the list could become "VERY respectable"; why spend your time trying to keep it up to date when the equivalent Category would be automatically updated with any changes and provides the same value? A to-do page could also be created within the project to list those companies not yet added from the Japanese Wikipedia, it doesn't need to be in the mainspace. Just seems to be un-necessary additional work and an additional step in the process for maintaining company information here. --Richc80 12:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lists within Category:Lists of companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange has some of the same problems as the List of Japanese companies, namely that there are too many red links, and so the "editors should spend their time adding those to the actual company articles", according to your logic. According to your logic, articles should be written for each company listed on the NYSE rather than maintain lists for them, and hence a category for NYSE companies will suffice. Then there's the difficulty of maintenance, and the possibility of vandalism. What's so different here? Tell me you're not being hypocritical by applying different set of standards for NYSE. Explain to me what the difference is.--Endroit 14:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My last comment on this debate as I feel there is sufficient information from both sides for people to make their mind up either way. I've never set standards for NYSE, I've never even in fact looked at those lists until today. In my mind though producing a list of companies on any stock exchange is different from a list of companies based in a specific country because:

Scope clearly defined (how do we know when all existing companies in a country have been added to the list?)
Allows the inclusion of companies not notable enough for Wikipedia (for the stock exchange notability does not define them being part of the list, for countries the logical inclusion criteria is companies notable enough for WP:CORP, otherwise an argument could be made that the list will become the next yellow pages.
Adds value by incorporating additional information that cannot easily be found in each company article (for example, including date of Initial Public Offering would allow someone to quickly determine the first company added to that exchange, rather than having to go through each article. I would agree that this allows a case to be made for, say, a List of the 10 oldest companies in Japan)
Maintenance and vandalism would still be a problem, but would easily be verifiable (company names & ticker symbols can typically be checked on the exchange's website, but wouldn't it take some time to definitively say that, for example, Teriyaki Beef Co. is not legitimately a Japanese company?)

Finally, I agree with the statement made earlier that maybe the discussion on appropriate company lists is larger than just this one example, but regardless I don't think a list just by country is part of that future. It's scope will either be so well defined to make the list redundant, or not well defined enough causing the list to become yet another (un-encyclopedic) directory of businesses --Richc80 17:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added a column called "TSE" for letters T thru Z. (If you like it, we'll add it to the rest of this list). That should help resolve any WP:V concerns mentioned here. This is consistent with all the lists within Category:Lists of companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange.--Endroit 16:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another suggestion: We can use the Forbes Global 2000 list, filtered by "Japan" as another criterion.--Endroit 17:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "TSE" link (to Bloomberg) does wonders. It can be easily cross-referenced with the adjacent interwiki-JA link (in Japanese) and the article in English, for ultimate accuracy. Makes WP:V (verification) simpler. I'll go ahead and start adding "TSE" links to all entries, starting from letter "Z" and going backwards again.--Endroit 00:37, 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 Withdrawn by nominator - see below. Non-admin close.

Book World[edit]

Disambiguation page created in the hopes of making Wikipedia more navigable but it is not functioning as per the current consensus of Wikipedia:Disambiguation. It does not direct the reader to any articles that need disambiguating. In the future, if there are articles about B.C. Bookworld and Bookworld the Fair, then this page may be needed, but not currently. Paul Erik 04:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Good freakin' god... another AfD nomination by someone who doesn't get it... There are multiple "Book World" and "Bookworld" articles on Wikipedia! Plus the other uses of the term in the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune--hello, like, major US newspapers! Sheesh... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eep² (talk • contribs) 01:11, 14 June 2007
Keep: Absolutely necessary disambig! Multiple articles with the same or very similar names... Definitely needed. Bradybd 08:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Disambig pages are intended (per WP:D) solely to list articles with similar names. Several of the listings on this page are not articles, and should be removed, if the page survives the AFD. Charlie-talk to me-about what I've done 08:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true. Disambiguation articles are also for the cases where there is a conflict amongst multiple redirects. Per Wikipedia:Redirect, redirects are not solely for article titles. Uncle G 12:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I believe I have erred on this one. There are a few Bookworld and Book World terms that do need disambiguating, some involving redlinks that are mentioned in other articles, some involving redirects. I withdraw the nomination, with apologies. --Paul Erik 13:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep', but delete all of the entries which are not Wikipedia articles. Corvus cornix 17:24, 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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nightclubs in Greece[edit]

This is a very generic description of Greek nightclubs. Clarityfiend 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC) I'm having second thoughts on this one. Unlike the others just below I nominated, this has some real content, although a lot of it is littered with weasel words. Clarityfiend 05:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Feel free to withdraw it with some clean-up tags if you want, but I could support a deletion here anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 05:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, albeit rather weakly. Surely there are some local newspapers or magazines that could be cited in support of this article. This page has a pretty minimal talk page, with no indication that the difficulties have been addressed elsewhere first. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Bouzoukia and keep. Corvus cornix 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of this, I tried to portray the reality in Greek nightclubs and especially Bouzoukia (since the others are virtually the same as everywhere). There are numerous sources mainly in Greek contemporary magazines and newspapers, but all that I've written is common knowledge to anyone who has visited or lives in Greece (or seen any Greek-related film for that matter). I wouldn't call any piece of information in that article "controversial" or "disputed"; hence the reason why I didn't bother to include any sources. I did request for help in the article talkpage and in WP:GR, but it was in vain (probably everybody focuses on the Greco-Turkish Wars or Cyprus or Macedonia...) :-( Niko Silver 10:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the renaming issue to plain Bouzoukia (for which there is already a redirect), indeed, the article talks mostly about them; but there should be additional content IMO for the other "normal" nightclubs too. I had chosen to do it like that because the info on the "normal" ones wouldn't merit a separate article yet. I have no serious objections, still if information is added there, we'll be compelled to go back and forth since it definitely is the "mother" article. Niko Silver 10:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having said all that, I hope this article survives and becomes what is deserved for this special kind of culture that is unique across the whole world. Niko Silver 10:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What you think is common knowledge is not necessarily so. There is a reason why many things need to be sourced(see WP:V), and if you can provide some kind of source, that may convince people to keep the article. FrozenPurpleCube 14:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I just don't have the time right now. I'll try better in the immediate future. Be aware: Such a spoiled brat that I am, I've been there, and done that myself! :-) Greeks and tourists from all over the world witness this stuff every night. I think the pictures speak for themselves for now. To understand how common knowledge that is for anybody who's been in Greece, I'll just tell you that there are quite a few dozens of "dog-joints" currently in operation in Athens alone as we speak, with singers like Anna Vissi, Despina Vandi, Vasilis Karras, Yiannis Parios, Elena Paparizou, Tolis Voskopoulos, Antonis Remos, Rouvas, Notis Sfakianakis... (just off the top of my head for now), with a clientèle of hundreds or even thousands of visitors every night. Check the background in the second picture and count heads. Niko Silver 12:50, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Atkinson[edit]

One human interest piece in the Daily Mail is insufficient notability for the bio. Her being the subject of the article is only incidental: it's really about the headscarf debate, etc. and the one random person they pick to personalize that is not necessairly notable. Savidan 04:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - precisely. MER-C 08:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:53, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Dakin[edit]

No reliable sources are provided on the article, and I didnt see any linking the subject to the various software or movies John Vandenberg 04:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A possible COI? The JPS ^{talk to me} 09:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be COI. Edward321

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal night life[edit]

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Clarityfiend 04:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if sources are not provided, though I'll at least give this article credit for providing some attempt at a historical perspective. FrozenPurpleCube 05:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surely there are some local newspapers or magazines that could be cited in support of this article. This page has a blank talk page, and no indication that anyone has sought to address the claims elsewhere. The page strikes me as fairly scrupulously trying to avoid being a "travel guide"; it gives no addresses, only general descriptions of the character of various neighbourhoods. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, it needs sources. Corvus cornix 17:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete travel guide masquerading as encyclopedia content; the selection of the venues, genres, etc. seems entirely OR and POV. Don't most of Montreal's population spend their "night life" in front of the tv and in bed, like everywhere else, except in the context of a travel guide? Carlossuarez46 18:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see this type of article as inviting all kinds of WP:ILIKEIT contributions. I think it is a good attempt to discuss a major part of what could be a Montreal Culture article. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination.--Svetovid 20:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost all articles about features of places could be considered "travel guide"--the difference is that the travel guide is more current and practical than an article of this sort can be. As pointed out above, the essence of a travel guide is precisely phone numbers and address and hours and prices. DGG

CommentI would say the essence of a travel guide is not phone numbers, addresses and the like (though that alone is a problem), but rather the lack of a broader perspective on the subject. Instead, there's a focus on individual places and a feeling of "this is the place to go" rather than "this was what happened here" . FrozenPurpleCube 02:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Respectfully, how is this not a travel guide? Essentially: Visit Montreal where you can drink at 18 and enjoy your time in the strip club capital of Canada. Even present locations of the gay nightclubs and strip clubs are merely temporal locational references, not encyclopaedic references. Granted, Montreal is much more European in nature than perhaps Houston (Houston Nightlife) and sitting at home in front of the TV likely does not hold the same attraction that some have understandably queried in regard to night life articles in general. Pever 13:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is a travel guide, there are other sites on the web where this content would fit much better. Anyway, if we allow articles of this type, we will have to allow countless "City X night life" articles, something I would rather not see. Balcer 00:47, 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 written in good faith, but delete. Sr 13 03:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nightlife in Canberra[edit]

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Clarityfiend 04:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of the Nightlife articles, this at least tries to show some historical perspective, it may even have some sources, but I'm not convinced there's enough to keep it. FrozenPurpleCube 05:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 13:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. As per comment.--Edtropolis 16:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlike Montreal night life, this is a travel guide. Take it to Wikitravel. Corvus cornix 17:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete travel guide masquerading as encyclopedia content; the selection of the venues, genres, etc. seems entirely OR and POV. Don't most of Canberra's population spend their "night life" in front of the tv and in bed, like everywhere else, except in the context of a travel guide? Carlossuarez46 18:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomTaprobanus 20:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination.--Svetovid 20:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to be fairly accurate at least as a Canberran. Whether it would be better in Wikitravel is a moot point. Capitalistroadster 03:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously a good-faith contribution, and well written, but not really appropriate for Wikipedia. Transwiki it across to Wikitravel if they want it there. Lankiveil 07:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and Cleanup. There is some useful historical information. Need to turn the lists into paragraphs. Recurring dreams 11:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure how this article can be written without breaching WP:NPOV and/or WP:OR with the selection of venues etc. It is not a topic that lends itself to inclusion in Wikipedia, given Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 12:01, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nightlife in Paris[edit]

WP is WP:NOT a travel guide. Little content and no sources. Clarityfiend 04:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if unsourced and unimproved. There may be enough to sustain an encyclopedic article on Paris, but this isn't even a good base. FrozenPurpleCube 05:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly, if unsourced and unimproved. If an adequate encyclopedia article can be written about any city's night life, Paris is surely that city. This is little better than a list of famous clubs without a great deal of meaningful discussion. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unlike Montreal night life, this is a travel guide. Take it to Wikitravel. Corvus cornix 17:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete travel guide masquerading as encyclopedia content; the selection of the venues, genres, etc. seems entirely OR and POV. Don't most of Paris' population spend their "night life" in front of the tv and in bed, like everywhere else, except in the context of a travel guide? Carlossuarez46 18:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a travel guide Taprobanus 20:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination.--Svetovid 20:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not to be confused with 1 Night in Paris. Edison 02:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The arguments above amount to a suggestion to expand and to find a better title. DGG 04:13, 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.

Article was boldly moved to correct namespace. Discussion of WikiProjects should take place at Miscellany for deletion. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 04:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1990s[edit]

First off, the page name isn't even in the right format for a WikiProject. Secondly, the goals of the project seem POV, and doesn't seem to be something to make a WikiProject about. Splintercellguy 04:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, excuse me for being novice. Leemcd56 04:44, 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 Speedy delete G1 / G3 / A7 / probably a few others --BigDT 13:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Godly Ball Religion[edit]

contested prod ponyo 04:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"No, this religion is not neccessarily real, it is up among the flying spaghetti monster and others. Therefore this page should be kept thankyou very much." In BJAODN, that is. MER-C 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for religions made up while bored. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:18, 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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 16:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph R. Garber[edit]

Non-notable author whose best claim to fame is a rumor that one of his books was almost turned into a movie but not produced. {notability} tagged since Sept. 06. Savidan 04:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, books have been reviewed in major media, not exceptionally favorably: an international best-seller that almost no-one remembers, for example. SF Chronicle obit --Dhartung | Talk 05:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Multiple references, highly published in Forbes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: If your book is reviewed in the New York Times, I think that justifies being included. Bradybd 08:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It could stand more meat on its bones, but the references already present meet the minimal requirements.--Mike18xx 08:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Bradybd - however needs a decent rewrite. Guroadrunner 22:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What are your specific concerns given Richard Arthur Norton and my changes since nomination? --Dhartung | Talk 23:49, 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 03:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calen Maiava Paris[edit]

Non-notable actor. Once played a minor character on a marginally notable show. {notability} tagged since Sept. 06. Savidan 04:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yechiel Man 19:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Svetovid 20:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Not even named at the show page. -- Futurano 09:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of interest in improving the article since September 2006.Ga rr ie 22:27, 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 discussion closed for now without prejudice. This discussion is unlikely to end with any consensus. The Deletion review on Daniel Brandt still is ongoing and we will see much more clearly our options afterwards. And waiting a bit for things to cool down on the subject can't hurt. I suggest this article to be re nominated in a week or so, there is no hurry. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIA HTTP cookies controversy[edit]

This article was created after the mess with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination). It really isn't a meaningful topic. It was a news story ... probably an overblown one at that. It isn't that big of a deal - virtually every website stores cookies and there is nothing evil about them. It makes for nice sensationalist news - "did you know that the big evil government is spying on you", but Wikipedia, Walmart, Amazon, and just about everywhere anyone would want to go stores cookies. A Wikinews article on the subject would have been appropriate, but not an encyclopedia article. To put it plainly, there is no room whatsoever for expansion - this article is a stub today and can never be anything other than a stub ... because it is nothing other than a news story. BigDT 03:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with the nominator. This was a slow day news story. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This almost seems to be stretching the definition of "controversy." eaolson 04:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm not going to call for deletion or keeping but rather a) strongly suggest that we wait until the Brandt DRV is complete and b) point out that the deletion of this would likely destroy the spirit of the attempted compromise in any event. JoshuaZ 04:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of whether the Brandt DRV is upheld or overturned, there shouldn't be an article on this topic - it's a news story that will never be more than a stub. --BigDT 05:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This story is not notable enough to deserve its own article. It's not even notable enough to deserve mention in the HTTP cookie or CIA articles. The only place I can think of where it could be worth mention is Daniel Brandt. If that article is deleted, there's no point in keeping this one. --Itub 08:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now, given the claim that the AfD was a compromise, we should consider all the resulting articles together as a group in which case this should be be kept. At worst it should be merged to some larger article about either CIA scandals or internet privacy issues. JoshuaZ 13:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give it some time. There is a WP:DRV on Daniel Brandt, I think we should wait that process to be over before deleting forks. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What was it, the slowest news day ever? "MAN FINDS TECHNICAL ERROR IN WEBSITE, NATION PANICS!" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now* I agree, wait until the DRV is over to start this up. Kwsn^(Ni!) 16:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless the information is restored to its most logical home, the Daniel Brandt article. The article was created as part of a compromise closing of one of the most hotly contested AfD's ever. The compromise involved nuking the article that many of us thought should have been kept. The stated rationale was that our concerns were met because all the information was preserved somewhere on Wikipedia. (It wasn't, but I recognize that at least an effort was made.) Then there's an immediate attempt to remove some of the information? Come on. This AfD must be considered in context, even if such an article wouldn't have been kept had it been generated in other circumstances. JamesMLane t c 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, unless elsewhere in Wikipedia (including, but not limited to, Daniel Brandt) and linked to. This has four sources and is clearly significant; nor is this is in any rational way BLP. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Clearly significant" in what way? It's a news story - not every news story needs to have an encyclopedia article. I won a chess tournament when I was a kid and got interviewed by the newspaper. There certainly isn't an article on BigDT's chess championship. --BigDT 16:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with... Oh, wait. Normally, I would support this being merged with Daniel Brandt or deleted. However, this was created after it was decided that, for some reason, the information on Daniel Brandt had to be spread around the encyclopedia. If this is deleted, we are losing valuable information. Of course, it would be better if all of this was merged, but, alas, it seems that that is not to be. Therefore, strong keep. J Milburn 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes it has 4 sources; 4 sources that don't in any way make a case for this being a notable or significant event. It wouldn't exist if it were not for the Daniel Brandt article deletion and keeping an article on a drearily unimportant event just because there is no Brandt article to house it in is no reason to keep at all.--Isotope23 17:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I would be advocating a merge here-but the logical target for that merge is a protected redirect. (As of this writing, anyway.) Given that, I see no choice but to keep, at least for now and while that settles out. Hopefully something logical can be found to move it to. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until the DRV is decided. Carlossuarez46 19:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What difference does the DRV make? If the deletion/redirect/whatever is overturned, this article will need to be deleted. If the deletion/redirect/whatever is endorsed, this article will still be completely non-notable and useless and needs to be deleted too. In any case, this information will remain in the Brandt history in case someone want to rescue it for some other article. --Itub 19:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is relevant because it will also pollute the DRV. The article just got created as a result of the AfD, and this AfD is under investigation. Deleting it now will raise a lot of "Overturn, the merge announced got deleted afterwards". Giving it a grace period of a few days will separate both issues. -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's likely that, if the closing is endorsed on DRV, then the deletionist side will want the Brandt history expunged. JamesMLane t c 20:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge with a relevant article, say Timeline of internet privacy issues (which is probably a redlink, but you get the idea) It's short, it's probably not likely to grow, but it would make a good section in another article and should be merged rather than deleted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I was typing up a long rant about why this crap should be deleted, then I recalled that we have Internet privacy, which seems like it might be a pretty good destination for this. However, I'm not sure we even have to keep this article for GFDL reasons. This was copied and pasted from the Daniel Brandt article and that's where the author information is - I recommend just copy/paste from that history and we don't even have to bother keeping this as an unlikely search term redirect. --- RockMFR 20:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close without decision - let the dust settle before poking the hornet's nest anymore. Wily D 21:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. on practical grounds; how can we even talk about this sensibly until the DB article decision, It was not a good idea to nominate it now, because of the ensuing confusion. It looks a little like WP: Point. . DGG 03:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete storm in a teacup. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:10, 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 03:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Bow[edit]

Delete - Non-notable Paul Cyr 03:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - fails WP:BIO and makes no claim of notability. No WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 04:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per Evb-wiki. His website may be notable, but he isn't. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of reliable sources proving notability. Jacek Kendysz 14:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. As per CSD:A7.--Edtropolis 16:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I almost speedied it, but I think that the assertion of a published book is an assertion of notability... but, The Unwritten Girl should be deleted too if the author is and is the publisher, Dundurn Group, notable at all? gren グレン 17:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cmt - It appears that Dundurn (talk · contribs) created all three of these articles (and others) as a WP:SPAM-only account. --Evb-wiki 18:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I recognize Dundurn as a single purpose account, but note that it has not been used in nearly a year. Assuming good faith, I think the user may have realized that such contributions run counter to Wki policy. Concerning the Dundurn Group itself - though small, it has published some fairly significant titles by internationally recognized scholars and authors. Although a clean-up and update is required, there's no question in my mind that the Dundurn article should stay. Victoriagirl 03:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 18:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not that I want to play spoiler here, but the book did receive limited third-party coverage. I also think that some notability is asserted so I don't think this is a candidate for speedy deletion. Pascal.Tesson 00:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the book should be separately proposed, but I'd support the article for the Group, as the most comprehensive. DGG 03:33, 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 03:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Urological Regional Entrepreneurship[edit]

Non-notable organization — no significant coverage in reliable sources, or in the article's external links. Basicly this is a promotional page for http://www.prolasta.com , was linked to Drugs specifically targeted to treat premature ejaculation [28] (Creator of this article also linked Prolasta site itself to many articles, since reverted.) / edgarde 03:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreement with nominator over reasons for deletion Xtreme racer 20:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nominator. No sources, no assertion of notability. --Tone 20:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete for being non-notable and smacking of vanispamicruft...whatchamacallit. Fairly obvious {{db-spam}} candidate, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I've declined the speedy, and instead removed the blatantly spam elements. This article could be made notable if suitable refs are added by someone who cares, so the AfD will allow time for that to happen. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I made some changes also, but it appears the topic is not notable. There is also confusion about the name, Urological vs. Urologic (in the logo). -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:09, 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 03:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Witch Prohibition Act[edit]

Not sure what it is about. No reliable soureces (one external link to tabloid-like web site's article). I can't find that act in India's law databases (or such crime in penal code of India). It compromises Wikipedia. OldEnt ^§ 03:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article has been a stub since 2005, no WP:RS show up in a casual Google search. -- Kesh 03:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verifiable sources are added to prove existence of the Act. It would be notable if the Act existed but cannot find any reliable sources for it. Davewild 07:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source I could find is this blog according to this source the law is about protecting people from being accused of witchcraft not prosecuting witchcraft. Mieciu K 12:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly, and without prejudice to re-creation. The external link in fact goes to the Times of India website, which I'd hesitate to call a "tabloid." The subject seems notable enough, but perhaps a more opportune English title might exist. Reliable sources for the subject almost certainly exist, but may not be in English, so an English web search may be unavailing. Suggest redirecting this to Asian witchcraft, where the incident related in the external link belongs. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, There is no information to verify this claim. -Vcelloho 15:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per WP:CITE.--Edtropolis 16:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If more reliable sources can be provided (yes the article has been around long enough to where it already should have had sources -- maybe the AfD will get the article creator's rear is gear), then it should be keeped, otherwise deleted. It appears to have 1 reliable source already (I think the India Times counts as a RS), maybe I can find something on this. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure about the actual "witch prohibition act", but I found these sources and dealt with the killing of witches in India, and one article about the prosecution of one of the killers [29] [30] [31] [32] --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It does seem notable, but it doesn't have any more sources.--Edtropolis 16:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of Google hits are Wikipedia mirros or Wikipedia sourced articles. [33] OldEnt ^§ 16:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per WP:CITE. Eddie 18:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Baka man 23:59, 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 Speedily deleted by Jmlk17 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close. cab 07:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marrakech Process[edit]

Totally unclear what this article is about. I'd say it's borderline keepable, but it's in poor shape, and as one of many poorly-written or cut-and-pasted stubs related to the Wuppertal Institute it seems to border on vanity. Quuxplusone 03:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio. So tagged. --Dhartung | Talk 03:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree with nom. Subject is likely notable but article as stands is in bad shape. JJL 03:25, 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, as illustrated by some of the participants below, the article is an indiscriminate collection of unsourced information. The keep arguments have failed to appropriately address those concerns. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi Muslim tribes from Hindu Lineage[edit]

This article is unsourced original research. It also violates WP:Note, WP:V, and WP:SOAP. Having a list of tribes, and saying that they once followed a certain religion is not encyclopedic.IP198 02:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article must not be deleted .The contents of the listing are an aggregation of links from many existing articles on Wikipedia . The charge of original research is also unfounded the listings and their links to their respective pages on Wikipedia already state the import of the article . There is no violation of WP:Noteas the contents of the listings already form existing and valid articles on Wikipedia . As regards the pretext of WP:SOAP it does not apply at all . As regards the charge of Lists wikipedia has innumerable similar lists ,including those to which .IP198 has contributed and I could substantiate . The issue of lineage is a valid topic for an encyclopedia Intothefire 15:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The racial background of the population of the Punjab is encyclopedic, but this article approaches it in a confused way and is not salvageable. Until I read this I assumed that it was generally understood that the Muslim population of the Indian sub-continent was mostly descended from Hindu converts, although there could be some Arab and Iranian ancestry. Trying to seperate this out by families or clans is subscribing to very dated notions of racial purity. PatGallacher 19:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep (Sigh) Two of the five books cited in the references show up on Google. The others probably exist but don't show up for whatever reason. I don't really see why we need to have a list of racial clans like this, but I hope the creator is not the only one who finds it useful. I think original research concerns can be resolved by referencing individual pages within the books where possible. Yechiel Man 22:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original research i was talking about is statement such as "The continued prevalence of these Hindu Surnames in spite of the trend to trace ancestry to Persian and Arabic sources is also indicative of strong tribal affinity and kinship among these groups." It doesnt make any sense to have this article as many Muslims of foreign descent intermarried with muslims who had converted from Hinduism. Its impossible to verify that a certain tribe is 100% descended from one particular group. IP198 22:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for underlying OR. Another title for this article could be "list of Pakistani surnames of Hindu origin" (which could very well be put up for AfD as listcruft). But although this article's body is no different from that title I've suggested, the article attempts to draw some sort of meaning or significance to this collection of surnames (without, by the way, citing each name as actually being of Hindi origin, although I understand that in theory the references at the bottom could have verification of such). I certainly feel that articles about ethnicity and cultural shift are important, but this is not really about either of those things...except in the mind of the author. -Markeer 00:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

1)The information on this article is from

reliable
Scholarly
published
verifiabe sources often used on wikipedia and

which have now been provided ,and will improve the article no doubt .

2) There is no original research here -The sources used are secondary, and tertiary .

3) Further links provided on this article to other wikipedia articles corroborate this article

4)The subject of lineage and genology and lists thereof of people ,clans and tribes is a valid encyclopedic article and similar articles abound on wikipedia.

5)As regards the books , which three would you like further details on .

Intothefire 11:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-There are so many more articles on wikipedia that would fit the bill for deletion considering the reasons I am seeing here ,for example List of Pakistani family names...I would imagine then that the same rational would apply to them as well .Take the case of List of Pakistani family names would the editors delete this article and other similar as well...I could provide a whole list from wikipedia . Intothefire 13:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 15:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Intothefire. Shyamsunder 07.40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Per nominator? I guess you meant "Delete" per nominator. utcursch | talk 11:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, corrected now .Shyamsunder 18.18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete This article serves no identifiable purpose. Hinduism is a Faith NOT an ethnicity that the article suggests (i.e. Hindu lineage). It can also be argued should we have articles suggesting the druid "lineage" of many British clans? Many of the clans listed already contain quite some detail re their previous Hindu faith. I would also argue that the sources are ducious on some cases and misleading in others (see Awan talkpage for an example.--Raja 11:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominator's concern is valid -- this is indiscriminate, poorly-sourced list. Besides, I don't mean what do we mean by "Hindu lineage" -- Hinduism is not an ethnic group -- it is a religious group that consists of several ethnic groups. The page numbers have been requested for "references", but none have been provided. utcursch | talk 11:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Utcursch 1)inline citations provided 2) page number provided as examples ..I could keep providing further , but you may like to also assess the depth page level simillarly of references provided on articles by those suggesting Delete here . Intothefire 18:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopediac list--Sefringle^Talk 03:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 04:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 04:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<comment moved on to the talk page, accusations do not relate to the AfD debate whatsoever> Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 18:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ITAQALLAH 16:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "Keeps" don't explain how the article is encylopedic and not original research. Gizza^Discuss ^© 00:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extended[edit]

Per the article creator's request, I am extending this debate for one week to allow a better consensus to form. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 16:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on YechielMan's arguments--they are almost all sourced out of an old survey, but this may still be the best reference. Eventually perhaps we'll have more articles on them. Section 15, Classic Cities of the Punjab Region belongs in another article unless more explanation is given--I assume the intended meaning is "cities in Punjab Region that have been notable for the historic Hindu presence or associations there".DGG 18:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom, WP:OR, and user Utcursch. NSR77 ^T_C 18:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG; the major objection here seems to be the title, so rename: Hindi origin? Subcontinental origin? (The assumption that each surname marks a pure line of descent is almost certainly the sources', so the fix there is to add more recent ethnography.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:OK I am agreeable to rename the title of the page to for example Punjabi tribes from Indian origin .
Lets have a constructive concensus building debate here !
CheersIntothefire 08:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we cant rename it to Hindi origin, as thats a language. As for subcontinental, or Indian origin thats a problem as well as some of the tribes mentioned in this article, like Awan (Pakistan) claim foreign ancestery. Also Muslims of foreign ancestery have oftern intermarried with Muslims whose ancestors were Hindus.

Delete This article, nay list, is really quite stupid and to rename it Punjabi tribes from Indian origin would be facile, go someway beyond stating the obvious (yet at the same time be a bone of contention, especially in the case of tribes claiming Arab or Persian lineage) and thus to put it bluntly, the author’s suggestion is simply foolish.

Besides, when these tribes first formed a discernable identity, the concept an Indian identity did not even exist. So why attempt to classify these tribes as being of anything but Punjabi origin?

If one was to be pedantic, it could be argued that many of the tribes that the author lists could claim, for example, to be of Scythian, rather than Indian, lineage. But where does this leave other tribes listed by the author? The original title of his article is simply absurd. As others have stressed, Hindusim is a faith system and Hindus do not form a distinct ethnic group. Whoever stated that this article could serve as a model for a similar article listing British clans (in this day and age, of those who are religious, made up overwhelmingly of Christians) from Pagan lineage, in an effort to emphasise how ludicrous the author’s article really is, has hit the nail on the head. The author may as well go the whole hog and attempt to trace the lineage of these tribes beyond the point Hinduism was practised.

Whatever the author has to say about the material he has used to support his claims, the fact remains that he is making reference to opinions not facts, opinions that can be contradicted by material that is of equal weight. In the case of some tribes he has listed, a Hindu past cannot be denied (or at least is difficult to do so) and most of these tribes do admit to such a past, a fact that has already been stressed. But in the case of other tribes that proffer alternative theories as to their lineage, to categorically state, as the author does, on the basis of opinion rather than fact, that these tribes also have a Hindu past, is simply wrong.

The article is pointless. Most Punjabi Muslim tribes do acknowledge their ancestral origins (and in certain cases, there will always be a cause for dispute when it comes to this topic, though Punjabi tribes are not unique in this respect) but for the majority, it is the role Islam has played in shaping their culture, attitude and outlook on life that has continued to remain of relevance, which cannot be said of a distant past they has long ceased to be of any real importance to them. In other words, there is a good reason that these tribes came to be categorised as Punjabi Muslims in the first place.

Comment:

1)For each specific point of objection raised I have provided specific verifiable responses to fulfill objections. For example the Britannica.
2)I provided names of verifiable, neutral sources from books and citations.
3)No information is original research and much of it is corroborated by articles within wikipedia itself.
4)Hyperlinks on listings lead to wikipedia articles .
5)As to the issue of racial purity this is not mentioned any where in the article .
6)Hindu is defined as a person in wikipedia , see link .The term Hinduism is not used in the article ,therefore reference to and objection thereof to the word Hinduism is misplaced .
7)Is the contribution of an anonymous user and the intemperate language used valid on this debate.
8)If the article needs to be encyclopedic please inform criteria so that it may be improved, I am all for improvement. I have stated this earlier as well
9)From the time of this debate starting I have continuously improved the article based on fulfilling requirements of objectors , It seems to me that the objections are contributing to improve the article each day and this is good .

Cheers Intothefire 13:13, 29 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Against The Fire[edit]

Don't appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Some minor local coverage, but not much. Practically no non-myspace info online, either. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. Fails criteria of WP:MUSIC and WP:CITE.--Edtropolis 16:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure Toledo is a very nice place and that its citizens have thoughtful and discerning musical taste, but to meet WP:Band fame is required beyond that city's limits. A1octopus 18:29, 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. Sr 13 03:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of mystery-related television shows[edit]

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics; just 3 unrelated TV shows (plus an episode) that happen to have the word "Mysteries" in the title. At least half a dozen of these lists of unrelated topics have appeared recently, and all of them were created by the same editor. Masaruemoto 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense and/or bad joke, I'd say. "Mystery-related"? --Quuxplusone 03:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing here that a category wouldn't do equally well. Bridgeplayer 03:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom—a list of shows connected by little more than the fact that they happen to have mystery in the title. --Paul Erik 05:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list articles with such mysterious inclusion criteria. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is completely useless and provides little information. -Vcelloho 15:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 18:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should be a category, say, Category:Television mystery series, which should contain murder mysteries and such. Maybe there is some other category for this stuff? GlassFET 19:18, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Nightlife[edit]

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT#DIRECTORY is indeed correct. --tennis man 02:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a new article and just needs to be expanded. I'm sure after some work, it will certainly resemble other articles such as Nightlife in Paris, Nightlife in Canberra, Montreal night life, Entertainment in Delhi, Nightclubs in Greece,etc... which apparently are not directories? Postoak 02:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the creator of this article, it was not my intention to create a directory and made a special effort to word it as such. This is not a directory, but part of a growing list that will evolve that is relevant instructions on where in the city visitors can go. It doesn't list specific businesses or clubs. So it's NOT a directory.--Hourick 02:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So it's meant to be a travel guide; do you have any sourcing that would contradict the extrapolation from Nielsen's data that would show that most Houstonians (like most Americans) are watching tv as their nightlife? As of 2005, the avg US household had the tv on for 8 hrs 11 mins per day;[34] with work and sleep, doesn't leave much time for an alternate night life. Carlossuarez46 19:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't appear to be any more of a directory than the articles cited by Postoak. This article doesn't even have specific locations (bars, nightclubs, etc.) as of yet.--Ispy1981 02:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While certainly the directory concern is valid, I am concerned that this article will be against WP:NOT#IINFO No 2, travel guides. I also have no fondness for any of the other of the articles linked. I would not object to them being deleted. None of them have significant sources(if any), and I don't see any encyclopedic content in any of them. Heck, Nightlife doesn't even have any sources. I don't know if it's possible to fix that, and produce a real encyclopedic article, but IF so, I would suggest changing the focus from listing individual nightspots and covering the history in Houston. And I would insist on using reliable sources as well. FrozenPurpleCube 03:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that was the goal of the editor who created the article. I would have contributed to get it there. But it seems others are hell bent to delete articles before giving them a chance to be expanded. I guess it's no use to continue. Postoak 04:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you really believe an encyclopedic article on this subject can be constructed, there's nothing stopping you from doing so in userspace. Heck, if you can really improve it within the next few days, it might be kept anyway. But I'd honestly suggest starting from scratch anyway. This isn't exactly a good base to start from, it's nothing more than a guide to a few clubs in Houston. I don't think that's a good idea for Wikipedia, as it's not offering much that is encyclopedic. It may be appropriate for a travel guide, but don't you think folks might want a longer-term perspective than that? I would. It's nice to believe that's the intent of this article, but it doesn't seem so from what I can tell. It might also be better to try to work on the Culture of Houston page as this subject would clearly be a subset of that, and I'd say that page itself needs work. FrozenPurpleCube 05:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, I appreciate the feedback. We can start again on Wikipedia:Wikiproject Houston space. I didn't create this article, but I did want to expand it and include more historical perspective. Houston is an international city and each area/culture could have been developed with respect to entertainment. I believe that this is how Hourick wanted the article to evolve. Perhaps the title should have been "Entertainment areas of Houston" or something more appropriate. It is frustrating when an article gets deleted before given a chance to be expanded, but I guess that's the way things work here. Thanks again, Postoak 20:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the biggest problem is how this article started out. It doesn't impress me as being a truly historical review, but a contemporary travel guide. That's a big strike against it. FrozenPurpleCube 02:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a travel guide. Thanks for pointing out those other articles, which I will now nominate for Afd. Clarityfiend 04:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlike Montreal night life, this is a travel guide. Take it to Wikitravel. Corvus cornix 17:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. You say the Houston article is a travel guide however Montreal night life isn't. Please clarify. The Houston nightlife article is in essentially the same format at the Montreal article. Both articles define nightlife centers within the city. It just happens that the Houston article is newly created and undeveloped. A stub..i.n outline form. Shouldn't the Montreal article "take it to Wikitravel" also? Let's be fair here. Postoak 19:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like the other night life articles. Carlossuarez46 19:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is an intrinsic problem with this article & most of the others mentioned--how to say something meaningful without getting into spam. The only article mentioned that I think would make sense is Paris. DGG 03:29, 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. Sr 13 03:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Disease[edit]

An album cut. No more notable than any other album cut. No claims of notability in the article, which is basically a frame for a huge nn quote. I listed it for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed. Corvus cornix 01:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only songs which are needed are singles. Thus, this is unnecessary. By the way, users who remove speedy tags should be warned. (I didn't check, so if they were, ignore my ignorance EDIT:The user who declined gave a correct reasoning) --tennisman 02:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the article's creator is cautioned against removing speedy tags. Corvus cornix 16:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are many pages on Wikipedia for songs that were not singles. The article contains no original research and includes multiple references. A search of Google for "Pearl Jam"-"Green Disease" yielded 30,500 results.BP322 02:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Corvus cornix 16:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - As per BP. You want to a redirect to be deleted? I suggest you read WP:BIO.--Edtropolis 14:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm sorry, what? This is not a redirect, and it has nothing to do with WP:BIO. Corvus cornix 15:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Notability (songs). I know that this is just a proposed guideline, but this song doesn't meet any of the criteria there. Corvus cornix 16:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to Delete. I see your point, Corvus. I should pay more attention to the guidelines and rethink.--Edtropolis 16:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what about most of the articles in Category:Pearl Jam songs? Lugnuts 18:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:INN. Corvus cornix 20:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant should all those be deleted too (apart from the ones that were singles)? Lugnuts 05:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability apart from what the singer said. --Tone 21:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., nn. Doczilla 09:44, 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 speedy delete per WP:A7 (non-notable groups). And just a note, IPs can give opinions in AFDs. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 04:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeisbutadream[edit]

DeleteNo assertion of notability. No references. Googling "lifeisbutadream irc" yields 28 hits. This just isn't significant enough for a WP article. De-proded, by author, without explanation. eaolson 01:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is useless — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.156.190 (talk • contribs)
- IP's are generally not allowed to vote in AfD debates. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an encyclopedia entry. (Doesn't mean it does, either.) Morgan Wick 01:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This isn't a vote, it's a discussion. As far as I'm aware, anyone is welcome to contribute, though the closing admin may weight anon comments differently than those from registered users. eaolson 02:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Capmango 03:15, 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 02:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anasazi Downtown, Albuquerque[edit]

Non-notable building in a city. We can't have articles on every big building. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Although it will be 9 stories tall; and it's the biggest building on the Albuquerque's Central Avenue... Mandsford 01:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, tallest building on a street is not notable. It will be far short of the tallest building in the city.[35] --Dhartung | Talk 01:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even built yet, and won't even be one of the 25 tallest buildings in Albuquerque. Capmango 03:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 9 floors? Give me a break. Bridgeplayer 03:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 9 floors, and two of those are just parking. Not even all that tall by today's standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - not enough sources. Possibly fails criteria of WP:CITE.--Edtropolis 14:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, okay Strong Delete -- nobody here has a sense of humor. I agree entirely that it's not notable, hence the delete. It's apparently an advertisement for some building. I had to laugh at the statement that it would be "the tallest building on Central Street", or that a 9-story tall building in Albuquerque would merit it's own article. Maybe if they added more stories (and they already added two, so they may be thinking about it) I'll change my mind. It's got to be at least 14 stories tall, and NO fair skipping the 13th floor. Mandsford 00:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. IP198 14:41, 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.

Article was speedy deleted. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 01:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plament[edit]

This is unsourced and smells to me of hoax, but perhaps other editors have more information on this subject. JavaTenor 00:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sounds like a hoax to me. --Haemo 00:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nonsense (G1). Search for "Peter Plament" on Google only turns up the Wikipedia article. It's utter WP:BALLS. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:02, 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 02:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead rose complex[edit]

Self-declared "largely inactive" musical group, no assertion of notability. Speedy tag removed twice, so here we are in AfD-land. DMacks 00:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Non-notable. And anyways, shouldn't the title be Dead Rose Complex? (lemonflash)^talk 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Also warn the people removing the Speedy tags. I've also warned the anon IP who was removing talk from the talk page regarding the band lack of notability. Wildthing61476 01:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of simply nominating our page for deletion, how about some helpful suggestions? We did not create this page to "advertise" our band. We simply thought this would be a great place for individuals to view an official description/biography of the band from a noteworthy source. All of the information included is accurate and we intended to add reviews and other information shortly. Could someone please explain precisely what is wrong with these intentions aside from "no assertion of notability?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DamienRose (talk • contribs).

If you need to use Wikipedia to be a noteworthy source, then the band doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Review WP:BAND to show what criteria are required to be included on Wikipedia. Also, just doing a Google search for "Dead Rose Complex" returns exactly 2 hits, not a good sign for notability. Wildthing61476 01:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some WP:RS reviews, please add them to the article ASAP...that would support this as being a notable enough band to be included on Wikipedia. DMacks 01:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DMacks. We appreciate CONSTRUCTIVE criticism and reviews will be added ASAP.

Please see Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!. Essentially, you need to have been reviewed non-trivially by mainstream media outlets, the more prominent the better. We certainly encourage everyone to contribute, but we are an encyclopedia, not a webspace provider, so we have standards and guidelines the community has adopted to determine what belongs. --Dhartung | Talk 01:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no sources have yet been provided demonstrating notability per Wikipedia guidelines. --Dhartung | Talk 01:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the musical criteria for notability in the Wikipedia guidelines and I see that our sources are likely not reputable enough to remain in the wikipedia (as of yet). Both my bandmate and I are currently completing our graduate degrees at Wright State University and we understand the use of appropriate citations. However, as mentioned, we have not been reviewed by Rolling Stone or any other periodicle of this magnitude. Our reviews come from underground goth sites and random fans. We will leave this matter to review process and will be otherwise unoffended if the page is removed at this time. --User:DamienRose

Just to let you know, the website you linked to in the article is no longer available. Wildthing61476 01:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of our best reviews and the site is no longer available...Thank you for bringing that to my attention.--User:DamienRose

delete Just don't need this article; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astroview120mm (talk • contribs).
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 03:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, and one of the most egregious and blatant WP:COI cases in recent memory. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If only all COI editors were as forthright and reasonable. There is no prohibition against writing your own article, only a recommendation against it. --Dhartung | Talk 10:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As per nom. Fails WP:Notability.--Edtropolis 15:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete into a bloody pulp per all the above. Doczilla 09:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ow. My ears....--Mike18xx 08:48, 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 yet another crufty "list of..." deleted. Sr 13 02:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of works titled "from Outer Space"[edit]

Extreme violation of WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics. A list of things with no connection, other than containing the words "Outer Space". Apparently a fork from Outer space (disambiguation); this list didn't belong there, but it certainly doesn't belong here either. Masaruemoto 00:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 00:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. (lemonflash)^talk 00:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list with a trivial inclusion criterion. --Haemo 00:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it reminds me of all those cartoons, inspired by at two films, that have had the title, "The Incredible Shrinking ______" (although Gene Rayburn turned that into a memorable Match Game episode) Mandsford 01:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sigh, yet another really fun list that has to bite the dust. Personally I find these things really cool, but I know WP is not the place for them. There needs to be a wiki just for lists. Capmango 03:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sheesh. JJL 03:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—as per Haemo. --Paul Erik 04:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god, noooooo. Delete per ↑. Transwikify to Wiki-lists. --Evb-wiki 05:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree. --Tone 14:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. List-cruft.--Edtropolis 15:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the above. Lumping items together based on some common element from their name is a textbook case of what wikipedia is WP:NOT. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 18:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - "from outer space" titles could almost be considered a separate subgenre of cult science fiction, I think. Most other words used in the title aren't notable criteria for articles, but I believe these three words are. 96T 19:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there's something to what 96T says, it can be added to Extraterrestrial life in popular culture until someone comes along to delete that "popular culture" article. Carlossuarez46 19:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am compelled to ask why was this page created? Its classic sort of page that User:Eep², who is currently banned, would have created. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eep and Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:19, 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 it's getting rather chilly in here, so put your "closed" back on. Krimpet (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of "closed" articles[edit]

Another two ridiculous WP:NOT#DIR-violating lists of loosely associated topics which also violate WP:NOT#IINFO. No connection other than they all contain the word "closed". Should not even be turned into a disambiguation page, that would be like adding every single article on Wikipedia that contains the word "night" in the title to Night (disambiguation). This is what the "search" function is for. (Also nominating the related List of "enclosed" articles). Masaruemoto 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - you mean "list of article loosely involving the word closed". Indiscriminate list, with a trivial inclusion criterion. --Haemo 00:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Oh man this is goofy. --P4k 00:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all of the above. Eddie 00:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Close" this article down (i.e. Delete) - I say we close this AfD rather quickly by closing down this article, which doesn't even come close to following Wikipedia policy. (Oops, wrong "close" there!) --Hnsampat 00:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:LIST, and defenestrate Hnsampat for punning! =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. :-) --Hnsampat 01:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's getting WP:NOT in here, so take off all your "closed". --Dhartung | Talk 01:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't agree more with you, Dhartung. It's almost as goofy as this AfD. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above two posts had me laughing out loud. There was an AFD for pants and I missed it?! —Gaff ^ταλκ 08:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No-pun-here Delete - end the puns and close it, please!(EDIT: I guess that's a pun, isn't it? Darn!) --tennis man 02:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whoa! Seem to be getting a little delete happy here. List of articles with a similarly named concept is another word for disambiguation page. Just needed a rename. ~ Infrangible 02:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't what disambiguaton pages are for at all. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists is clear enough; Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Masaruemoto 02:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do--and is what the very meaning of disambiguation (to make less ambiguous) is. See discussions on other AfDs mentioned below. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 03:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the definition of disambiguate. A Wikipedia disambiguation page follows this, but the purpose is not to arbitrarily disambiguate things that don't need to be disambiguated - for instance, closed source and closed captioned. The only thing they have going is that they are things that are, somehow, "closed", and this is the only way they are associated. Not only is there no ambiguity, comparing the two is like comparing oranges to an offset press. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Um, this page (as you can see from its history) is a result of a heated debate involving numerous dab pages (Outer, Inner, and Enclosed (disambiguation)). Also, Closed (disambiguation) is what this article redirects too. If you delete these pages, you must delete all other dab pages! ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 03:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refer to WP:ALLORNOTHING. Note that the disambig is very recent, but doesn't seem to be in line with what disambigs are for. My !vote stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eep² forgot to mention that he/she is the editor who created these lists of loosely associated topics masquerading as (unnecessary) disambiguation pages, which may be why theirs is the only "keep" argument here. While we're on the subject of related discussions, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of titles with "Darker" in them (another one from Eep²). Masaruemoto 04:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sheesh. Playing semantics games. JJL 03:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all—This is not in keeping with the current consensus as to the function of a disambig page. --Paul Erik 04:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coment I shouldn't laugh, but I thought this edit to the article was funny. I'll be serious now. Masaruemoto 05:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close & Delete per WP:SNOW. No chance in Hell this is going to get kept; it's an indiscriminate list masquerading as a disambiguation. I'd not object to deleting all those related lists Eep pointed out, either. -- Kesh 05:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Snowball, etc. This is getting to the point of disrupting the encyclopedia to make a WP:POINT. —Gaff ^ταλκ 08:18, 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. JoshuaZ 01:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draioicht na hOiche[edit]

A band and its members who don't demonstrate (via independent non-trivial sources) that they meet music notability guidelines. The articles have been edited extensively by Draioicht (talk · contribs), suggesting a conflict of interest. They all link to themselves and have no other incoming links, so it's a walled garden too. Google search and this alternative spelling don't seem to turn up any sources, meaning this article is pretty much all original research. Also listing:

Desmond FitzMaurice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Elisabeth McCarran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anita Phelan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lóriana MacLochlainn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Wafulz 14:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom.--Edtropolis 15:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Guroadrunner 22:14, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wealthiest Arab cities[edit]

Unsourced , Advertisment , Random , not for encyclopedias

Neutral This is a well-researched article, but there's already an article called Wealthiest cities in the Middle East. To the extent that this is new, the info should go there, with a redirect from Arab world to the Middle East article. Besides Israel, I'm not sure what other non-Arab areas there are in the Middle East. Mandsford 15:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Turkey and Iran are sometimes considered Middle Eastern. Neither are Arab. --Charlene 17:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yup, and Kurdistan. Stammer 18:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What makes a city arab? Why is such a distinction necessary? -- Cat ^chi? 19:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment This article should be cleaned up, expanded, and called something different. Otherwise this article contains useful and helpful information. -Vcelloho 15:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. As per comment.--Edtropolis 16:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for the header information Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 17:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: i just found this page :(The_wealthiest_countries_in_the_Middle_East) , do you think it should be nominated for deletion for the same reasons ? Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 17:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "wealthiest" is a subjective term. According to who? Why is 56BN$ a cutoff point? Also why "arabic", "middle eastern" would be better. At the very least, rename to List of wealthy Arabic cities or something along the line. -- Cat ^chi? 19:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not encyclopedic any more than The wealthiest Spanish speaking cities, The wealthiest cities in countries starting with "C", or The wealthiest cities with a good Irish pub. Also, FWIW: Arabic is a language and is used sparingly as an adjective usually for linguistic (Arabic script) and mathematical (Arabic numerals) concepts; Arab is the normal adjective for the people, Arabian for a geography. An Arab city would mean a city inhabited by Arabs, whether it was in "Arabia" or not - which gets us to the lovely WP policies of race/ethnicity, etc. which don't tell us what percentage of the city's population has to be Arab but if you're ancestry is 1/4 Irish and you're living in Britain then you get to be in Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain, so perhaps a 25% Arab population makes the city an Arab city; an Arabian city would mean a city in the region Arabia (variously defined) whether inhabited by Arabs or by Fooians. As pointed out above, the Middle East today is not synonymous with Arab (e.g., Turkey, Iran, Israel, Kurdistan, and even sometimes Cyprus). Carlossuarez46 19:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Svetovid 20:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46. Pavel Vozenilek 23:44, 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 with minimal prejudice against recreation of a reliably sourced, well-written article. I will be happy to userfy this if anyone else wants to work on it. JoshuaZ 01:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formal axiology[edit]

deleteno original research, likely wp:coi, and pov problems, beyond which it is hard to say whether or not there is even anything going on in the field with a total of 81 hits on google scholar, so notability is questionable. indeed, to me this looks like a debate based on one scholar reframing another scholars ideas. Buridan 21:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite - seems like a valid topic, but poorly written. Linked to axiology page.Guroadrunner 22:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment what do you mean by valid? if it was a cleanup candidate, i'd have marked it as cleanup. i'm not sure where valid falls in wikipedia though? could you elaborate? --Buridan 03:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete checking Google, it appears to be OR, not a notable theory. JJL 02:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 15:18, 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.

^ See J. Huston McCulloch, "The Bat Creek Inscription: Cherokee or Hebrew," Tennessee Anthropologist 13/2 (1988): 79-123; for the comparison between Cherokee and Hebrew

[1] See J. Huston McCulloch, "The Bat Creek Inscription: Cherokee or Hebrew," Tennessee Anthropologist 13/2 (1988): 79-123; for the comparison between Cherokee and Hebrew

[1]