Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 15

< June 14	June 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was feeding the school merge fetish on here, merge/redirect.--Wizardman 14:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tomsett Elementary_School[edit]

non notable elementary school ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to School District 38 Richmond. Dhaluza 16:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as article fails WP:N on its own but facts are supported. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, replace with redir. No content to merge. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a bit of content that could be merged. Noroton 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to School District 38 Richmond Noroton 17:51, 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 of recreated article (CSD G4)

Westwind Elementary_School[edit]

non notable school. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to School District 38 Richmond. Dhaluza 16:31, 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 keep without prejudice. Bucketsofg 12:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins comments. The 'deleters' have a good point about the lack of sourcing, but the 'keepers' are numerous and seem to have a good reason to suppose the subject is notable. I urge interested editor to redouble the search for reliable sources. Bucketsofg 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Sapienza[edit]

Non-notable, no references. Although an interesting subject, I don't think we have enough information on him to create an encyclopedic article Todd(Talk-Contribs) 23:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the article is lacking hard biographical info, I do believe that Sapienza is notable - 1900+ ghits. Eddie.willers 01:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eddie.willers Magioladitis 07:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google hits do not establish notability. What we need, by WP:BIO, is secondary coverage in reliable sources. No secondary sources are given in the article, and within the Google hits (200 distinct, by the way) I found none either. If you know of any substantial press coverage, biographies published, or similar, please add these to the article. --B. Wolterding 09:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cite sources Looking at the history, this has been around for a while and has serious contributors. I suggest contacting some of the contributors to see whether they can bring this up to standards. My gut feeling is that this can be saved. --Kevin Murray 13:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eddie.willers Brimba 13:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject appears well-known within his political community, and runs a successful blog & forum. I'd worked on the article years ago. However when I just looked for some reliable sources I got the same result as B. Wolterding. I've asked another user who might know more, but without any sources we obviously can't have a neutral, verifiable article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Although some users are suggesting that the subject is notable, what is not up for debate is that the entire article is written by his friends, and is considered original research; there is not a shred of verifiable information either in the article, or that we can find on him. Wiki-rules indicate that we should delete this article. Furthermore, I put this article up for deletion at the request of the subject; although "No consensus" usually indicates that the article should be kept, in situations where the subject does not wish his or her article to remain, I would hope that we could either delete the article, or perhaps merge it to the anti-war.com article, which is where he is perhaps most notable. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 01:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it is generally understood from your nomination that you favor deletion in this case. This comment should be labeled as such, and not as a vote (yeah, I know: voting is evil), since you've already indicated your position. DickClarkMises 16:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)s[reply]

Keep. We should ask whether he is notable, not whether the current article is a good one. I think it needs drastic revision and some sourcing. Here are a few sources for the claim that Sapienza may be notable enough for inclusion:

Robert P. Murphy addresses some of Sapienza's work here. This is an area where Murphy is a recognized scholar, and thus represents critical examination of the subject's work in his primary area of notability.
Wrote the introduction to Murphy's first book, Chaos Theory.
Justin Raimondo described Sapienza favorably here.
Linked from the Young Americans for Freedom page here.
Repeated contributor to LewRockwell.com.
LRC writer John Keller addresses Sapienza's views on intellectual property here.

To me, those sources and others are sufficient to warrant an article. The current one isn't very good. The nomination, though, is arguably incorrect in asserting "non-notable." In response to the second part of the nomination—that we don't have enough info to write an article—I think the sources I provide above, along with the hundreds available in a search for "jeremy sapienza" demonstrate that an adequate number of reliable sources exist to merit an article on Wikipedia. DickClarkMises 16:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is my understanding that we are looking for a 3rd party writing about him. Somebody writing about him on a website he owns (anti-state.com) would thus not be applicable. Neither would somebody writing about him on a site where he is the editor (anti-war.com). His introduction to a book, and his repeated submissions to LRC do not establish notability, but can be included as primary information once notability has been established. In order to be notable, somebody not related to him has to think he is interesting enough to write about, and that has not been established. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 21:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So you are saying that anything written by anyone who has written an article in a venue where Sapienza has also published cannot be used as a source? That is a ridiculous standard and not one that I get from reading WP:RS. LRC is a high-traffic website with a limited number of contributors. Sapienza's having been published there is a measure of his notability. The fact that Murphy and Raimondo have commented on Sapienza's work is too. Both of them are notable for work that has nothing to do with Sapienza. Keller's piece that mentions Sapienza is an independent, 3rd party source, that is published on a website that Sapienza has no creative control over. Whether Sapienza asked you to nom this article for deletion is not germane. Are there any BLP concerns here that raise the specter of a libel suit? Is Sapienza, a self-avowed anarchist, likely to file suit? I think the answer to both questions is "no." Jeremy Sapienza is a notable individual who has been discussed by other notable individuals in multiple, independent sources (sources that are independent from each other). He is notable, and there should be an article about him. DickClarkMises 16:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IF sourced that seems obvious to me. If his theories have attracted public notice add the sources and no one could object to the article. DGG 23:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DickClarkMises is spot-on with his argument that Mr. Sapienza is notable in the right context, and his examples are sound ones. I do, however, agree with DGG that expanded sourcing would make this an even better article. bwowen ^talk.^contribs 03:44, 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 merge with Knoppix. The final version has yet to be released and the keepers have failed to demonstrate enough independent notability, at this point in time, for a separate article. OTOH there is no consensus to delete and there is plainly mergeable encyclopaedic material. TerriersFan 21:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adriane Knoppix[edit]

Notability to come. Chealer 02:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I imagine this just needs a bit more research to provide the WP:RS which will verify notability. JodyB_talk 15:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason to state this? With about 50 non-ignored Google hits, you may as well scan the entire list for a reliable source.--Chealer 17:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's an assertion of notability, but with a quick search amongst the handful of ghits, I didn't see anything I would really consider a reliable source. Feel free to provide one or two if you find them, and I'll switch to keep. It's a recurrent problem with homemade freeware, there's no advertising, no sales, no delivery to stores, so no momentum to make it notable. And few truly reliable sources are interested in covering topics that don't already seem notable in some manner. Just my opinion. Someguy1221 02:56, 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, KrakatoaKatie 23:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball. If this comes out and has some notability then the article can be recreated. ~ Wiki hermit 23:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I think this is notable, but can't demonstrate it with solid sources after cursory research. However, lack of sources for a topic which appears notable is not sufficient grounds for deletion. I think that the writers should be contacted and encouraged to provide sources. --Kevin Murray 13:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Knoppix maybe? Cwolfsheep 21:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep, or at least let me merge with Knoppix. I created this article when the project was announced. Klaus Knopper is a major Linux developer; this is about a 'favourite' software development by him (because of his wife), and when it is released it will be completely noteworthy. So, why would it not be noteworthy during its development when it is expected to be released in just months? (And, I've put in some more detail.) - Peter Ellis - Talk 03:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Adriane Knoppix, The Proyect ADRIANE, exist, or is under current development.... see here please: [1]... Maybe, and only MAYBE must be merge with Knoppix... --V A R G U X 04:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC) ^{Write me a note}[reply]
Delete Worthy product but notability unproven. --Gavin Collins 13:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citing from WP:N: The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". Short question: How many operating systems for the blind do you know? Further, extending the argument: first versions have been presented ([2]) -- so we have a case similar to Haiku --. Third and last: The author of the OS is Klaus Knopper, a well-known author of linux operating systems, so not just anybody. I conclude that this article can be included perfectly well. --Ben ^T/_C 17:34, 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. — Caknuck 19:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retail design[edit]

This seems like original research Rackabello 05:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did you do to determine that? Did you do the necessary homework before nomination, of looking for sources on the subject to see whether this is a new concept not discussed in sources? Given that 1 minute's effort with Google Books turns up several whole books on the subject of retail design, such as ISBN 071482562X, I suspect that you did not. As the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy both tell you, please do the necessary homework and look for sources before nominating something for deletion on the grounds that it is a novel concept not documented in any sources. Uncle G 20:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then how about adding those sources to the article? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Feel free to do so. Uncle G 09:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you have immediately read that book to assert that the article is not original research anyway?--Svetovid 23:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per UncleG-- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 12:52, 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, KrakatoaKatie 22:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep See [3]. This article just needs some work. ~ Wiki hermit 23:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Wikihermit above; article just needs work. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It compares to a much stubbier article in my watchlist, Manufacturing operations. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recognized discipline with dedicated college degree programs. ~ Infrangible 00:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything the retail sector does from the ground up is calculated to bring in sales, from store layout to product placement and building design. Since the term has been used in books there's doubtless sources. QuagmireDog 00:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep conditional on citing some references. Uncle G makes a good point that the responsibility lies with the nominator to first try to improve the article. --Kevin Murray 13:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- Why should the nominator have to improve the article? Not that I favor deletions, but this one has room for improvement. If I'd written it, I wouldn't be satisfied with it as it stands now. Sorry, but it's lengthy and not at all informative; maybe an example or two of retail design would make this article interesting.Mandsford 02:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, The topic is unquestionably valid. The opening paragraph is essentially a definition (of course) and then the balance varies from mundane to readily challengable (in my view as someone in a closely related design profession). With the appropriate leadership, this is fixable - but "as is" the article has no notable or merited content. Pever 04:18, 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 redirect to Steven_Avery#The_Avery_trial. JoshuaZ 18:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Halbach[edit]

Halbach is a victim of a murder. The case can be arguably notable, but that's because of the murderer it appears, not because of her. I don't see any evidence that says she is notable, only that her being murdered was somewhat notable. Metros 23:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Steven Avery Trial. She is not notable outside the murder case. Her name being mentioned in the article on her killer and his trial seems sufficient. Dr bab 23:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The Steven Avery Trial redirects to Steven Avery. Metros 23:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply You're right, I didn't notice. Then the proper redirect would be to Steven_Avery or perhaps Steven_Avery#The_Avery_trial.Dr bab 23:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Titles of cited articles contain her name and not that of the accused. Being the subject of media coverage makes her notable. ~ Infrangible 00:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, but all murder victims get some form of coverage in local newspapers. There are thousands of Teresa Halbachs out there (not literally, but I mean thousands of people who are victims of murder), so should we write articles on each one of them because they were talked about in their local area newspaper? Metros 00:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge into The Steven Avery Trail. ~ Wiki hermit 00:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Steven Avery Trial. Non-notable aside from being the victim of a violent crime. Not enough biographical information available to satisfy WP:BLP. -- Kesh 05:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. News conflated with encyclopedic content. Again. Eusebeus 15:16, 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 Since notice was not given on the Adamantix page I suggest someone nominate that for AfD as well. JoshuaZ 02:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardened Debian[edit]

Non-notable software project. Chealer 22:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frag- I would bundle Adamantix into this as well. Both appear to be incredibly minor subsets, and no real claim is made as to why they are notable. David Fuchs 23:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Del per nom and David Fuchs. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of assertion of notability. Searching for sources proved difficult, as there are a number of distros that are "hardened debians." Someguy1221 00:30, 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. Peacent 02:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan C. Posey[edit]

He works at a law firm, but doesn't appear notable for it. The most in-depth source I found was bare-bones info at the firm's webpage[4]. Delete as non-notable. NickelShoe (Talk) 22:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I prodded this first, but the tag was removed without comment by an anonymous user. NickelShoe (Talk) 23:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to meet WP:BIO. Eddie.willers 01:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. huji—TALK 15:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sourcs. -- Whpq 17:02, 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. Peacent 04:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arol jahns[edit]

Non-notable actor. His imdb entry (http://imdb.com/name/nm2273159/) only lists one credit, and even the ones listed in the article are mainly no-name bit parts. Fails to show notability. Corvus cornix 22:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well check it out now...or go to his website aroljahns.com he has many more credits.

His website does not appear to be working. But, irregardless, that is not a reliable source. Corvus cornix 23:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTE.--Svetovid 23:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Svetovid. Eddie.willers 01:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that not reliable? he made that website himself he's my cousin so i no

Have you read our reliable sources guidelines? Corvus cornix 01:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the one who originally placed the notability tag on the article. Since then, the articles creator (who apparently wrote the comment above me) has not made any attempt to provide reliable sources or to make any assertion that this is more than a bit player. It's a delete for me, per WP:NOTE.--Ispy1981 01:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lasck of reliable sources. Acting roles are minor. -- Whpq 17:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the arguments made have been pretty good, but, to reiterate: lacks notability, per WP:N. It's not a question of being listed on IMDB, but he needs to break into something bigger before he is really notable.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 after the book is published and has reliable sources. JoshuaZ 02:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Effect: Revolution[edit]

A short article on a book that doesn't exist. Supporting material, an external link to a press release from the company for which the author works, makes no mention of the title. Fails WP:BK and runs against WP:CBALL Victoriagirl 22:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTE.--Svetovid 23:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only ghits are WP, mirrors, and forum posters who seem to have got their information from WP. WP:CRYSTAL, since the book is not supposed to be published until 2008, which probably means that it hasn't been written yet. Deor 23:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Nonstopdrivel 00:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is proof of the novel's existance. Though it says that the name may only be temporary:

http://game-spectrum.com/content/view/962/151/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igfi (talk • contribs)

Delete - per my nomination. As an added comment, I disagree that the reference provided above is evidence of the novel's existence. If anything, it indicates that it is a work in progress ("DK: That’s just a working title. I’m still focused on getting the game out the door, so the novel’s going to have to wait a bit longer.") A non-issue as the book has not been published - nor has it been announced by a publisher. Again, WP:CRYSTAL. Victoriagirl 00:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is proof of the second novel. It is an offical press release on the bioware site. The release confirms a second novel but it does not give a title. proof at bioware.com. Also in the forums I remeber Drew Karpyshyn discussing the second novel, I'll try to find the thread. Socer1104 20:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've taken the liberty of repairing the link provided by Socer1104. Anyone caring to investigate will see that it features a 21 February 2007 press release announcing the acquisition of an untitled novel. What's more, the press release indicates that the novel had yet to be written ("We are thrilled to have Drew writing the book as he has the knowledge and skills to make a great novel."). Once again, this is all a moot point as Mass Effect: Revolution fails to meet the criteria called for in WP:BK: it has not been published, it has no ISBN, it is not available through any on-line bookstore, it has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself". Frankly, the fact that Wikipedia itself is being referenced in the link provided by lgfi as evidence of the book's existence (and title) speaks volumes as to why this sort of speculation has no place here. Victoriagirl 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If it does not meet the wikipedia rules then maybe it should be deleted until a title or more information is releases from the author or publisher. It could also be renamed "Mass Effect 2nd novel" or something along those lines. That way the knowledge of a forth coming second novel is shared but not miss interpreted as something it isn't. Socer1104 16:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the novel quite simply does not exist. Period. Press releases only indicate that something is in the works and it may never see the light of day. It has not been reported on by independent reliable sources and so isn't even notable for being greatly anticipated. -- Whpq 17:07, 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 Keep. Peacent 02:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Blonsky[edit]

Nikki Blonsky doesn't deserve her own article. Try including some info about her in the Hairspray page. Malan89 22:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for unencyclopedic content. Reads like a fluff human interest piece. Maybe self-aggrandizing. --Nonstopdrivel 00:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep An article with ample demonstration of notability! An unknown plucked from obscurity to play a starring role in a major motion picture! Three dozen articles at Google News and over 80 more at Google News Archive! A nomination that doesn't even bother to mention Wikipedia policy once! All that and the claim that someone's personal pet peeve she "doesn't deserve her own article" is supposed to convince us to delete the article in defiance of Wikipedia policy! That and some of the best arguments for why there need to be far stricter limitations on the ability to create AfDs! Alansohn 03:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - definitaly notable. Why not get rid of every actors page and include them in the article on the movie they were in? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with the two keep reasons above --Mikecraig 03:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Although the individual is set to star in her first role, I agree that there is potential for more references and definitely a fair amount of publicity. Although I can understand the lack of notability on the individual, and WP:CRYSTAL is in play, she will satisfy most of the criteria at WP:BIO for entertainers, including having "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." Many first time actors have had articles made; just look at how Jennifer Hudson turned out. ;) On a side note, I've edited the article somewhat to better wikify it, and have integrated the trivia. María (críticame) 15:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - satisfies WP:RS, and being cast in the lead for the Hairspray remake is notable despite the lack of any previous significant roles. -- Whpq 17:10, 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. While many good points have been raised, the question of verifiability has been brought up several times, in this discussion and previously, and has not been addressed. Some editors have expressed an interest in doing a transwiki; should anyone wish a temporary history restore or userfication for this purpose, please let me know and I will happily do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the list has been transwikied to Wikibooks as Common_phrases_in_various_languages]. It needs a lot of work to be transformed into a proper book. - Taxman ^Talk 22:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of common phrases in various languages[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Common phrases in various languages

Articles for deletion/List of common phrases in various languages (second nomination)

This page is basically a guide on how to go to the bathroom in a (totally arbitrary) number of languages. According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a usage guide, an idiom guide, or a travel guide. The article is completely unsourced, unverified, and OR-prone; the title too is awkward. Please don't say "Keep: it's useful," because it's useless---at least for encyclopedic purposes. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 22:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Extreme end of cruft. --Blueboy 96 22:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Besides, I know from bitter experience that when you're in Italy and suffering from Mussolini's Revenge, what you want is the gabinetto, not the bagno (which is where you go to take a bath). Deor 23:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and clean-up. This page used to be one of the better pages on Wikipedia until the nominator from the second nomination, following a no-consensus vote, removed a lot of the phrases, rendering it into its current state. I do believe it's encyclopedic, serving two purposes, for linguistic comparison and also how particular phrases are said in other languages. I should point out that Encarta has done something similar for their languages article. The common phrases therein are, complete with audio for over 2 or 3 dozen languages, are: Greeting, Yes, No, Thank you, Good bye, numbers, proverbs, and the autonym for the languages. Yes, it was useful, but it also served an encyclopedic purpose, to show other languages expressed certain concepts. I argue that it's not a dictionary because it isn't comprehensive. Neither is it a travel/idiom/usage guide for that very purpose (there are no phrases asking where the nearest embassy is!) but I do agree that the "Where is the bathroom" phrase is touristy and should be replaced. --Chris S. 00:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. Useight 00:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Useight and impossibility to verify. Transliterations should be expressed in IPA instead of the editor's own personal transliteration system. --Nonstopdrivel 00:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How could it be impossible to verify when all you have to do is pick up a textbook or dictionary (which has pronunciation information) in a particular language? --Chris S. 00:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you have a textbook or dictionary of Arapaho? —Angr 00:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I could get Wayne C'Hair dictionary for $10 from Wind River Tribal College in Wyoming. :-D Worldcat.Org said it was published this year. ;-) --Chris S.
  - Of course you can pick up a dictionary, but see WP:NOT#DICT. This project is hopeless.--Nonstopdrivel 01:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not an encyclopedia article, or even an encyclopedic list. —An gr 00:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete and disperse~~ per WP:NOT and because it's hard to see how such a sprawling list could be kept to encyclopedic standards as Chris S. hopes. See the sprawling Dutch listing, for instance. A cleanup won't fix it (and keep it fixed). Inconsistent transliteration is a concern (as at Finnish and its neighbors), and some information may be missing crucial context, even though some sections try to indicate this (e.g., Tagalog). A lot of work went into this, but it doesn't belong here. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wikibooks as suggested below. That seems the ideal place for it, so I change my vote. -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Kpalion^(talk) 01:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mostly cruft, not useful. DHN 01:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. •97198 talk 03:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki? --Lambiam^Talk 05:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To where? This isn't the sort of thing Wiktionary likes either. —Angr 15:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  - If people delete it here, it will probably go to Wikiversity. A.Z. 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Magioladitis 07:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contrary to the general opinion I see a value here: writing the phrase "mluvite anglicky" (Do you speak English in Czech language) into the searchbox returned this page. This could be useful when looking what some unknown phrase means or as a start when looking for a detailed phrasebooks (this kind of external links is unfortunately missing now). The verification shouldn't be a real problem (the Czech section is correct, btw), the transliteration could be fixed and sound files will get added over time. The allowed set of phrases could be fixed and easily enforced. Pavel Vozenilek 22:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with Chris S. --Node 05:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmaintainable, arbirtrary & directionless. Eusebeus 15:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmaintainable, arguably of low quality, with no hope of completion or comprehensive correctness. --Kjoonlee 15:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For linguistic comparison. The page can improve a lot. It's all verifiable. A.Z. 17:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Clean-Up, I agree with Chris S, above, here. It used to be a rather good page to which I liked to contribute once in a while, until the last AfD, when everything was messed up (not on purpose, but the outcome is terrible now). I'd suggest to keep the page, to revise it thoroughly and use a fixed set of phrases — the ones used by Encarta minus the proverbs (because that would be too arbitrary and has a better place in WikiQuotes) minus the numbers (because there already is an article on that). It should be debated on the issue of gender and formality/politeness in the phrases used and... things like that. All managable, although a big pile of work (I'd readily contribute to that). However, I am fairly sure that it would not be suitable for 'linguistic comparison', otherwise we'd need in-line glossings and cross-linguistical references. — N-true 18:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We could have in-line glossings and cross-linguistical references, eventually. I don't think anyone should be in a hurry to make the best article possible right now, and I don't think an article should be deleted just because it's not great. Just let it be, so people can contribute if they wish and improve it. I don't mind if it takes five or ten years. By the way, things such as "unsourced" and "title is awkward", are not good reasons to delete any article, as articles can be improved. If we just delete everything that is not complete, there will be no article here. Check the logo: it means that Wikipedia is always under construction. The title can be changed and references can be added, and there's no deadline at all. A.Z. 18:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I don't deny that this page could be great eventually. I just don't think that Wikipedia is the place for it, certainly not in this form. Perhaps an infobox along these lines could be created for languages, so the information is given in a fuller context, although it should be flexible enough to allow for explanations of translated phrases as necessary. On this page, however, any editor can come along and spend a moment in the Swahili section to add Hakuna matata, or to comment that it may take Swahili speakers five minutes just to get past saying "hello." (I just fact-flagged the latter statement.) Were either of these things done at Swahili language, it is somewhat more likely that the claim would be quickly confirmed or reverted, and Hakuna matata, if it appeared, would be presented in a manner less likely to conjure up a Disney movie. Let's present this information with authority, or not at all. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I like the concept. Don't know if there's Wikipedia policy about global view, don't really care, but I've never seen a phrase book in 100+ languages. Back in the days when this thing was in "books", you might have five or 20 languages. I admire the effort. Disregard the sarcastic comments of others, save this before the deletion takes place; keep working on it, improve it, bring it back. Mandsford 02:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikibooks, Wiktionary, or Wikiversity, whichever is most appropriate. The material seems useful, and I'd hate to see the effort go to waste, even though I think it's not quite appropriate for Wikipedia. --Kyoko 07:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to the aforementioned arguments, notably those of Chris S., Pavel Vozenilek, and N-true, the kleptomaniacal nature of the English language leads to many of these phrases being in general use among Anglophones - Kanpai, for example. Robin Z 11:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Despite apparent vandalism by those who wish to delete it, the article is still useful and has the potential to be even more useful. I echo the above comments that an improper title or complaints about the current state are arguments to change the title or improve the content, not arguments for deletion. And, if Encarta finds such material to be encyclopedic, then why don't we ? I fail to see how the existence of this article harms Wikipedia. StuRat 11:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: How can we be asked to 'Please don't say "Keep: it's useful," ' ?? It is useful.--Jondel 10:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:USEFUL - Zeibura^(talk) 14:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikibooks (but fix the pro-nun-see-ay-shunz). This is basically a phrasebook, which doesn't belong here under WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NOT#INFO (travel guides/instruction manuals), thus is not useful as an encyclopedia article, but it is useful as a book and it is verifiable. - Zeibura^(talk) 14:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my hovercraft is full of eels. And wiki isn't a phrasebook. -- Whpq 17:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikibooks, Wiktionary, or Wikiversity. This is clearly a useful article; it's just not one suitable for an encyclopedia. —Psychonaut 23:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Keep For linguistic comparison! To delete this would be a travesty, alot of man hours have gone into this. Stick with it!--JDnCoke 00:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EFFORT ain't no argument. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 14:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Might be useful in Wiktionary. Impossible to maintain here and has no encyclopedic value. xC | ☎ 04:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Transwiki, presumably to Wikibooks. This is unencyclopedic as just a list and pretty much original research if anything else comes out of it. Wikipedia does not report on linguistic differences, it lets someone else do it and then reports on that. I see no policy-based arguments to keep. Ichibani _u^t_c 04:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet Wikipedia does contain many different lists. I do not see any special reason for this to be considered less encyclopedic than the other information around here. As for Wikibooks, this is not any book. Chortos‑2 14:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's basically a multilingual phrasebook in list form. This would be more at home at Wikibooks than here. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chris S. This is a useful article. Dilawar (t) 17:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Why would you allow sample phrases in articles on languages, but not a separate list of such phrases? The introduction should be rewritten responsibly (first of all delete that reference to tourists!) so that contributors should know what they are expected to strive for. A list of sentences, phrases and words should be selected, and then not changed too often. Eventually the article should allow an impression of the various languages and a comparison between them, in terms of vocabulary, writing system, spelling, pronunciation etc. The Lord's Prayer in different languages and the Swadesh lists do only a part of that. — AdiJapan ☎ 14:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Lord's Prayer in different languages is justified by the notability of The Lord's Prayer and its history as a language comparison tool. What such argument can be made for all these arbitrary phrases? It smells of original research, and unless a reliable source can be produced indicating what phrases would be appropriate inclusions, it shouldn't exist. Ichibani _u^t_c 04:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But everything in Wikipedia is to some degree arbitrary --- the choice of words, the selection of pictures, the amount of information, etc., etc. --- without being considered original research. Moreover, we're talking about example phrases, not about comprehensive lists. As Chris Sundita said above, Encarta has done the same in their language articles; I'd say that qualifies as a reliable source. — AdiJapan ☎ 09:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chris S. and clean up. This is enough encyclopedic, at least according to the Wiktionary’s definition of the word. Even if making this serve as a table for linguistic comparisons and moving (which is what I am against), I can imagine only one possible place where this article could fit, which is the Wiktionary’s appendixes, similarly to the abovementioned Swadesh lists. Chortos‑2 14:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that a fixed set of words and phrases to be given for each language should be defined, and it is also a good idea to sort the languages by language families. Chortos‑2 15:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to a more appropriate project. ¿SFGi Д nts! ☺ ☻ 18:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Space simulation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space combat[edit]

Totally uncited, an article about fiction should not be at a title that doesn't mention it's fictional, scope is limited to video games for reasons which are unclear, obvious magnet for advertising and fancruft Eleland 22:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update to my AfD: Redirect to Space warfare rather than Space simulation since the title "Space combat" implies actual reality. Eleland 20:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article has no value for the purpose of this Wiki. Delete. Malan89 22:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Space warfare as a perfectly viable search alternative. ◄Zahakiel ► 00:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zahakiel, this content is either a split or duplicate of Space simulation (a video game genre) - although space combat could be described as a sub-genre of space simulation, there's no reason why the two can't be discussed in the same article (the collapse of the genre is noted in the same manner in space simulation). QuagmireDog 00:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. QuagmireDog 00:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yuck, this article is novel, original synthesis. Redirect to Space simulation which covers this topic in a much more well-written and attributed manner. Groupthink 14:01, 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 keep - nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 10:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Armenia[edit]

Withdrawn because of improvements by gourangaUk. andy 13:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Contested prod. Article is unencyclopedic and not NPOV. Its purpose seems to be to provide a platform for Hare Krishnans to complain about persecution. References are almost entirely to the ISKON website or to POV web pages - there are no "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as per WP:VER - "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" andy 22:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator.--Svetovid 23:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Couldn't have said it any better myself. --Nonstopdrivel 00:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. This is a list of statistics and news events, setting aside the question of the reliability of the source. Important, as there are human rights issues involved, but not appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has references. Just because you don't agree with them is no reason to delete the article.--D-Boy 05:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is part of the "X religion in Y country" series. The article is also well-referenced, and if it does not represent a NPOV, that is not a reason to delete, but a reason to improve. The topic itself is notable. --musicpvm 06:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's an important topic - no-one is saying otherwise - but a very bad article. The issues are the quality and independence of the references (they are poor and in the main not neutral) and the neutrality of the article. If anyone wants to improve it by supplying real references and rewriting the polemical bits I'll happily withdraw my nomination. andy 08:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- andy 08:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Clean It is hopelessly written at the moment, full of Original Research. If someone has the balls to remove all the junk and turn the article into a reasonable stub, I'll support keeping it. I don't quite understand the well referenced argument, since there aren't any citations and half of the external links are in fact spam. Gizza^Chat ^© 09:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Keep Now that it has been superbly cleaned by Gouranga. Good work. Gizza^Chat ^© 06:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relevant aspects of the topic can be covered at Hinduism and forked as necessary based on developments at the main article. This is POV pushing original research and should not be kept, although w/out prejudice for recreation should the main Hinduism article require it. Eusebeus 15:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and DaGizza. I don't quite see the necessity of creating articles about a religion's presence in each and every country in the world - only if there is sufficient information. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the existance of Islam in Armenia--Sefringle^Talk 03:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 04:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This deletion debate is about the poor quality of Hinduism in Armenia -- lack of adequate references, POV, etc. The existence of Islam in Armenia or any other Wikipedia article has no bearing on these issues. andy 06:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Than it would be POV to delete this article but keep Islam in Armenia. We need to be consistent on wikipedia with religous articles.--Sefringle^Talk 22:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand the rationale behind the POV argument - you should read the links in the AfD nomination at the top of this page to familiarise yourself with the policies. Hinduism in Armenia was a rubbish article (it's not any more so it will probably be kept, anyway). What have other articles got to do with that? You might just as well say that it would be POV to delete it and yet keep Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station, which is another article that has absolutely no bearing on the quality of Hinduism in Armenia. If you think that Islam in Armenia should be deleted then you can nominate it by using {{afd}}. andy 06:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except I don't think Islam in Armenia should be deleted. I don't think either should be deleted. But it would be POV to keep one and not the other.--Sefringle^Talk 19:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Where's the POV? If there were articles about Hinduism in Armenia, Islam in Armenia, Christianity in Armenia, Judaism in Armenia, Buddhism in Armenia, Paganism in Armenia and so on and they were all well written and well referenced articles apart from Hinduism in Armenia why should we keep that article just because the other ones were better?! Rubbish is rubbish. This was a rubbish article until Gouranga(UK) fixed it. andy 22:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then we can stop arguing about this, because it is irrelevant, seeing how you now want to keep the article. --Sefringle^Talk 23:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep POV is not a reason for deleting an article unless the POV problems are intractable. I would keep this article a while longer and see if it can be cleaned up. We can always delete it on the second go-round if it does not improve. --Richard 06:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's also the unreliable references and the fact that the meat of the article is just a list of (unreferenced) news items. AfD should be a wakeup call to the author(s) to improve it or lose it. andy 07:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up & Keep - Yes the article is currently a mess, but if the unencyclopedic information was removed the article could have some justification to remain, or at least be merged (along with other smaller articles) into another page such as Hinduism in Eastern Europe. It might be better to have one detailed article than several smaller ones? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have since done some rough clean-up of the article. Gouranga(UK) 10:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty good. It looks keepable to me but I'd like to leave the AfD running for another day or so to get some other opinions, particularly about your idea of merging similar small articles which sounds very sensible to me. andy 11:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per gourangaUk.Baka man 16:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Anwar 18:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid topic, looks a lot better than it did a few days ago. IP198 19:44, 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. Peacent 02:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue pro studios[edit]

A recording studio that is a subsidary of a company not that doesn't even have its own wikipedia article, and set up by a person who doesn't have on either. Google hits for the company are slim. Delete -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obviously non-notable, seeing as their parent company is a redlink and few GHits exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Strikes me as odd that the article's author would make wikireferences to other nonexistent articles, without creating said pages to lend some semblence of credibility to the article. --Nonstopdrivel 00:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification, I created the inter-wiki links (all the links were just bold text before) so I could click on a link to the page about the company, and that's when I saw it didn't exist. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 00:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I understand. There have been many times when I was wikilinking an article and noticed how little corroborative information there was. Good eye. --Nonstopdrivel 02:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, CSD A7. Article about a company which doesn't assert notability. - Zeibura ^Talk 00:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:40, 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 06:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bastard sons_of_Dial-up[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bastard sons of Dial-up

Non notable internet t.v. show. ~ Wiki hermit 21:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. So someone thinks it's cool; that doesn't make it notable (yet). -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete alexa ranking of 7,000,000+, no reliable sources on this, doesn't meet WP:V. --Xyzzyplugh 01:31, 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 keep. Oh, please: let's not make ourselves look silly by using this kid of criterion for nominating articles for deletion. Oh, wait: we already have. Oops? —Phil | Talk 07:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Polygraph_Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/American Polygraph Association

Non notable organization. ~ Wiki hermit 21:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep for now. An organization with 2,500 members in a comparatively small field (probably a majority of practitioners in that field) could well be notable. Article needs work, most particularly citations. If expanded cited, article could reach encyclopedic status. --Nonstopdrivel 00:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With further thought and reading, I have upgraded my recommendation to Keep. However, the article does need work; if there is no interest in maintaining it (no work on it within the next few months), I would support a subsequent AfD. --Nonstopdrivel 02:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That's not a criterion for deletion, "no work on it within the next few months." I have a perfectly good article that I created that has never been considered for deletion and hardly any work has ever been done on it. It doesn't matter how much work is done on an article over what time frame--that's not a criterion for deletion any more than a personal point of view that it is about something non-notable. It isn't "could well be notable" the organization itself is the subject of multiple non-trival academic articles because of their controversial stance on a certain type of lie detector test--this is a field of academic study that already exists: investigating the reliability of this type of test and addressing within the broad field of criminal justice the implications of this being a test supported by this large North American association of polygraphers. And, no, I won't be bullied into researching and editing this article any more than this AfD already has. "No work within a few months" is not a criterion for deletion.KP Botany 04:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral and comment actually, the American Polygraphy Association website states that they have over 3,200 members [5]. IIRC, this is "the" body for polygraphers in the United States. And I believe they also set the generally accepted standards for polygraphers (at least, that's what I gathered from at least one major anti-polygraph site over a year ago.) I don't want to take on the cleanup of this, and sorry I can't source it better.
Comment the website says 2,500 also [6]. Robbskey 13:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, if it is the professional body for American polygraph examiners I could see it being linked to by other articles. Cedars 02:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the major professional body, and perhaps Wikihermit could explain further why he thinks it non-notable. DGG 07:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Speedy Keep Let's cut the crap and move on to things that need done. Since when are articles deleted because of someone's personal point of view opinion about the subject of the article? Not even an attempt for a real nomination? The organization itself is the subject of research for their advocacy of and reliance upon the control question technique. KP Botany 20:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep here are a bunch of sources. I'll go through and figure out which are most appropriate to use in expanding the article. I'm beginning to think it should be a requirement to hit Google News Archive search before submitting something like this to AfD. JavaTenor 23:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It ought to be a requirement to look at something before proposing an AfD. KP Botany 23:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed completely, but how would you implement it?--for the AfD talk page.DGG 01:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pull the obvious didn't look at a damn thing nominations and admonish the nominators to cut it out. Yeah, for the AfD talk page, but there's a lot of spinning going on last time I was there. I don't know, maybe User:Wikihermit had a good reason for this nomination, but he didn't offer one in the nomination and hasn't answered any issues. Yes, I should WP:AGF, but I want a new Wikipedia Policy: Assume other folks value their time, and be considerate by doing just a few minutes work. An entry at google scholar would have pulled up multiple and various sources about this organization. Well, the article's pure crap, so someone may assume the subject is bogus, but I don't think that is the correct way to go about it. KP Botany 01:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation and enforcement could be by Admins at first, but a bot could also be written that would automatically warn submitters of unsupported AfD's and subsequently delete them if appropriate action were not taken. --Nonstopdrivel 02:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AgentVi[edit]

Non notable company. All the references are from the AgentVi website. ~ Wiki hermit 21:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks evidence of notability. Dicklyon 00:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and appears to be advertising. --Nonstopdrivel 00:31, 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 06:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baraza framework[edit]

Non notable product/system. ~ Wiki hermit 21:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and possible copyvio. Product has precisely one ghit outside of Wikipedia—which is not only verbatim the same text as the Wiki article but also has itself been deleted from the server on which it appeared. The Google cache of the page can be found here: [7]. --Nonstopdrivel 00:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and thanks to Nonstopdrivel for the cache link. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if possible speedy. Deletable even w/o copyvio. Pavel Vozenilek 21:39, 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 keep (nomination withdrawn). Bucketsofg 20:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo di Nicolo Machiavelli[edit]

Fathers of notable people are not inherently notable themselves. Bringing this to AFD just in case I've missed something about him. Recommend ~~Delete~~ -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reason that I decided to bring this to afd, because he didn't seem notable and there were no resources I could find that said he was (and I can't read German either). So I will change this to a withdrawal. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 19:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless we're giving articles to failed lawyers. He has a blurb in Britannica Online...in the article about his son. Not notable enough to carry his own article.--Ispy1981 22:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As this is little information that can easily be put into the Niccolo Machiavelli article, I say Merge.--JForget 00:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Niccolo Machiavelli for reasons stated above. --Nonstopdrivel 00:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The German transwiki of this page [8] includes references indicating notability. Apparently he had a published diary independent of anything his son did. I would also argue that the fact we even know is name 500 years after his death is indication that he is notable. ~ Infrangible 00:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As witnessed by the references, the topic has scholarly relevance. Beside that, it provides useful contextual information and can be expanded. Stammer 05:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Infrangible and Stammer. The article ought to have an image, though. Also, WikiProject Translation might be interested in merging info from the German article. --Quuxplusone 06:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep two references satisfy WP:N and BIO. --Kevin Murray 13:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in own right. Has been the subject of a scholarly work. --Folantin 07:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important historical figure--it is rather frequent that the parents & children of a very notable person was also notable, especially in cultures were family connections were very important.DGG 07:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be a speedy keep after the nomination withdrawal? Stammer 18:52, 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 Keep. This is based on the keep case becoming stronger over the course of the debate. Tyrenius 01:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Patrick Willis[edit]

Local judge who presided over a questionably notable trial. No references are given to suggest he's notable outside of the county he serves. Metros 21:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Should this article be kept, naming conventions should be considered. This should probably move to Patrick Willis (judge). Metros 18:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! If the nominator will rescind his nomination, we can clear up that matter right now. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 18:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Avery trial was also covered by national news services, including MSNBC and Nancy Grace on CNN. Court TV planned to televise it, until it was determined that the trial would last six full weeks which would exceed the amount of time Court TV could devote to it. It was discussed at law schools outside the state of Wisconsin as a study in trial procedure.

In addition to this trial, Pat Willis has had a broad impact on the entire state of Wisconsin and the surrounding area due to his work with the carferry (S.S. Badger) and the Burger Boat company (which is known internationally, and has provided yachts for Middle Eastern royalty). He is recognized throughout the Midwest as an authority on trial procedures, and has been a noted speaker at judicial conferences. 19:07, 15 June 2007

Keep. There are at least 11,000 ghits on Judge Willis, so he is not entirely unknown. Article could use some fleshing out and citation. --Nonstopdrivel 00:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment but only 556 if you search for the string: "Patrick Willis" + Manitowic (see this result. A lot of the 11,000 seem to be unrelated to him (I'm assuming you used the string "Patrick Willis" + judge, yes? Metros 00:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's actually only 116 if you click through them all... - grubber 19:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Unconvinced Cite some sources and contact me for a keep vote. --Kevin Murray 13:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per comment above. - grubber 19:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What type of sources should be added? Initially there were links to outside and inside sources, but they were deleted. 13:20, 16 June 2007 Paprikaphd

That is bizzare that the nominator of the AfD removed the reference links; I put them back just now. The references are weak mostly pertaining to the one trial, but along with other references they could build notability. --Kevin Murray 23:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the references because they didn't seem like references at all. They just seemed like news articles that mentioned him, not so much as references. Going through them one by one...the first one proves he exists. The second, third, and fourth ones proves he presided over the Steven Avery trial. Nothing to prove he's notable. Also, the fourth one should be removed as blogs are not considered reliable sources per our standards. Also, another reason I removed the links was that it's excessive to have 3 links to the Steven Avery trial if the only comment about the trial in the article is: "Judge Willis recently presided over the highly publicized Steven Avery homicide trial." Metros 00:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metros, I agree with removing the blog, but the others seem appropriate to keep. Surely you were acting with good intentions, but it seems like nominators in AfD's should not be modifying the articles while "prosecuting" the notability -- it's kind of like two rights adding up to a wrong. I think that you'd be better off criticizing the references rather than removing them. --Kevin Murray 00:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To author: WP does not allow editors to write articles from their personal knowledge without providing verifiable citations to sources. This article can not stay in perpetuity without sources, although it seem premature to pull the plug without giving you time to provide citations. How do you know all of this about him? There must be some record of his accomplishments. --Kevin Murray 00:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in the article is true and verifiable, I'm working on getting sources. Some of them are harder to obtain because archived records are not available on line and I want to make sure the citations are accurate. I'm requesting that you give me a little time to fill in the blanks before deleting. I understand that I can't have unverified comments, and am in the process of sourcing them. --paprikaphd 08:13, 18 June 2007

Keep With the references to the trial and the State of Wisconsin site on judges, I'm convinced of the notability. But I do believe that more references should be obtained over time. --Kevin Murray 00:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What in those sources provided notability to him in your opinion? 1 simply listed his name in the registry of judges. 3 said he presided over a murder trial. Metros 00:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the judge in a notable trial I think that he beomes a legitimate person of interest. Readers of the article on the trial would have questions about him. Notability is defined in WP as being noticed, and he was by the significant press coverage. Once notability is established an article can be written using minor verifiable source material (Wisconsin site etc.); however, the references to most of the information in the article are lacking. But this is not a reason for deletion, but rather a reason for more research. --Kevin Murray 00:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Steven Avery. As the judge in a semi-notable trial, it is the trial, and not the judge, which is notable. This hideously conflates news coverage (and, relatedly, the mass reproduction of AP/Reuters spawned wire stories which produces absurd Ghit numbers) with encyclopedic content. Eusebeus 15:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rightly or wrongly Patrick Willis is all over the national news and prominently featured as doing this and doing that regarding the trial. This begs the question, who is Patrick Willis? It is our job at WP to answer those questions for our readers, if we can. Precedents exist in other trials such as Lance Ito from the OJ Simpson trial. I say when in doubt, what is the harm of inclusion to the benefit of our readership. This article would not have gotten to AfD in its current improved condition -- it is not a great article but it exceeds our minimum standards. --Kevin Murray 18:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been improved since the deletion nomination, and now meets the WP:BIO criteria, and continues to have citations added on a daily basis since the article's creation. --paprikaphd 07:36, 19 June 2007

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

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

The result was no consensus. Merger is, as always, an editorial decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballybeen Housing Estate[edit]

Not-notable housing estate in a large city. Delete -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable housing complex (6 unique hits from Google.com). -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete, no assertions of notability. - Zeibura ^Talk 00:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If small rural towns are notable, why not major housing estates? What the article needs is historical background, and it probably won't be found on Google. Note the tentative reference to its Protestant identity; asserting notability may take some diplomatic skill in the context of Northern Ireland. That's no reason not to write the article. Compare another (English) housing estate article, Oliver Close. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quick comment first: a search for Ballybeen, rather than Ballybeen housing estate, will generate a lot more results (20,000 +), and from a quick check through the first couple, most refer to the housing estate in Dundonald, which is the subject of the article. (I think there is another small village called Ballybeen somewhere else in Northern Ireland.) But keep as valid place article; the population of the estate must be approaching ten thousand. It was 9170 in 2001 FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 00:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Dundonald as per Flowerpotman, most likely in the "Places of interest" section. Unless some reliable sources say further why this is notable, I still don't see anything notable enough about this place besides just being the biggest housing estate there. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dundonald, as suggested by Moeron above as well. Nothing notable here.xC | ☎ 04:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to merge as above, unless the "second largest housing estate" comment can be verified and more info added to the article. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 13:22, 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 delete. Sr 13 06:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar Defense League[edit]

Often forums aren't notable enough for Wikipedia, but in this case it's a forum association. Not notable enough for Wikipedia, so Delete -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete on lack of notability --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Captain panda 21:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SparsityProblem 01:34, 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 Delete. Particularly for lack of verification for any notability. We can't just go by google hits. Tyrenius 01:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dusty Rhodes and the River Band[edit]

Delete this music group fails WP:MUSIC and is not notable; was tagged speedy but tag was removed - still not notable. Most content added by user who is brother of a band member - see history and talk page, so seems a little vanitycruft too. Carlossuarez46 21:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The COI issue concerns me, but they have toured/performed with notable acts, the band's name brings up a ton of google hits, and they appear to have been around for a while. More refs need to be added though. --Bongwarrior 21:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Band has 141,000 ghits, including a number of reviews. Article needs definite copyedit work and additional citation. --Nonstopdrivel 00:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What search string did you use? I get about 80% less putting quotes around the name. Carlossuarez46 21:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still, with 15,400 ghits (using quotes), there is evidence of notability. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles on figures with far fewer search engine hits, and as I stated, this band does have reviews with other websites. --Nonstopdrivel 03:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Among those hits can any that rise to a Wikipedia reliable source be found? I see Wikipedia, mirrors, and announcements of the group's concerts usually be ticket sellers, the bar in question, or what have you? Does that make a band notable? If so, let's just chuck WP:MUSIC out and fixate on whether the venues that a band plays hypes the sales of tickets via internet. This is a group without a chart appearing single, right? Many groups with a chart appearing single are not notable what differentiates these guys. Carlossuarez46 20:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - A single, future and undocumented album does not a notable band make. I can't find anything on the 'net about the band besides trivial coverage (per WP:BAND, event listings, ticket sales, etc). Coren 22:25, 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.--Wafulz 19:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Educational Technology Conference[edit]

Doesn't appear to be too notable. Just a conference for local teachers where they discuss policies and local matters. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I wikified it a bit, but am concerned that an annual conference that started in 2003 may not be notable. Full disclosure: This is in my hometown. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SparsityProblem 01:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete it doesn't seem to be very notable.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is some merit in arguments advanced for renaming the article, or merging it with Welsh Peers, which also survived its deletion listing. This would answer the nominator's objection to the term "welsh nobility" as potentially misleading. I leave matters of merging and renaming up to the editors of the article. --Tony Sidaway 08:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Nobility Family Seats[edit]

Contested prod for this miscellaneous collection of information. It might be better if there were a Welsh Peerage; but WP is not the place to invent one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge information to article on Welsh Peers which is also here at AfD but should be kept. --Bduke 02:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because it is part of a larger series of Family Seats which will give examples of English, Scottish, and Irish family seats. Many of these family seats are already articals in Wikipedia. I only listed them in connection to leading Welsh-titled peers (those Welsh peers whose primary title is of a Welsh named origion). Drachenfyre 07:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that this list shall be expanded, and is itself part of a possible larger series of family seats connected to that page. Eventually many other family seats will be listed, I only started with this Welsh list because it was the one I am most familure with. Please take this into account when you consider the merging. In my opinion, the Welsh Peers page will be too cumbersom to have this added to it, and the Family seat page itself will eventually become unwieldly when all the additional family seats are added for England, Scotland, Ireland, and elsewhere. I suppose what I am asking is please consider the larger series that shall be added eventually when in connection to the Family seats page. I ask that people also realize that these family seats themselves will be expanded upon, and 64.134.101.98 03:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)((correcting signature)) Drachenfyre 03:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I implore everyone to look at the Scottish Nobility Family Seats as well, this will be part of a larger series of family seats complied into an easy reference. Drachenfyre 17:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator seems to be expressing an opinion through the AfD. The assertion might be correct, but this is not the correct forum to evaluate the assertion that there are no Welsh peers. --Kevin Murray 14:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bduke. Eusebeus 15:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Kevin Murray. Edward321 02:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article Welsh Peers as a major heading; per Bduke. - Peter Ellis - Talk 04:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge article with Welsh Peers although I dont know which should be the lead. The is no such thing as the Welsh Peerage but there are Welsh based peerages.--Vintagekits 01:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nom Astrotrain 15:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Any useful info can go into the Welsh Peers article. --John 16:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Welsh Peers should be deleted as well Astrotrain 16:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or renamed possibly as Landed Gentry Seats in Wales. That would make more sense. There are no such things as Welsh peers (to the best of my knowledge) only the Peerages of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Wales is thrown in with England. David Lauder 11:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding this and Scottish Nobility Family Seats, I would suggest that if we are having lists of family seats, they should be grouped by Peerage, ie Family seats of the Peerage of Scotland, and England, GB, UK, as this is how peers are arranged, not by the geographical location of their houses. Otherwise merge the Welsh list to Welsh Peers as above, and merge Scottish list to (eg) Peerage of Scotland. Edward Waverley 14:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about adding them to the other peerage pages. But potentially the list will become to large for the origional page, so felt it best to simply create a new page for them "Gentry Seats" is doable as David Lauder suggest. I would favor listing the Gentry Seats by the tittle's territorial qualification or place name origion (thus, "Gentry Seats of Wales," "Gentry Seats of Scotland," and "Gentry Seats of England"), so that you would group the Scottish place-name tittles together, and so on. Drachenfyre 16:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that proposal actually! Astrotrain 16:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My own view is that "Gentry Seats" sounds a bit tacky. "Landed Gentry Seats" or possibly "County Seats" or "Family Seats" would be better. David Lauder 19:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Lauder: I agree with your last statement. I would suggest "Family Seats" to be the better option, preferenced with the constituenty country before hand, thus "Welsh Family Seats," "Scottish Family Seats," and "English Family Seats." I do not think every title holder could be said to be "landed" anymore. Unles we use it as the territorial designation. County Seats I am partial to as well. As of corse most of these families now have residences elsewhere too. Finely, what of "Historic (country) Family Seats"? This broadens it somewhat. Would this be satisfactory to change the votes? 70.11.113.234 20:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Drachenfyre 20:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've persuaded me - though I would propose Family seats in Wales, etc, to make clear it is the seats which are in Wales, not necessarily Welsh families. Welsh family seats could be seats of Welsh families anywhere. Is Family Seat normally capitalised? Edward Waverley 13:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were saying "Family Seats" or even "Historic Family Seats" (no need for '(country)' as no-one has a Family Seat in a connurbation) that might be even better because of the number of families forced, over the past century, to part with their seats. The articles might then have greater meaning. David Lauder 15:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agree on many different points. We should move the finer discussion to the page itself. But on the outset I would prefer to link the title to the seat, with titles associated with constituient country. Drachenfyre 05:09, 23 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 consensus. Peacent 02:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Peers[edit]

Contested Prod. There is no such thing as the Welsh Peerage; this indiscriminate collection of information is a list of peers, one of them a Campbell, others quite English, who take their titles from Wales. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article gives some interesting information on the peerage in Wales and of course explains that there are now no Welsh Peerage. It is not called the "Welsh Peerage", but "Welsh Peers". I believe there is a legitimate interest in listing those peers with a connection to Wales. So, keep, but merge in the information on their country houses. --Bduke 02:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it lists those peers whose titles have a Welsh place-named origion (Anglesea, Dwyfor, Abergavenny for instance) or its territorial qualification is within Wales, such as Baron Champion, of Pontypridd in the County of Glamorgan. It currently states in the artical that Welsh Peers do not form a seperate peerage from the English, British, and UK peerages in and of itself, simply identifies those peers whose titles are of or in Wales. The tittle holder may or may not be of Welsh ethnicity, but the title-holders ethnicity is not the point of the artical at all. There is a valid interest as to what peerage titles are in Wales, as opposed to elsewhere. Drachenfyre 06:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC) Further note, the title of the Campbell mentioned is Earl Cawdor, of Castlemartin in the County of Pembroke. It is the territorial qualification within his title in the Historic counties of Wales of Pembrokeshire that qualifies him for this list. Additionally, if you read the artical on the Earl Cawdor, you may be surprised to note that this branch was itself decended from a cadet branch which moved to Carmarthenshire, Wales, and represented this region in Parliment. But this should not be grounds for deletion Drachenfyre 07:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with all the reasons above from those that would like to keep the page, particularly those of the creator of the page. Having contributed to the page myself, it is an excellent resource as a lot of successful people tend to move out of Wales and be more 'UK' based, and this gives us an indication of their roots e.g. Michael Heseltine. Equally, some people gain their 'success' from moving the other way e.g. Alan Howarth, Baron Howarth of Newport. Perhaps as a compromise, the name of the page should be changed so as to avoid confusion. Perhaps 'Peerage in Wales' and then start with an opening paragraph that explains background to the peerage in the UK etc. Glamorgan 11:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was myself thinking that Welsh Titles may be a compromise to avoid such confusion. I thought Welsh peers was more in keeping with the current British peerage divisions, as opposed to names such as Peerage in Wales or Welsh peerage. Drachenfyre 16:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator seems to be expressing an opinion through the AfD. The assertion might be correct, but this is not the correct forum to evaluate the assertion that there are no Welsh peers. --Kevin Murray 14:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - simply that, there are similar articles on English, Scottish and Irish peers. True there is no such thing as a distinct Welsh Peerage, but there are Welsh Peers. Rgds, --Trident13 22:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and merge in Welsh Nobility Family Seats as a major heading. - Peter Ellis - Talk 04:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Drachenfyre as a valid article on which peerages have territorial links in their titles with Wales. No need to rename: any possible confusion about whether this is an article about a "Welsh Peerage" is cleared up by the contents of the article, and the current name has the benefit of being short and direct. Bencherlite 08:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but chnage name once afd has been finished. Lots of useful information here, SqueakBox 01:47, 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 delete. This article catastrophically fails verifiability and by not having proper inclusion criteria it risks neutral point of view problems. While the deletion nomination was flawed, this article is an irretrievable mess created one afternoon by an occasional editor who didn't even log in. No reason to suppose it will ever be anything more than it is. --Tony Sidaway 08:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of political clans in Philippines[edit]

This page is nominated for deletion by 159.53.110.143. I'm completing the nomination for them. ~~No opinion~~ Delete. Resurgent insurgent 15:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: And have you any grounds to proffer for the deletion? RGTraynor 18:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like listcruft to me. Do we have lists for families whose members serve in the parliaments of any other country? Resurgent insurgent 02:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. Let's see if we can get sources and a neutrality check. Yechiel Man 21:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It would be better to create articles about the prominent political families of the Philippines (the Filipino equivalents of, say, Bush family or Kennedy family) and put them into a new Category:Political families of the Philippines. Organizing the list by province is probably not needed since there must have been political families whose members served in government from more than one province. --Metropolitan90 06:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - it seems like "trapos" are the Filipino equivalent of political parties, it can perhaps be deleted when an alternative is created (as mentioned above) Sala Skan 12:25, 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, KrakatoaKatie 21:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & clean up I see two problems: (1) lack of references, and (2) lack of explanation of the notability of the topic. But, I see merit in the subect, while not in the article (list) as presented. --Kevin Murray 14:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps each and every municipality has one. And that's 40,000+ of those. --Howard the Duck 06:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the list states that the inclusion criteria is only nationally notable "clans" (in the national government). John Vandenberg 06:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But why is it listed on a per province/city basis? And which is national and which is not? Are "clans" with members in the lower house not national? --Howard the Duck 08:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Honestly, I dont know. But as-is, the list isnt out of control. Unless someone does know that this list will turn out to be an indiscriminate list, I dont follow your reason for deletion. If you know this subject well, is there a better inclusion criteria that would make this list less likely to become out of control? John Vandenberg 08:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is the best time to be preemptive. Many political clans claim they're not, and their critics say they are, which will lead to edit wars. Also, this will turn up to be a directory, eventually. --Howard the Duck 07:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Salaskan. John Vandenberg 06:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a different article This article makes a list of political clans, but does not make a thorough discussion of political clans in the Philippine context. My take is that the main topic, that of political clans, should precede any such list. --- Tito Pao 09:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. From this discussion, I've come to realize that I'm not sure what a "political clan" is in the Philippines, and this article certainly doesn't explain it. As I suggested above, I thought it was a family with multiple members in government, but now I'm not sure about that. --Metropolitan90 06:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Peacent 02:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nom (pokemon)[edit]

Creating AfD page for Lreford (talk · contribs), who added a link to this on today's AfD page but didn't create a corresponding entry first. Anyway, this is basically a hoax the creator claims is a Pokémon, but is obviously something made up in school one day. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, fairly obvious nonsense. The pic says it all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment CSD G1 excludes hoaxes, which is what the subject is. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced non-sense. --Cheers, Komdori 22:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as made up in school one day. The picture's awesome, though. Useight 00:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)'[reply]
Delete per above. Blatant parody, perhaps even subtle vandalism. --Nonstopdrivel 00:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These kind of articles detract from serious, scholarly work being done in the field of Pokemon research. ~ Infrangible 01:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, that was the best thing I've read all day. Useight 16:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's an unreal pokemon. Big top 01:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom (get it?), and because I can't find an exclusion to WP:HOAX for things that are really, really hilarious. I'd love to keep it just to see how many people we can get to go thru the steps of trying to catch one. Capmango 17:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lack of Google hits is indeed not a good reason to delete, but lack of third-party verification is, and that concern has not been addressed here. No prejudice to recreation if reliable third-party material can be found. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Colney Cricket Club[edit]

Non-notable cricket club. Only 233 Google hits. Astrovega 20:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. A type of cricket club is still notable. Images needs to be smaller.--Edtropolis 20:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just as not all football clubs are notable, so with cricket clubs. This one appears to miss the mark by some distance. -- BPMullins | Talk 22:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:GHITS is no criteria for deletion, and historical information in article attests to notability. Capmango 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree, WP:GHITS is not a reason to delete. If it needs working doing to make it more presentable, then so be it. There are other entries from similar cricket clubs that appear to have been left untouched. It is my impression that {{User:Astrovega|Astrovega]] has had a problem with this since it's creation. This is a free encyclopedia and London Colney Cricket Club will only become more notable with more visible presence. As can be seen from the article, it does have a period of history. 212.74.97.211 11:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any reliable independent sources. If the article is kept, it needs to be cleaned up severely- it's a massive mess.-Wafulz 19:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a village cricket team playing in a non-notable local league, of which there are thousands in the UK. Indeed they are currently near the foot of Division 3 in the Hertfordshire Cricket League - it is hard to get less notable! There is no article for the league - surely this should be created first? The slabs of history completely lack any independent sources, there is no claim to notability and the article is a clear failure of WP:V and WP:N. TerriersFan 22:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Important comment - I have now deleted the long history section as copyvio from here pending better authority than the unattributed statement on the talk page. TerriersFan 22:27, 22 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. Peacent 02:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DECA (organization)[edit]

Non-notable marketing organization. Corvus cornix 20:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DECA is a fairly large student organization that exists in thousands of high schools and colleges throughout the United States (and a limited number in some other countries and US territories). DECA (and other student organizations like FFA, FBLA-PBL, HOSA, etc.) faces the issue that it's hard to prove the notability of the organization because you never really hear about the national organization, but you always hear about the local chapters who are doing things in the community. Metros 20:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Metros, I respect your opinion, but there are no claims of notability in this article, whatsoever. Corvus cornix 21:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added one. It is one of only ten organizations to be recognized as student organizations by the Department of Education (see http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/cte/vso.html). Granted this is only one reference for now, but I think it shows a pretty strong case for notability. Metros 21:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a student mentoring organization similar to Junior Achievement. BusinessWeek capsule. It's easy enough to find articles about individual chapters, a bit harder to find an overview. But it's been around for 60 years and operates in every one of the 50 states. --Dhartung | Talk 21:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still no claims of notability in the article. Corvus cornix 21:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - AFD is not cleanup. Perhaps you could speak to the question of notability, instead of wikilawyering. --Dhartung | Talk 21:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - In what way am I wikilawyering? By all rights, I should have listed it for speedy deletion as a non-notable organization whose article makes no claims of notability, but I listed it for AfD so that other eyes could see it. WP:AGF. Corvus cornix 22:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep for now per Metros; I'm inclined to give the article the benefit of the doubt for now. It definitely requires substantial copyediting and referencing, however. --Nonstopdrivel 00:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can agree with Corvus's concerns, this article makes a poor show of establishing the notability of the subject. Some third-party coverage would be appropriate to establishing the notability of this organization. FrozenPurpleCube 01:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Metros' addition of the Department of Education link asserts the notability of the organization. I agree that it's given short shrift in the article, but that's cause for expanding the article, not deleting it. —C.Fred (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know that numbers aren't everything by any stretch of the imagination, but [9] asserts 172,000 students in 4,500 High Schools, and [10] asserts 13,000 students at 200 college campuses. From WP:CORP, "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. In other words, they satisfy the primary criterion above." While the above are primary and dependent sources (and so more would be required,) is there really any doubt that DECA/DEX is an organization that is national in scale? I'd say that this is a case for a reasonable exception / strong encouragement to locate secondary sources that would lock notability completely. LaughingVulcan 04:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a single external source; I wouldnt say it's recognized by the US office, but simply listed--the page simply reprints their blurb. But in order to improve the article so that maybe it will be kept, I removed a good deal of the puffery and excess detail.DGG 08:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm surprised that this article would be deleted without checking for external sources first. I say we give it some time, because DECA has been an official non-profit organization in the United States for over 60 years. "DECA Inc. is a nonpartisan, non–sectarian 501(c)(3) association of students, teachers, and administrators and is recognized and endorsed by all 50 state departments of education and the U.S. Department of Education." That may be from their website, but I work for one of the state chapters, and we have the photographs and documents that back all of this up. Anyway, I'll locate some press articles and other references and post them here within the next few days. NOTE: DECA is listed on many High School websites such as this: http://www.wayne.k12.in.us/bdecac/info.htm I don't know if this helps prove any validity, but the associated schools certainly are an external source. Here's a book: http://www.amazon.com/DECA-Continuing-Excellence-Robert-Berns/dp/0965180999/ref=sr_1_1/103-1162646-9711822?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182184064&sr=8-1 by this guy: http://www.bgsu.edu/colleges/edhd/stl/bios/rberns.html
- What do you mean, "give it some time"? The article has been here for two and a half years. Corvus cornix 16:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why are you so bent on deleting it? It's a fact that it's an organization, and the article simply states that with links to the pages.
- The problem with the book you gave the Amazon link to is that it is published by DECA, and thus is not an independent source. (Please keep in mind that I'm on the Keep side of this. While I can see good faith in the nomination, to me deleting this is equivalent to saying that the article on Boy Scouts of America should be deleted, though that article is better sourced. But I had to note the above.) LaughingVulcan 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem. Here's one that's not by DECA: http://www.goodheartwillcox.com/products/detail.asp?id=361 I'll have another one posted in a little bit...
    - Here is another book that is not by DECA but has DECA information in it: http://www.glencoe.com/sec/busadmin/marketing/index.html
Keep - This article is definitely about a notable organization, whether it boasts it or not, between the events, teaching, books, recognition, and oppurtunities it offers, I completely agree with LaughingVulcan, it's like putting Boy Scouts of America up for Deletion Redian (Talk) 02:15, 21 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 tickled to death. JoshuaZ 02:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon Tickle Short[edit]

This article doesn't appear to be notable. It's about a clip from a television station tha aired 12 years ago. I can't see any historical value or usability in research to justify this being an encyclopedia article. ClarusWorks 20:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. ~ Wiki hermit 23:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bogus and unencyclopedic, probably fancruft. --Nonstopdrivel 00:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OMG, someone must have been desperate to create an article. Unencyclopedic, non-notable, no reliable sources. Must I go on? The Filmaker 23:19, 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 Merge to Inyo County, California. Tyrenius 01:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of school districts in Inyo County, California[edit]

List of redlinks that has essentially remained untouched since created in 2005. Perhaps a merge into a list of California school districts, or turn into a cat... or just delete it. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 20:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary list. Two years unedited, near orphan and most likely unwatched is long enough. --Tony Sidaway 20:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is this any different from the other 57 articles in Category:Lists of California school districts by county, such as List of school districts in Orange County, California and List of school districts in San Mateo County, California? How are you proposing that redlinks be categorized? And why is such an obviously large task of writing about all of the school districts in California being given a deadline? Uncle G 20:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Why don't put it instead in the Inyo County article instead?--JForget 00:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. Obviously there is no interest in maintaining, much less expanding, the project. Let the orphan die. --Nonstopdrivel 00:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Inyo County. Information about the education system is within local interest, and is well covered in the article about the place. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No need for separate article. - grubber 19:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the county article, like the list of cities and towns that is already there. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThese are necessary as a way of handling the articles that will be made by merging the trivial articles on individual schools. DGG 08:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merging will only make the county article a list of lists, so the "cure" is worse than the disease. I don't have any problem with these lists full of redlinks. I often refer tot them when creating articles to make sure I am using the correct name, and not creating duplicates. Dhaluza 17:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Capmango's argument (just below) convinces me. Uniformity isn't an absolute concept by any means, but it's useful to have this information as an article if all the other California counties will have similar school-districts lists. Deleting will just cause confusion for readers, it seems to me.Merge Overall, I like Dhaluza's arguments, but I have no problem with the county article looking a bit more like a list of lists. Nothing wrong with a list of redlinks since, for one thing, it helps readers understand that they don't have to type in each district's name in order to search for it. It could very well be useful for readers to know simply that this number of districts exists in the county and these are the names. I see no need to keep such a short article when the county article is small and could easily accommodate the extra information.Noroton 14:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at the risk of being accused of a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, every county in California has this list, and it would be really odd for every county except Inyo to have it (this is an organizational sanity argument, not an otherstuffexists argument). Not surprising that it hasn't changed since being created, as one would only expect the list to change if school districts were added or merged. Capmango 17:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. It's a few redlinks. Why clutter a county page with them? We have to draw the upmerge line somewhere, i say draw it here. Heck if I saw that while browsing random articles I would've speedied it.--Wizardman 02:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I don't see any big problem with merging this into Inyo County, California which has room for this information, especially if it is useful in the long-run to help create school district articles and would serve a similar purpose to what is already in the article. Camaron1 | Chris 19:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Inyo County, California as another example of Schoolcruft. A list of school districts (all redlinks) within a country is unencylopedic, does not meet notablity, and will not serve any useful purpose. A reduced bit of information about the school districts in the context of the county education system would be acceptable. There is no reasonable basis for this list to remain as an article in it's own right. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge as above per User:Sjakkalle, etc... Eusebeus 14:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does eveyone want to merge a bunhc of redlinks, when this as actually almost speedyable by csd a3?--Wizardman 16:37, 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 Delete. Peacent 02:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Mitic[edit]

Contested prod. Other than cleanup and wikification, the article has only been edited by the subject himself. When I found it, it was a carbon copy of www.viktormitic.ca. I tried to clean the article up a few days ago but my changes were mostly reverted. I can't find much about this artist, and I don't think it meets the notability standard. KrakatoaKatie 20:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The author of the article was no other than Viktor Mitic himself. He lacks notability; and has no sources; and is probably telling lies about himself anyway. Definitely delete; and please: immediately. Meldshal 42 20:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. Still, no notability, no claims of notability. Delete. Corvus cornix 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficiently notable, trying to promote his art business. StudierMalMarburg 20:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The author of this article doesn't appear to be very noteworthy, and has essentially posted an autobiography to Wikipedia. If anything, this should be moved to a userpage, it doesn't have any place in the regular namespace. ClarusWorks 20:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for non-notability, probable COI, and blatant POV: "If you look deeply enough into Viktor Mitic’s hectic new paintings, which seem always to be in the throes of being born from the boards upon which he builds them (he doesn’t use canvas), you will perhaps be able to see all the way back through time to the days of a rigorous, professional art training he once received in his native Serbia." Oh, and did I mention extremely poor writing? --Nonstopdrivel 00:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete for being self-aggrandizing jibberjabber. Eddie.willers 01:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~and ease our pain~~. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No assertion of notability, problems with COI and copyright violation. Edward321 03:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, okay, delete, but come on, everyone. Be nice. WP:CIVIL WP:AGF!!! Capmango 17:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish recipients of the National Medal of Science[edit]

Unusual intersection by religion/ethnicity. Prone to severe original research. Untouched for a year. Unprecedented. overextensive subdivision. No other subdivision of its kind: List of Christian recipients of the National Medal of Science, List of African-American recipients of the National Medal of Science etc. Bulldog123 19:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom Bulldog123 19:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 19:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — No consensus policy has been approved regarding intersections of ethnicity/religion and other factors. List is unambiguous, limited in scope, notable and is not in any sense defamatory. However it is in need of additional sources. The tendency of possible editors, the duration without edits and precedence are not valid criteria for deletion. Nominator is highly argumentative, so I'm not planning to return for discussion. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But notability of intersections is considered a guideline, and opening the floodgates is also an issue. WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL please. Bulldog123 20:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference:

People should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career.. CG 21:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; it's just an alphabetization of this list at JInfo.org. -- Rob C (Alarob) 02:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — same results could be better achieved using the Semantic MediaWiki or categories. Cedars 02:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as basically being a directory listing.-Wafulz 20:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Taxi and Limo Operators[edit]

This is essentially a list of Toronto's taxi and Limo operators, and Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. ~~The~~While the little bits about licensing could be merged into Toronto or Toronto Licensing Commission, ~~The rest~~ the article should go. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 19:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have amended the wording of my nomination to emphasise that I am bringing the article here for a delete; I would not have nominated the article otherwise. -- Flyguy649^talk_contribs 22:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - as per nom. Transwikify to Yellowikis.--Edtropolis 19:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 19:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 19:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete~~and transwiki~~ - Per WP:NOT#DIR ~~and per Edtropolis~~. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that there is no transwikification queue for Yellowikis for the closing administrator to submit this article to. Any editor who wants an article transwikified to Yellowikis or to any other wiki for which there is no transwikification queue must be prepared to do the work of transwikification xyrself. I've transwikified the article to Yellowikis, because it makes a useful to-do list.
Also note that merger and deletion are mutually incompatible, because of the requirements of the GFDL. If you want the lists removed but the rest of the article content retained, then exercise the ordinary editing tools that you posess in order to make it so. Don't bring articles to AFD where you don't actually want an administrator to hit a delete button. Trimming the article of its lists and merging it elsewhere are things that you can do yourself, without an administrator needing to use any administrator tools. Even editors without accounts posess all of the tools necessary for doing that. If you want content kept, here or in another article, then deletion is not what you want. Uncle G 21:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge paragraphs: taxi section with Toronto licensing authority; Limos with Greater Toronto Airport Authority - if the material is not adeq1uately covered there. Delete everything else. An alternative might be to convert the article to Toronto taxi and limo licensing leaving these two paragraphs and deleting all the lists. I merely express a suggerstion: I leave it for others to carry it out. Peterkingiron 09:01, 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. The list is basically a mirror of a sole source. If someone wants to create a well-defined list with multiple sources, they can message me or another admin to retrieve it.-Wafulz 20:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest heists[edit]

Article is poorly sourced, unotable, and a bad subject format. Andrew615 19:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Listcruft.--Edtropolis 19:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up per Wikipedia:Cruftcruft --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep subject of the article is encyclopedic, but the article needs better sourcing, and a clearer explanation of teh selection criteria. Alansohn 21:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all is The History Channel not a good enough source?.And I don't know about criteria or sources, I just trusted the 1 source I was able to find, this is the only professional source I could find for such a topic.Rodrigue 23:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: The source provided lists them as "ten of the largest, most ingenious heists in history." That's great selection criteria for a TV show, where photogenics is a desired quality, but we need some sort of objective criteria for a Wikipedia article. I'm willing to grant for now that the subject is notable, but thus source does not establish the largest heists, as the title describes. Alansohn 23:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The sole reference is not to The History Channel but rather to the Canadian History Television website, which does not identify the author of the list of big heists. The website does not identify any group of editors who make sure the content is accurate and of a neutral and scholarly point of view. No source is listed for the information. I have seen amazing crap put on the TV screen by a number of TV organizations, so no, a TV channel is not always a good enough source by itself to serve as a reliable source. It also appears to be largely an entertainment channel, running a large number of TV dramas such as CSI and JAG. Edison 23:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. If these heists are so notable individually, perhaps entries could be created for each of them. --Nonstopdrivel 01:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is VERY close to a copyright violation here, but if that's not concern enough, I'd still say it's a problem because lists of the largest X just tend to proflierate. If somebody wants to make articles about these heists, certainly the documentary would be a valid demonstration of notability, but listing them all together? Not what I consider the best idea. FrozenPurpleCube 01:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once the individual cases have articles, someone could collect them in a Category:Thefts of over 10 million dollars or a Heists considered the biggest ever. But the current state of the article in question is awful. --Quuxplusone 07:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several of them already have an article in wikipedia:Great Brinks Robbery, The Great Train Robbery of 1963, and the Lufthansa heist, and they aren't even very well sourced. Rodrigue 16:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps this is a better source [[11]], it seems alot more accurate, it only says greatest robberies, but look at the amounts.It is most likely an accurate list, arranged from highest to lowest, of the most money ever taken from a robbery.Don't know about its techical reliability, but the info should easily be verifiable. Rodrigue 17:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think that you should do some more checking to see if there are articles about the various heists, and add a blue-link to them. I never know why people feel it necessary to do a blue-link to words like car or bank, but not to something that would add to the understanding. Second, the statement that a ranking of the heists would require adjustments for inflation and currency conversions that just "can't be done", that sounds like an excuse for not doing more. Finally, what's the definition of successful? Did they get away scot-free? Not clear from the article. It could be a good subject, worth expanding upon. Mandsford 02:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this source [12] seems better in that it lists in order the largest to the tenth largest heists, the list needs to be rewritten to conform to that source. Rodrigue 15:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete/Userfy Until Verifiable The problem with the 2spare source is the same as previous ones: the source does not define its criteria or list its own sources. Looking at the comments below that list of 10 "greatest" (whatever that means) at least two people cite thefts for larger dollar amounts than the ones in the list (1) ~$100M Antwerp Diamond Center theft in 2003 [news article here] and (2) ~75M euro 2005 KLM Diamond heist [here]. Neither appear in the source, or in this article, which bring both into question. I'd say copy the existing data to the creator's sandbox until verifiable sources could be found as the topic itself seems of interest to those researching notable large crimes, but without a case-by-case citation of EACH item, or at the very least a scholarly reference covering the entire topic, this kind of article can only cause people to doubt Wikipedia's reliability. No prejudice against the topic, just the current execution. -Markeer 13:19, 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.--Wafulz 20:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim Chaimovich[edit]

Vanity pianist. Won a couple of awards in his youth. Big deal. `'юзырь:mikka 19:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His web site seems to be in German. Not enough sources to comply with WP:CITE.--Edtropolis 19:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:V, WP:OR, WP:BIO, and WP:COI concerns. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Wafulz 20:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze composer[edit]

Software vanity. `'юзырь:mikka 19:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: However the article looks a lot similar to other existing softwares like NVU, Dreamweaver and Amaya. If this should be removed, then so should all others. Otherwise it is unfair. All of them seem to be written in a similar manner. Moreover, it is written in an objective manner and does not seem to be like an advertisement.

Keep. This software does exist.--Edtropolis 19:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My dog does exist as well. And a pop-up calculator written by my son. Also a good advise it to actually look into the supposed policies you are quoting.`'юзырь:mikka 19:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "This software does exist"? Yes, but that is irrelevant. There should NOT be a wikipedia article for every existing piece of software. The guidline you link to; Wikipedia:Notability (software) states that software needs to be "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software's author(s)" in order to be notable enough that it warrants an article. I am unfamiliar with Blaze composer, but the article does not establish any notability, an therfore my vote would be to delete this article.Dr bab 19:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity. Major contributor/creator of the article is the software developer. The software (Blaze Composer) does exist, but this article reads like an ad for the latest edition--Ispy1981 21:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Almost word-for-word what I intended to say. --Nonstopdrivel 01:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources explaining notability. Weregerbil 05:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources. Looked for independent review via google and could not find anything but download links and blurbs that were taken directly from the author of the software. -- Whpq 19:09, 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 as copyvio. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 21:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biorobotics and locomotion lab[edit]

This is an article about a specific, non-notable lab that studies biorobotics and human locomotion. They build successful robots. Interesting, but unencyclopedic. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 19:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC) And uncited. Delete. --Nonstopdrivel 01:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of assertion of notability and for reading like a press release. Someguy1221 01:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - as a copyvio taken from http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/research/topics/locomotion_and_robotics/overview.htm - tagged as such -- Whpq 19:12, 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 Delete.... I mean, wtf? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panimdim[edit]

Wild speculations about a rare family name `'юзырь:mikka 19:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing special about this family name. Doesn't seem to meet requirements of WP:BIO.--Edtropolis 19:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete swiftly and mercilessly. This article transcends speculation. I think it enters the realm of parody, if not downright vandalism. A Google search on the Tober study returned exactly zero hits. --Nonstopdrivel 01:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W.O.O.P[edit]

Non-notable, fictional organization. I would consider a redirect to Totally Spies.--Edtropolis 18:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it's a non-notable toy. But I would consider redirecting.--Edtropolis 18:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete-It's a non-notable game probably invented by a group of friends. I can't find any references.--Rossheth | Talk to me 19:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, while it isn't necessarily germane, who still uses periods in acronyms nowadays anyway? And the acronym itself is highly suspicious. Sounds like someone was having a "whoop" at Wikipedia's expense. Delete--Nonstopdrivel 01:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No assertion of notability, and no sources given. Web searching also draws a blank. Delete as unverifiable. -- The Anome 07:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to assert notability, and seems to violate WP:NOT#INFO, namely Wikipedia is not a how-to guide on how to play a game. --Kyoko 07:16, 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. Peacent 02:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Keyword Driven Approach to Software Test Automation[edit]

Contested prod of unencyclopedic how-to guide/essay Katr67 18:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another test framework. Essay, ad, likely a copy-pasta from somewhere, notability not established, technical text not suitable for encyclopedia etc. Pavel Vozenilek 18:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to find evidence of copyvio using Google, but nothing turned up. Katr67 18:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - Blantant Advertising.--Edtropolis 20:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - I can barely understand this mess, much less determine how to clean it up. Furthermore, it's not notable. 128.158.145.51 21:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the title and thought, "oy." Delete per above comments. Non-notable technical...Someguy1221 22:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Long essay-like unencyclopedic mess whose only source seems to be a single section of a web page. —David Eppstein 00:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is the keyword. -- Rob C (Alarob) 02:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged this article for deltetion about 2 months ago. The creator removed the tag but it seems they made no effort to improve the article.--Greatestrowerever 16:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Capmango 17:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay -- Whpq 19:14, 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 no consensus. Daniel 10:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sargis Bahirâ[edit]

Sargis Bkheera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - include this redirect? → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 19:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh, I'm going to regret this.) While I'm in favor of stub articles, I feel that this one cannot be developed beyond its current incarnation, and its very purpose is a thinly veiled coatrack article -- an attempt to discredit Mohammad and/or Muslims. The comment by the creator on the talk page reveals an intent to POV-push. No reliable sources are mentioned and, I warrant, none exist. (I plan to do some research on this subject this weekend, and may provide comments later.) A previous AFD of this article is here, which resulted in a decision of delete. -- Merope 18:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G4. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 19:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article in its current form is different from the previously deleted version, which focused more on original research claims about Islamic theology's connection to Assyrian Christianity. G4 does not, in my mind, apply. -- Merope 20:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I assumed the previous article (which admitttedly I've not seen but presumably the closing admin can review) would've paraphrased the two sentences from the current article somewhere within it and if the decision was to delete the previous substantial version then, unless this one is different - it's only two sentences and not sourced - it should be a CSD G4. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 20:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Please, have a look here: [13] EliasAlucard|Talk 23:100 15 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment: Thanks. I reviewed the two refs cited at that link. The second ref cannot be a regarded as a reliable source. Nevertheless, I couldn't find any text to suggest Bahira was Muhammad's teacher. The word "teach" does not appear in the first ref and only refers to Muhammad's teachings in the second. If Bahira's notability is based on him being Muhammad's teacher, then those refs do not appear to support this. If it is because he met Muhammad, then again that is not a notable event on its own as we can't have an article on everyone who in their life meets a notable person. As others have suggested in this AfD, it would be better to incorporate this info in another appropriate article, provided it can be properly sourced. It can be expanded over time and once sufficient sources are available, it can be extracted into its own article at the appropriate time. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources only mention this guy's name in passing as some monk who once interacted briefly with Muhammad. Christian apologetic websites like to read into this the possibility that he "taught" Muhammad, but otherwise, he's not notable. We don't need an article for every person named in every historical document about Muhammad's life. - Merzbow 19:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are reliable scholarly sources about this legend, although it is seldom treated as an actual possibility. See [14], for instance. However, I'm not sure about the title of the article with Sergius as first name and Bahira as last name , as these seem to usually be separate names, possibly for the same (likely mythical) individual. Also, no scholarly references to this guy seem to put the thingamajig over the terminal a. There is some material here for an article, but given the dubious title and lack of relaible sources for its current form, as well as its apparent ownership by someone pushing a viewpoint, it might be judicious to delete it and let someone start a new article with a more appropriate title and well-referenced content at a later date. Sci girl 20:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. That is precisely what I imagined was the case. I'd be happy to contribute the article about the character's use as a tool in polemics, after doing the appropriate research. -- Merope 20:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Sci girl, I'm not pushing my viewpoint. This is what I've read about the guy. I've read it on several websites in the past. Also, there's no reason to delete this article and begin anew. If the name is wrong, we'll just redirect. EliasAlucard|Talk 22:21, 15 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
    - Reply I think the article is biased, because this figure seems to be accepted among scholars as legendary. It does not cite the early sources for this account, although they are widely divergent. For instance, the article to which I linked mentions several of them: "Sergius was described by Lithgow as a 'diverted Thalmudist,' by Th. Herbert as an Italian, by Whetstones as a monk from Constantinople, and by Sandys as a Nestorian monk." I feel that properly constructing an article about this figure would require extensive historical research, and that keeping the article as it is misrepresents a probably mythical individual as a historical one. Sci girl 03:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There's no good reason to delete this article. Yes, as of now, it's not the best article Wikipedia has to offer. That's because the sources I provided were arrogantly removed, and on top of that, Muslims feel this article is insulting to Muhammad because the article claims he had a Christian teacher. Wikipedia is not about religious censorship, no matter what religion it is. If you give this article time and allow it to expand, it will become better and a lot more encyclopaedic. Nominating it for deletion this fast, is unfair. For example, have a look at this article: [15] It was nominated for deletion at the very beginning. The same reasons were given, "no sources from academic scholars", "no credible sources", et cetera. With a few votes, it was kept. People started working on it. Look at the article now: Aslim Taslam. 19 references. Much better, don't you think? Believe me, if I knew more about this guy, I'd add whatever information and sources I'd be able to contribute with. But, as it is, I'm not an expert on this guy. I'm sure there are Wikipedians out there able to fix this article to the better, but you have to give it some time. If, let's say, three months from now, no one is able to find any useful and credible sources about this guy, nominate it for deletion again and I'm sure it'll be gone. But, I just created this article. Give it a chance to improve. Meanwhile, leave the sources that were removed (aina.org) because I'm sure they'd be useful to other Wikipedians seeking to improve this article. Thanks. EliasAlucard|Talk 22:13, 15 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

Elias continues to advance the argument that non-RS sources should be kept simply because they are better than nothing. This is not how Wikipedia operates. - Merzbow 01:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me, what was the problem with the sources I provided? If you believe there is something wrong with aina.org as a credible source, please provide a source that actually refutes its claims. EliasAlucard|Talk 10:34, 15 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

No, the burden is on you to provide reliable sources, not on me to refute unreliable ones. The "Assyrian News Agency" and a sculptress/amateur historian are not a reliable sources for an article on a 7th-century historical figure. - Merzbow 15:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 20:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, possibly as an upmerged redirect to a broader article such as Muhammad before Medina. Even if, as some above claim, he be nothing more than a figment of Christian myth used by Christian apologists, the subject meets the notability guidelines. However, the need for reliable sources and neutral point of view may make an article about him difficult to write. In it's current state, improving, upmerging, or making it the subject of an article improvement drive rather than sending it to AfD would seem to me to be better options. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rephrase, to make clear that this is one, moderately hostile tradition. Merging as Caerwine suggests would be acceptable; but a general article on Christian legends about Muhammad, down to his floating coffin, would be a better target. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as this topic has potential, if only (as suggested above) as a section in a larger article. If there is no serious attempt to upgrade this article with scholarly references and content, it can be resubmitted for deletion. --Nonstopdrivel 01:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is a journal article objectively discussing the alleged meeting: [16]. It is apparently a vehicle used by those critical of Islam, however that does not make non-notable. ~ Infrangible 01:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That "journal" is published by no academic institution I can find. The "Mar Aphram Institute" returns no Google hits, and the "Northbrook Institute for Research and Development" leads to a basically dead webpage. This individual is not notable unless discussed in detail by scholarly sources, which have not been provided. - Merzbow 01:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Journal of the American Oriental Society talks about him [[17]]. Other books do mention him [[18]] - while I dont know much about this topic, I dont think he is "made up" by Christian extremist as some have suggested here. Chaldean 04:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment That article essentially treats him as a legend; its title is in fact "A Syriac Bahira Legend." The story is attributed to "tradition" and its current form (as described in the article) to medieval Christian polemic. Sci girl 05:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone above. It's understandably a touchy subject, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Add references, removed potential bias, and improve on non-bias, and you have a potentially Start-class article. Mouse is back 04:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep provided the references are inserted. Whether he actually lived is not relevant--if there is information on the legend, or if the f istoricity is discussed in sources, that's enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Keep as per Caerwine, Septentrionalis. Edward321 03:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable references. The article is a POV. --- A. L. M. 08:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Make the article mention that this person is legendary, and tag it as needing input from a subject matter expert! I am concerned that removing the article would at the very least give the appearance of religious censorship. Capmango 17:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no content or proof of notability--Sefringle^Talk 03:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Though not entirely reliable, it is certainly not a POV artical, as no discernable bias or spin is employed. The artical should make it clear that much of what we know about Bhira is weakly substantiated; however, it is important that what little is known, regardless of strength of evidence, is brought to attention. If sources are speculative, then it should be made no secret. A subject is not disqualified if it lacks absolute credence - the very concept of it constitutes an artical of theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.182.56 (talk • contribs)

NOTE for closing admin: Please review the article in its current form (and if possible compare with one that was deleted before based on AfD consensus) to validate it meets criteria for WP:BIO (Generally, person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians.). Being a 7th century historical figure, there should be plenty of reliable sources to establish notability in his own right. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 16:41, 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 delete despite the cleverness of this hoax... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pofigism[edit]

Delete a smart joke which looks like a genuine philosophical article. It was created by known joker who once moved Soviet Ballroom dances to Soviet Bathroom dances. This is a mock Russian term derived from the expression "a mne po figu", i.e. "I don't care (e.g., what happens)". It is used colloquially to refer to an attitude of indifference, passsive neutrality, etc. In other words, it is a Russian langaage dicdef, i.e., doesn't fit even English wiktionary. `'юзырь:mikka 18:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning to contributor: much as I enjoyed reading it, I have to warn you that this kind of editing is disruption of wikipedia and you may get yourself blocked from editing. On the other hand, your article will be very welcome in Uncyclopedia. `'юзырь:mikka 18:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Radio Free Europe reference states the following:
The comments on the celebrations, suggesting that Russians were defying the economic crisis with their unwary optimism, were challenged by a headline in the last pre-holiday issue of the business daily Kommersant (by the way, most Russian newspapers have ceased publication until Jan. 12). Rather than optimism, the paper described the feeling as "pofigism" -- a colloquial expression best translated as "utter carelessness."
While I think the English term is more appropriately "apathy," and I agree "it is a Russian language dicdef," that is a WP:RS. ~~And, although I am not apathetic about this, I will abstain for now.~~ --Evb-wiki 18:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the way the term is presented in the article is a WP:HOAX, so delete. --Evb-wiki 18:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no single appropriate English term here, a typical untranslatability problem with vague words. While "apathy" is close, this term has a different emotional load. Like I wrote, the term "pofigism" is literally the " 'I don't care' attitude", or as Free Europe put it: the "Devil-May-Care Mood", which has a broad spectrum, from happily messing with something dangerous not thinking about consequences, to apathic doing nothing. `'юзырь:mikka 19:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you sure that English has no word for such recklessness, wantonness, abandon, indifference, and disregard? I'm sure that wikt:пофигизм would welcome it if you could think of any. Uncle G 21:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You don't believe that Russia can still beat America in some ways? :-) `'юзырь:mikka 01:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - What does America have to do with it? Uncle G 11:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if it does, this topic is not applicable to Wikipdia (see WP:NOT. Delete without remorse. --Nonstopdrivel 01:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does the fact that there is no English translation indicate that English speakers are uptight about everything? ~ Infrangible 01:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Isn't it one of the most common ethnic stereotypes about specifically British? I guess America does have synonyms. Try search within ebonics. `'юзырь:mikka 02:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Пофигизм iself is a perfectly legit encyclopedic topic, as it's a significant part of Russian mentality (along with Russian avos'), but the article is original research in its present state, so it should be deleted, unless it's completely rewritten. MaxSem 08:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagreed about "russian mentality". Assigning various negative traits to whole nations is creeping racism. Thank you for pointing out for another bunch of crap in Russian avos'. I will try to figure out what to do with it. `'юзырь:mikka 17:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pofigist gives 15400 hits in google, пофигизм gives 252000 and пофигист gives 429000. I am sure it would be a huge gap in wikipedia's coverage if it had no article on such topic. And how can it be a hoax? Can you please point out any incorrect information in the article. There are several sources describing the issue. In fact the topic is somewhat difficult to describe in encyclopedia as it is both ethical term as well as an issue in Russian art. There are also several "pofigist societies". Anyway I think the improvement of the article would be much more positive than deletion.--Certh 18:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources do not even come close to suggesting the term refers to a "philosophical and ethical teaching." It merely refers to an attitude or a way of approaching life. Regarding the idea of improving the article, you are free to give it a go. --Evb-wiki 19:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Counting Google hits is not research. Research involves actually reading the things that the search engines find. When you do so, you'll find that quite a lot of those hits are discussion fora where people have chosen "pofigist" as their pseudonym. If you want to make a case for keeping which actually holds water, look through what the search engine returns and see whether you can find any actual sources in there, and cite them. Sources that merely use the word in discussions of other things aren't any good, either, as they are of no use in constructing a proper article. As already pointed out above, for example, the Radio Free Europe article that you've cited doesn't actually discuss the concept of pofigism at all. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G 19:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it's completely rewritten. Pofigism is just a Russian slang word, means being totally indifferent to everything. // vh16^ru talk 05:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete per vh16 above. I'm from Belarus and we mostly share the culture with Russia, so I know Russian slang. -- Paul Pogonyshev 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per being an obvious prank. May be rewritten though, if presented as a slang term as numerously stated above. --ssr 19:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Peacent 04:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicktropolis Space Center[edit]

I prodded this article and the prod was removed by an IP. This is just a subset of the article Nicktropolis and has no need for an article by itself. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article in no way establishes the notability of this space center outside of the game. Dr bab 18:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Gaming.Wikia has the source.--Edtropolis 18:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. QuagmireDog 00:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please. The article lacks context and predicts the future. Notability is simply assumed. This is fan talk. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only possible reference seems to be a forum post (not reliable per WP:Reliable sources.) Not even worth merging. Marasmusine 16:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, Rob C and Maramusine. What else can be said really? DarkSaber2k 12:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt on everything else, WP:CRYSTAL is reason enough to remove it. Capmango 17:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero reliable sources -- Whpq 19:15, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot Blue[edit]

Provides no sources supporting Wikipedia:Notability (music) inclusion criteria. All external links point to websites main pages, not to any content about the band. Also listing the band's albums. - Nabla 16:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like a poorly written collection of snippets from the band's promotional literature or an informal interview. --Nonstopdrivel 17:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Rob C (Alarob) 02:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - cannot find anything third party and/or non-trivial about this band across the web. Best guess is that non of their albums have been released by a major label or been successful. Therefore clear failure of WP:Music. Would reconsider my vote if my attention is drawn to lots of third party non trivial sources but I doubt they're out there. A1octopus 12:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - asserts notability by downloads, touring. Bearian 01:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are assertions of touring and downloads made, and where are the reliable sources to verify those assertions? Corvus cornix 03:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of reliable secondary sources. Addhoc 21:13, 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. Peacent 02:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of girl groups[edit]

Listcruft. Plus, there's already a category for this topic--why do we need an article? Blueboy 96 16:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is a category. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:UNENC. "Girl Group" is too broad a description for a list, that is why we have categories. A1octopus 18:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Useight 19:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily I would have said "keep, lists are different from categories", but there are zero references for this list, making it entirely OR. Delete. Corvus cornix 20:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but make sure that all red links have articles, if they meet WP:NOTABILITY.--JForget 00:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as girlycruft. Eddie.willers 01:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the definintion is so wide, you could even include some "verging on girly" boybands! (And no, I'm not going to make any suggestions) Rgds, --Trident13 22:53, 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 05:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pants Down Clown[edit]

Contested speedy. No evidence a show of this name ever existed in Boston or anywhere else. Blueboy 96 16:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probable hoax. The bank is real (they're selling on EBay), but nothing checks out about the story.--Ispy1981 16:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I used to watch this show it rocked my socks --Sitaasahain 16:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for keeping an article.--Blueboy 96 16:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment Disregard Sitaasahain per this diff. Apparently, only here to vandalize.--Ispy1981 17:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article about a non-notable subject. Nothing turns up on a Google search. Perhaps even fabricated. StudierMalMarburg 17:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are a total of 8 Google references to the phrase "pants down clown," 6 of which are eBay or other commercial ads, another a phrase in a forum post that has no relevance, and two others with no relevance whatsoever. There is no way to corroborate this article. --Nonstopdrivel 17:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only ebay hits for bank from where the copyvio picture on the article page was copied. Seller is probably trying to scare up some bids. No mention of a clown in Boston. --Evb-wiki 18:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Even if it were real, it wouldn't be notable.--Rossheth | Talk to me 18:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would you leave your kids alone with someone named the "pants down clown"? ~ Infrangible 01:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable and user PDCrules who is the main contributor and adamant to keep the article may have a COI. --Bren ^talk 05:56, 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. Peacent 02:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of boy bands[edit]

Listcruft. Plus, we already have Category:Boy bands--so what's the point of having an article on it? Blueboy 96 16:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is up with the avalanche of lists being created on Wikipedia? --Nonstopdrivel 17:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have a category, page is unnec. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft and redundant. Useight 19:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no explanation as to what is a boy band, no references. Why is Wham! a boy band but the Beatles aren't? Corvus cornix 20:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Rob C (Alarob) 00:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as toyboycruft. Eddie.willers 01:34, 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 Keep. Peacent 02:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Lally[edit]

Non-notable former leader. Fails to meet criteria of WP:BIO.--Edtropolis 16:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being the former Lord Provost of Scotland is hardly non-notable. When his wife passed away earlier this year, she was dubbed "First Lady of Scotland". Also, the subject is getting a lot of media attention for his recent political run for the Scottish Senior Citizen's Party. Needs cleanup, sources.--Ispy1981 16:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is certainly a stub and could use some copyediting, but the figure is notable and there is enough content currently in place to warrant expansion. --Nonstopdrivel 17:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 19:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have added 2 external links which clearly show he does meet WP:BIO. Davewild 20:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - sorry he is notable. He's nicknamed "Lazarus Lally" (for being a comeback king), he's a major Glasgow figure. --MacRusgail 22:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the basis of his having been for several years, the equivalent of the mayor of a major city. That said, please find more references about his mayorship. He sounds like a fringe candidate now. Edison 23:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Edison. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I suggest that the amount of work being caused by nominations for deletion without prior checks or any real explanation of how it fails to meet the criteria are increasing disrupting the work of wikipedia. Perhaps its time for some standards about what an AfD must contain, or some way of sanctioning editors who bring nominations that are almost always not accepted.DGG 08:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think that might be unfair, there's a number of different factors here. I can see why Lally was nominated. He's probably not well known beyond Scotland - possibly not Glasgow (I'm not from and have never lived in Glasgow, but I am aware of him - maybe I'm the exception) --MacRusgail 22:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He's a former leader of the council and a notorious figure in Glasgow - recently stood for election to parliament in his 80s. His history IS the history of Glasgow politics.--Sandy Donald 22:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - he was also caught up in the Glasgow city of culture business as well (and not all the positive side) --MacRusgail 22:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. I'm not a great admirer of the man - but his noteworthiness is not in doubt.--Sandy Donald 08:29, 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. Peacent 02:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viral radio[edit]

Contested speedy. This article on an internet radio station makes no assertion to meet WP:WEB notability guidelines. In fact, since the station has only existed for 11 days and has one program, it's proven difficult to find any independent sources to meet WP:V... — Scientizzle 16:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant advertising. The author of this article needs to read WP:NOT. --Nonstopdrivel 17:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. As per CSD:G11.--Edtropolis 18:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't for promoting newly created companies or products. --Android Mouse 04:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's too early for this article to appear on Wikipedia. 11 days is insufficient for it to be widely noticed and reported. Literally something "made up one day".--Kylohk 14:43, 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.--Wafulz 21:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Game Called Chaos[edit]

Does not appear to pass notability guidlines $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 16:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete While there is a Hardy Boys book by that name, I can't seem to find anything about the book, other than the one or two sentence synopsis already in the article--Ispy1981 17:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only information available is commercial in nature. I don't think Amazon.com qualifies as an encyclopedic source. Children's books don't become notable by virtue of having been published -- particularly not books numbered 160 in a series. Delete --Nonstopdrivel 17:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 19:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all books are inherently notable. If there are no significant sources then the most we should do is mention it in a "List of Hardy Boys books" if one exists. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:06, 22 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 05:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling Fractal[edit]

This article fails WP:SOFTWARE. The software does not appear to have been the subject of multiple reviews or articles.DeleteTheRingess (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The second paragraph deals with notability, and it fails miserably. The rest of the article is fascinating, but it's not about the software per se. Yechiel Man 16:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per Yechiel. Eddie 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per YechielMan's guidance, though perhaps the second section of the article could be saved for inclusion in an entry along the lines of "fractal software." Thoughts? --Nonstopdrivel 17:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It probably belongs in Fractal.TheRingess (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I would support such an action. --Nonstopdrivel 03:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Much of that section (I removed three sentences which were spammish comparison of this product with the competition) is now the talk page for this discussion. It may need further work to fit Fractal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 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 JoshuaZ 02:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zaimi-Marku inequality[edit]

This is just a maths problem. There is no academic work on it. Salvatore Ingala 16:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a textbook (heh) case of things made up in school one day. Zetawoof_(ζ) 16:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously not suitable for Wikipedia - WP:V.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 16 hits on Yahoo and 11 hits on Google--all either Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors or message boards. Come back when you're published in a scholarly journal.--Blueboy 96 16:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The external link is simply a forum entry wherein the authors of this article announce their proof. --Nonstopdrivel 17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The objection seems to be that this is original research. Why not say so explicitly, if that's it? "Just a maths problem" describes many many thousands of Wikipedia articles that there is no reason to delete, so this discussion isn't making a lot of sense yet. Michael Hardy 23:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Consider it so stated, then. --Nonstopdrivel 01:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination in its entirety suggests OR. "There is no academic work on it" I would think means no scholarly publications on the topic. That's basically the death knell for a math topic. --C S (Talk) 06:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the nomination wasn't very clear, so I want try to explain my point of view. Problem solvers always create new math problems and solutions, but they are just exercises. In some cases, the problems themselves are so interesting/difficult/profound to gain attention from mathematicians, someone makes some research on them, and publishes something on the topic. Until that, they are just exercises. Sorry for my far-from-perfect English language... Salvatore Ingala 10:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Might be worth keeping if the article gave some example of this inequality being useful, or at least some intuition of what it's trying to achieve (it's not at all clear whether the left or the right hand side would typically be the one we're trying to bound). --Gro-Tsen 03:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is yet another example of some well-meaning students of the Art of Problem Solving getting carried away with some math they worked out and posting it to Wikipedia. --C S (Talk) 06:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. —SlamDiego_←T 12:16, 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. Peacent 02:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Gilbertson[edit]

No evidence that a golfer by this name even exists. An almost certain hoax. Blueboy 96 15:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No such golfer. Fails WP:BIO.--Edtropolis 15:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO and has no WP:RS, but it is not snowing out yet. --Evb-wiki 16:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A 14-year-old professional golfer would probably be notable. This seems to just a 14-year-old though. Capmango 17:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he even exists. Delete --Nonstopdrivel 17:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He exists. There's a picture of him playing on a playground in a local Eau Claire paper. Capmango 04:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He just magically got older. :) IrishGuy ^talk 21:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with the new listed birthdate, this no longer falls under WP:HOAX, but I still don't think he's notable. --Nonstopdrivel 03:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss the cut per nom and due to snow flurries. "...beat many golfers like [blank]"? Like who, the Invisible Man? an imaginary friend? Clarityfiend 20:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with the new listed birthdate, this no longer falls under WP:HOAX, but I still don't think he's notable. --Nonstopdrivel 03:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How does one work at a golf course as an amateur? In any case, this doesn't list him in any staff capacity. IrishGuy ^talk 21:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He could work there as a gardener, I suppose. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No matter whether this golfer is 14 or 34, being "one of the best golfers" in a city of 50,000 is a long shot from the WP:BIO criterion of playing at the highest level in his sport. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Svetovid 23:38, 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 03:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wholetail[edit]

Appears to be a neologism mainly used in certain financial businesses as a buzzword for advertising/branding. I haven't found anything that gives it notability and the article is also basically a dictionary definition. This was a contested prod. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 15:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom.--Edtropolis 15:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - dicdef, poorly written.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOT. --Nonstopdrivel 17:49, 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 redirect to Hidden Palms. WjBscribe 12:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Miller (Hidden Palms)[edit]

Fictional character on a very low-rated TV show. Not notable enough for it's own article.Claimdark 15:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect.--Edtropolis 15:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial topic, reads like an elementary-school book report.--Nonstopdrivel 17:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The information on the Johnny Miller page was retrieved from the official CW website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RYANonWIKIPEDIA (talk • contribs)
Merge' to Hidden Palms as per WP:FICT, the characters should be part of the main article. Note that the entire Information section was a copyvio and has been reverted. -- Whpq 19:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Whpq above. There's plenty of room in the main article, and the character isn't all that notable on his own. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 08:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, since there's basically no content now, we may also just be able to delete. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 08:03, 23 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 10:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rascal Mob[edit]

This is a completely unreferenced stub. I couldn't find anything to corroborate this. It was written by Rascals Mob Recordings and Rascals as a companion article for their now deleted Rascal Mob Recordings article. IrishGuy ^talk 15:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I originally prod-ded it with the reason: No sources can be found to verify the existence of this group; only 19 unique Ghits, none relevant except for the Wikipedia article. No sources for the supposed capi Antonio and Ruggero Renzo either. ... discospinster _talk 15:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a MySpace.--Edtropolis 16:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't have said it any better myself. Delete --Nonstopdrivel 17:53, 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 (A7). soum ^talk 15:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew baildon[edit]

Probable Hoax article created by vandal account, no ghits, nothing on IMDB, nothing on tv.com CitiCat 14:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This article is already tagged for 'speedy delete' per WP:BIO. I would support that. --Evb-wiki 14:56, 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. No real arguments in favour of deletion, but this article should probably be revisited sometime later.--Wafulz 14:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soli Deo Gloria (arts organization)[edit]

Apparent conflict of interest; author has no other edits, nor has he provided any external sources. Yechiel Man 14:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - WP:COI and WP:SPA are not, in themselves, reasons to delete. As written, the article does not seem to be overly bias or spammy. It does desperately need WP:RSs though. --Evb-wiki 15:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. As per Evb-wiki.--Edtropolis 16:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I have added the {unreferenced} and {originalresearch} templates. If the article is not improved, deletion should be reconsidered. --Nonstopdrivel 17:57, 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 procedural keep. Redirects should be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion not here. I am taking an editorial decision to retarget to Minor places in Beleriand#Arossiach and tag as {{R from misspelling}}. Feel free to nominate at WP:RFD if you still think this should be deleted. WjBscribe 12:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arosslach[edit]

old typo Surendil 14:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to this version in the page history. It seems trying to find a merge/redirect target has not produced a satisfactory result. Yechiel Man 16:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The correct spelling is Arossiach, which links to Minor places in Beleriand. There all information is preserved, but under correct title. Surendil 18:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename.--Edtropolis 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. redundant typo. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlikely that someone searching for Arossiach would type this. All relevant information is in Minor places in Beleriand (although I don't think "pass" is the right word in either article). Deor 00:00, 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 speedily deleted by TexasAndroid per WP:CSD#G12. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Equipments_Used_In_Carrom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Standard Equipments Used In Carrom

Can barely understand this, no context and very poorly written. Rackabello 14:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article is under construction the grammer is ok and the source and category is also given this article is about THE LAWS OF CARROM and what the hell you are doing man. i just published it and with in the sec u show ur caste. u should make appropriate changes if anythng wrng is there not to just place the delete hell huh. Bund maraa [paranh now i will not contribute the articles related to carrom here

And what do you mean by poorely written answer me ok........user:hpt_lucky

Delete Seems to be copied from the one reference, complete with misspellings. WP:COPYVIO. We have an article Carrom which has a section "Equipment." Edison 14:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:COPYVIO. Also would be 'delete' per nom & duplicative. --Evb-wiki 14:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a copyvio and I have marked it for speedy deletion as such. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD G12. I have also tagged Toss(Carrom) and How To Strike (Carrom) accordingly. Caknuck 15:35, 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. Peacent 02:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StampNews.com Company[edit]

Non-notable website, alexa ranking of 3,500,000+, no reliable sources on this, doesn't meet WP:WEB or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Xyzzyplugh 13:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers. --Evb-wiki 14:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Blatant advertising. I'd say it should be speedied, but it's been around since March.--Blueboy 96 16:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Blueboy96 and per WP:SNOW. Totally non-notable website.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I notability-tagged this months ago, and the IP that's been editing this has simply tried to remove tags without adding any evidence that the article should be kept. EALacey 16:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 16:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blueboy96. --Nonstopdrivel 18:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stamp it out as non-notable and for bad manners. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. ~ Wiki hermit 16:22, 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 Keep. — Caknuck 19:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 AS Roma-Manchester United conflict[edit]

The article is poorly written, not notable and non-neutral. PeeJay 13:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with this AfD. The article is about a minor incident (based on the background of problems at football grounds), and very non-NPOV, as shown by the refusal of Daddy Kindsoul to allow any edits that don't correspond with his view, wheter referenced or not. Darkson - I have a dream 14:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well referenced article. IP198 14:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IP198. And stay cool. You guys would rather get rid of an article you've been working on, than work together for an unbias article? Until consensus can be reached the NPOV tag is sufficient. --Evb-wiki 14:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced and notable event.--Vintagekits 14:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. It would make much more sense to put the information in an article about violence at football matches as nothing really stands out to make this event any different from other football conflicts this year.Spugmeister 15:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – {{sofixit}}. The article is notable and well-referenced; AfD and RfAr are not good solution for simple article disputes. Keeping a cool head and attempting to reach a compromise are. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 15:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced article clearly establishing notability, other reasons not relevant here. Davewild 15:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced incident, has been the subject of significant third party coverage.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep At first I was inclined toward the views of Spugmeister. As a stand-alone article, the subject is of questionable notability given the many similar football incidents. The article should not be merged into UEFA_Champions_League_2006-07#Quarter-finals as that article appropriately lists results. Cleaned-up, and allowing that some issues arising from this very recent incident still stand to be clarified/confirmed, it seems to merit further life. Pever 17:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The article cites plenty of references but does need cleanup. Not only is it poorly written, it reads more like a news article than encyclopedic entry. I have added the {{copyedit}} template. --Nonstopdrivel 18:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask that some of the editiors that have said "keep and edit" could try, because every time Peejay and myself have tried, we are reverted and accused of bias. Darkson - I have a dream 19:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The article needs work including adjusting the POV more neutrally, but the reliable sources are present which demonstrate the subject's notability. A lttle elbow grease and it should be fine. JodyB_talk 19:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a notable event and the article is also well-sourced. --Carioca 19:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:04, 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. Wizardman 20:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McKay Elementary School[edit]

non notable elementary school. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Does not pass WP:SCHOOL --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 13:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:SCHOOL is a rejected proposal.
Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 16:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Information on current principal, etc. entirely irrelevant. --Nonstopdrivel 18:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to School District 38 Richmond. Dhaluza 16:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to School District 38 Richmond per WP:LOCAL guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 04:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to School District 38 Richmond. Redirects are cheap, so use them. RFerreira 05:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:LOCAL. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to School District 38 Richmond. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wowk Elementary School[edit]

non notable school ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Does not pass WP:SCHOOL --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 13:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:SCHOOL is a rejected guideline. Dhaluza 16:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to School District 38 Richmond. Dhaluza 16:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to School District 38 Richmond per WP:LOCAL guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 04:07, 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 delete. Wizardman 20:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteside Elementary School[edit]

non notable elementar school ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Does not pass WP:SCHOOL --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 13:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:SCHOOL is a rejected guideline. Dhaluza 16:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 16:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to School District 38 Richmond. Dhaluza 16:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to School District 38 Richmond per WP:LOCAL suggestions. Yamaguchi先生 04:07, 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 merge and redirect to School District 38 Richmond. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Island Elementary School[edit]

non notable elementary school ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same as the other 3 schools above this link. Does not pass WP:SCHOOL. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 16:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect this article and the other three listed above into the existing stub for School District 38 Richmond. Pinball22 16:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Dhaluza 16:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the school district article. Notability not established, but information seems appropriate in the context of the school district. --B. Wolterding 15:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the appropriate school district article. Yamaguchi先生 04:06, 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 keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judenfrei[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Judenfrei

This article is a term definition. Even the term status is unclear, it's rather a trivial compound word. But anyway WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Also the article is unsourced and has rather suspicious information. Suva 10:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indeed. Its a trivial German term. Delete supported. Belongs to a dictionary. Any noteworthy content should be put to corresponding history articles.--Alexia Death 11:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, probably to The Holocaust, as per Alexia Death. Digwuren 11:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have attached the appropriate merge tags, and requested for a discussion regarding the proper merge target section on Talk:The Holocaust. Digwuren 07:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the map and the "areas that were proclaimed judenrein"-section indicate sufficient notability, this article is eligible for expansion. Sala Skan 12:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not notability but term definition. This is a dictionary not encyclopedia article. This should be (and AFAIK is) included in one of the Holocaust related articles instead. Suva 12:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "areas" section fits better into the main article of Holocaust. Digwuren 12:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd like to note that ALL users who so far voted to delete the article are contributors who are heavily or exclusively involved in editing Estonia-related articles. Some of them had been blocked from editing before for edit wars on articles about Estonian's participation in Nazi war crimes. Since Estonia is the only country mentioned in the article, I question their impartiality and propose to keep the article for the further discussion. 206.186.8.130 13:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on it, let's start by pointing out that Special:Contributions/206.186.8.130 consists purely of trying to display Nazis as more powerful, influential and mainstream than they actually were or are. I would say you're a single-purpose Nazi glorification account, but will refrain from it due to the technicality of you not even having an account. Digwuren 13:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you misunderstand or misuse term "glorification". "Glorification" would be calling thugs from SS zondercommando "freedomfighters". I'm more involved in "clarification", if you wish, of links between WWII-period Estonia and Nazi's activities. Anyway, let's leave this kindergarten-level tit-for-tat aside. My point was, vote of 3 Estonians isn't enough to delete an article which is not favourable to Estonia. It still is. You guys are patriots of Estonia which is nice and dandy with me, but that naturally weigh on your impartiality. Nothing personal here. I would say the same about any similar situation. Would you trust an opinion of 3 patriots of Israel on Deir Yassin? Would you trust an opinion of 3 Russian patriots on Katyn?206.186.8.130

Never again insult me by calling me a patriot. And you'd better not repeat accusations of ethnicity-based unability to follow WP:NPOV, either. Digwuren 19:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really weird that Estonians tend to be interested in Estonian related articles. But this is not the question here. The point is, that this is not suitable article for wikipedia. The content in this article might be suitable, but not as a separate article. Suva 14:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly speaking, I'd like to see more opinions about relevance of this article. So far only wikipedians who want to delete this article are ones from Estonia and Estonia is the only country mentioned in this article. I do see some pattern here and want more opinions about this article before decision is made. 206.186.8.130 18:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thats exactly what the AfD process is for. --Alexia Death 19:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the related Holocaust article. Judenfrei is a term, but not any operation whatsoever, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Kylohk 16:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a redirect to a generic article about Holocaust.--Alexia Death 19:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So would I. Such a redirect seems a rather logical way to proceed, given the usual customs and practices of Wikipedia redirects. Digwuren 19:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an ordinary German word, without special encyclopedic meaning. There are also German words Jude, Arbeit, Lager, and many others, used by Nazi. But this is English language wikipedia. `'юзырь:mikka 18:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This ain't just an 'ordinary German word' - it's rather a Nazi-introduced concept of a territory which is cleansed of Jews. We are clearly not talking about linguistics here - the article is about the historical background of the phenomenon that this word denotes in English, which, per Wikipedia vs Wiktionary guide qualifies it for the Wikipedia. Jude, Arbeit, Lager mentioned above are certainly not from the same class as they don't mean anything in particular in English (well, except for the lager beer... :-), so the comparison is logically incorrect. Ilvar 22:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* I would really like to see how you can expand this article, there is not much more to write about it. I made a comparsion, why not a create a page titled "Pommiauk" -- Estonian military designation for the holes in the ground, caused by bombs and other explosive devices. The word is directly translated as "bomb-hole". It's true that military uses this word. I could even supply a map with "pommiauks" marked on it. It's still not a notable article material. Redirect to Holocaust article is definitely a reasonable solution, and everyone familiar with wikipedia, knows this is common practice. Suva 05:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions that immediately pops to mind about judenfrei is; How common was it to proclaim yourself judenfrei before Nazism, and who did so? How did this change in Nazi Germany, in conquered areas? What was the political consequences of proclaiming your establishment/area as such? How did the concept fit in to the nazi manifest, into nazi propaganda? As to your example; WP have several articles on crater. Taemyr 00:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable questions, although a bit Nazi-centric. My understanding is that before the Nazis initiated systematic ethnic cleansing against Jews at Kristallnacht, the word was not used in 'proclamations' but in antisemitic descriptions of what the 'ideal world' would look like. Thus, Nazi usage would be the first time the word was actually a matter of proclamations.

As for political consequences -- this is an even more interesting topic and merits considering various sovereigns' explicit prohibition of Jewish people settling down. However, this does not belong to this article, and has been extensively covered in articles such as Antisemitism and Antisemitism in Europe (Middle Ages). Digwuren 07:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nerge and redirect - I agree with Suva. I can't imagine how this article could be expanded without getting into a discussion of "the final solution". Just merge this with the appropriate Holocaust article and then redirect it. --Richard 05:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Holocaust. It is true that this is not an "ordinary" word of German language; it was used by the Nazis as kind of a "technical term", as part of their propaganda language. But still, it's a term. The events associated with this word can just as well be described (and are described) in the Holocaust article. If anything is missing there, add it. --B. Wolterding 13:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't feel that this should be deleted, and I also don't feel that there is room for significant improvement on the article, however I believe the information is still notable enough to keep around, so merge into appropriate article. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 13:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki – Nominated per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, should be moved to Wiktionary. Please don't delete it without doing so. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 15:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A German word in the English Wiktionary? That's a new one... anyway, merge if possible.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's angst, ersatz, gestalt, etc. -- Rob C (Alarob) 02:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 19:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Holocaust or appropriate sub article. Tewfik^Talk 22:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to "Holocaust" per those arguing for that. The term has a history behind it, but what we're really looking at in this article is a dictionary definition and a list of places (a surprisingly short list of places, for that) where it was applied. It's a phenomenon which would be better explained in the context of a larger article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect what little there is in this article into Holocaust. It's a dicdef, not broad enough for its own article. -- Kesh 03:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable Third Reich phenomenon, widely used in media their media and in historical works since then. That the current article is used as not-so-subtle attack on Estonians is fixable and has no influence on the term itself. Btw, the first Judenfrei city in the Reich was Luxembourg, if I remember correctly. Merging would made a giant page even more gigantic (WP is supposed to be read by normal people). Pavel Vozenilek 22:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per several above. Capable of plenty of expansion. Whatever happens don't put a German word in Wiktionary. Johnbod 22:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not only a cross over language word, but also a significant word in the Holocaust. Its certainly more than a dictionary entry. Rgds, --Trident13 22:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' - People are saying that they can expand the article, let them do so. Holocaust is too long as it is. And judenrein as a concept has carried meaning outside of the context of the Holocaust. Taemyr 23:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC) Modifying my comment pr jpgordon. Taemyr 01:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the wiktionary front page: Welcome to the English-language Wiktionary, a collaborative project to produce a free, multilingual dictionary. Some people should note multilingual.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Taemyr (talk • contribs) 23:15, June 16, 2007

Keep - 1) The Nazi glossary has no place in a dictionary; taking these words at their face value amouts to hate speech. 2) The deletion proposal is part of a bad faith denialist campaign targeted against articles in category Category:Holocaust in Estonia. -- Petri Krohn 23:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a strong accusation. What evidence do you have? -- Kesh 00:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None. Petri Krohn just likes the sound of these words, and thus has thrown them around -- baselessly -- at random occasions at least since january. Any minute now, there'll be a followup: "Have you, or have you not, ever worn socks?". Digwuren 07:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of "hate speech" and "denialism" campaigns is nonsense and is of itself a demonstration of assuming bad faith --Martintg 01:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Petri Krohn. - Gilliam 00:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Holocaust or Wannsee Conference. Article is about a term, so should be part of Wikitionary. --Martintg 01:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before merging there has to be some content to merge. As the article stands it should not be merged anywhere. The concept stands on it's own and seperate from both Holocaust and the Wannsee Conference. Other articles that could use this article; Racial policy of Nazi Germany, and Nazi propaganda. The fact that its several is in itself an indication that the article should be seperate. Taemyr 02:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - That's an ambiguous comment. "[T]here has to be come content to merge" suggests that at present there isn't (hence it should be deleted), but the rest of the comment suggests that there's content which could be merged all over the place. There is, I would argue, nothing against moving the information contained here into six or seven articles. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a faulty premise. The fact that there isn't at present any content does not mean that no content could be added. I am arguing I would like to see about this concept, and that this article is the place to put it. Taemyr 06:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem to tally with your original comment. As I read your most recent statement, you want there to be content and for that content to be kept separate. That has nothing to do with the fact that multiple articles could use this information, which reads like a suggestion of merger candidates. Additionally, the fact that there isn't content at present is in fact a serious problem. Not that I'd be entirely comfortable with calling this an empty article, but there's certainly not much content to play with. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a specific concept, and appropriate for a general article. It's quite reasonable for the Holocaust to contain special topics suitable of treating . There is clearely enough material and sources for an article. DGG 08:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. One paragraph in The Holocaust should suffice, since all the article does is define the word and then list three dates in which areas were declared Judenfrei. There's not enough material here for a full article. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Very short article which explains term and lists three dates.--Staberinde 21:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Short article that has very little content on its own and is worthless without context. DLX 03:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG, others. Edward321 03:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 10:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The most suitable article to merge to is Aryanization. Paul B 14:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This sounds plausible, although I am not changing my keep vote. An othet term that came up is Ausrottung. -- Petri Krohn 23:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Uncomfortable but notable part of World War II and holocaust history, and the article documents a sort of perverted policy the Nazis followed, not just some random WWII word. The concept is on par with such concepts as Lebensraum and Final solution. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been up for AFD for a week now. The article still consists of three sentences and a list of three places. One would think that with all the argument here for how important the concept is, there might have been some significant material added to bolster the argument that the article is a keeper. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless at least one person states that he is interested in expanding the article. Taemyr 01:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Petri Krohn--Dojarca 06:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, possibly merge to somewhere. Despite WINAD concerns, this is an important piece of Nazi vocabulary, useful to provide terminological context for Holocaust-related articles. Sandstein 19:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A concept that is more than a dicdef. Needs expansion, but we don't delete start-level articles, we build on them. --Groggy Dice T | C 00:11, 22 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 03:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago Kid[edit]

No assertion of notability. Had a hard time digging up even a passing mention with google. Ford MF 07:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy D - {{db-bio}} - does not assert notability - Tiswas^(t) 16:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - notoriety established as UFC fighter. Unsourced though. However, premature to tag after one day for AFD as unsourced, IMO. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think there's any time requirement, is there? Ford MF 20:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note also that the article doesn't say he fought in the UFC, it says he had matches against Dan Severn and Ken Shamrock, which could have been in pro wrestling as both competed in that sport and Severn in particular appeared on lots of small-time cards taking on relative nobodies.... ChrisTheDude 07:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore Google searches on his real name plus any of UFC, Ultimate Fighting Championship and Ultimate Fighting Championships turn up no results whatsoever other than this article..... ChrisTheDude 08:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. IP198 14:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless sources are added soon and article is expanded. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 14:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article appears to be a tribute to a performer that was kind to the author of the article, but seems to be about a wholly non-notable performer. Pever 17:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the article is unsourced and poorly written, almost unintelligible. The last statement is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. --Nonstopdrivel 18:21, 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. Deiz talk 09:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deathball[edit]

Contested prod (without explanation or imporvements though). WP:NOT for things made up one day. No sources at all, no Google hits (many for deathball, including for a dodgeball variation, but none for this one). Fails WP:V. Fram 12:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear WP:NFT case. Hopeless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Where's the death? I demand blood. - Tiswas^(t) 14:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up in school one day. JJL 14:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Death to this article! No room for this sort of thing on wikipedia, as stated above - stuff made up in school one day. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per CSD G4. Ourai ^тʃ_с 16:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 16:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOT, article was deleted via prod in April, likely repost of similar info. Caknuck 16:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, it was a different non notable deathball back then (a game mod with at least some sources and players) :-) Fram 19:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wiki is not a game guide and non notable cruft. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 17:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete: If I made up a variation of tag, would this be notable? --Nonstopdrivel 18:22, 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. Peacent 02:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ipernity[edit]

Obvious marketing attempt, but not sure if its blatant enough for WP:CSD#G11.

This single purpose account has also went and added link to Ipernity on many related articles in a clear attempt at advertising that website. Could be also a conflict of interest. Also, there are no hits on either Google News or Google Scholars nor are there any references in the article itself so verifiability is a problem as well. I am aware that this is a pretty new article but this looks too much like an advertisement to let it sit until reliable references can be found (which I doubt is possible) --Shinhan 12:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Yechiel Man 13:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No showing of notability of this website or business is made in the article. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 16:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: poorly constructed collection of non-notable bulleted lists. --Nonstopdrivel 18:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CSD#A7 is probably more befitting, although the service has some novelty it does not deserve a separate article, at least until it can be cited, until then a mention in a new section I'm going to add to the Photo_sharing article should suffice. Verseguru 15:21, 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 Keep. — Caknuck 18:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, Moment, Machine (2nd AfD)[edit]

Repost and copvio, see 1st AFD below. Samuel 12:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This version is not a copyvio and thus not a repost of deleted material. The article is in bad need of cleanup and wikifying, but I believe there is sufficient precedent for broadcast television shows to have their own articles. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Can verify that this isn't a copyvio, but this article is in real need of work.--Blueboy 96 15:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article (with sources) about a television program. What is the problem here? ~ Infrangible 02:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List elsewhere. If it's a suspected copyright violation, it should be listed at WP:CV, not here. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 01:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only reason I can see for this to have even been nominated is deletionists thinking "well, it was deleted once, so obviously it should be deleted again", even though it's been rewritten entirely. Which illustrates the fundamental problem with deleting articles for things like copyvio, instead of taking a minute to remove the copyright violations. It seems to me that unless an article clearly can never become encyclopedic (ie vanity articles, attack articles, etc), AfD should be a last resort. Unfortunately, it's all too often used as the first resort. — Red XIV ^(talk) 06:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep whatever it was before, it's a good article now. Lists of episodes are universal for all major television fiction series, and the same should apply to nonfiction programming. DGG 08:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A stub about a TV program on a non-obscure network. Any concerns about copyright or cleanup should be addressed in a different setting. Slic e NYC (Talk) 20:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's my first article and it's not gonna be perfect. I'm trying to fix it now. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 21:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is about television program and has sources, I don't see a problem. oysterguitarist~Talk 05:29, 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 Speedily deleted as copyvio, not to mention spam --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 23:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, Moment, Machine[edit]

Fancurft, reads like an advertisment, hard to fix, only source is officail site. Samuel 20:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio of History.com and as spam (G11). A ecis^Brievenbus 21:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio per above user, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio, and spam of the program. ---Hirohisat 22:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Peacent 02:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star of Poland[edit]

Hoax. "Star of Poland" + jewish = 8 ghits, the first two being Wikipedia. Eddie.willers 12:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline speedy. Completely unverified, and not notable from the evidence. Aric Gilinsky, who is mentioned in the article, is also under suspicion. Yechiel Man 13:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, I had no better luck with a search on this term. It does indeed smell hoaxy. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I added the {{hoax}} template as there is no independent verification of this topic and it reeks of WP:NPOV violation. --Nonstopdrivel 18:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Visor (talk · contribs) 21:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from main page, but before deleting save for future reference under special category "New historians" or "History revisionists". If there is no such category, I recommend to create one. greg park avenue 01:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references are provided and claim of notability established.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:58, 17 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]
Delete as per YechielMan. Edward321 03:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not true, it's unsourced and it's political propaganda. Jackaranga 09:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, that's what new historians are for. Still it wouldn't hurt to keep a tab on likes as those associated with Jean-Marie Le Pen, Noam Chomsky, Uri Avnery and many more. There are many of them in Poland too, just check Terroryzm.com or Viva.Palestyna.pl; they're alive and kicking and writing tirelessly new chapters in our history from scratch. Some of them are even recognized professors or PhDs like Jerzy Robert Nowak] or Jarosław Tomasiewicz - a co-founder of Zakorzenienie - a discredited and delegalized nationalistic movement ideologically close to "Star of Poland". greg park avenue 17:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Piotrus Marcin Suwalczan [our talk] 09:56, 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 zapped per CSD A7. -- Merope 14:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin regan[edit]

I am completing this AFD nomination on behalf of an alert IP user. It's probably a speedy G11/A7, but that's for you to decide. Yechiel Man 13:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Delete per CSD G11 and A7, spam and vanity page, Wikipedia is not a posting service for your resume Rackabello 14:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy D - {{db-bio}}, and, I suspect {{copyvio}} - Tiswas^(t) 14:07, 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. Peacent 02:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxiki[edit]

Looks very interesting/worthwhile, but maybe too new/not notable enough yet. 303 Ghits for Galaxiki. Nominating for community input. No Vote exolon 11:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Looks like it might even be enough for a featured article; but not enough is known about it yet. But I don't think we should delete it; we should keep it and then update it. Meldshal 42 11:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Meldshal, please construct an argument based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as notability or verifiability, not personal preference. Thanks. --Dhartung | Talk 12:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, none likely to exist, and Alexa-ranked beyond 4,000,000. Fails WP:WEB, hard. --Dhartung | Talk 12:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, Googling gives limited results and nothing independent reliable. Also, obvious conflict of interest. Wickethewok 13:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, Galaxiki is my own project and I also posted the Wikipedia article. I thought it could be interesting enough to write something about it, as I haven't seen something similar yet on the web (well, that's why I made it :-) Okay, you're right, it's really new, user base is still low and yes, "conflict of interest" is also an argument. If it's incompatible with the guidelines, delete it, no problem with that (of course I'm against a deletion, but I don't think that should be considered to be a "neutral position" )joskirps

Comment. If I were you, I'd save the page, and once the site gains a little more popularity and notability then I'd repost it with the added claim to notability and a 3rd party reference or two. Also, welcome to wikipedia! --Android Mouse 05:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks a lot, Android Mouse! I saved the article and I'll repost it later when it meets the standards.joskirps

Delete, interesting concept but unfortunately unsourced and no evidence of notability exists. Good luck to the author with this endeavor, though, and it if takes off in the future and gets some reviews or such, then there's plenty of room for an article about it here at that time. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. To me, Galaxiki's concept doesn't even sound very interesting - it just sounds like it's going to be a load of TL;DR science fiction.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; at least wait in advertising your own project until it gets out of betaware. See WP:AUTO. For future reference Galaxiki is here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was launched less than a week ago and nothing I've found helps assert its notability. --Android Mouse 04:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not even launched yet (not yet July). Hu 08:58, 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 Keep. — Caknuck 18:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yetunde Price[edit]

This is not a clear-cut AFD. Yetunde Price meets the letter of WP:BIO: she has been the subject of non-passing mentions in multiple outside coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The problem is that very little of that coverage is actually about her. Most articles are about thedeathofthesisterofVenusandSerenaWilliams. Yetunde Price seems to have very little notability in her own right. A ecis^Brievenbus 11:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions and in the list of Sports-related deletions. A ecis^Brievenbus 11:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I think that she is fine. What's wrong with her article? Okay, she lacks some notability, but her article contains various good points. If this article is deleted, it will be an unfair deletion. Indefinitely. Meldshal 42 11:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep needs some references, but should be notable if those are provided.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a famous murder with tons of news coverage; the fact that the fame stemmed from her family ties, and not independent accomplishments on her part, doesn't change that. Propaniac 18:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per User:Meldshal42. --Nonstopdrivel 18:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add more sources. As per ↑. --Edtropolis 19:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's interesting to see what matters here--apparently it's the social connections of the victim. That does affect the press coverage, but I thought we decided that no amount of press coverage could make for lack of intrinsic notability. I thought we also had the principle that notable relatives did not make one notable. But it seems that WP is back to its old self: the WP, the Encyclopedia of the mass media, with just enough other stuff to look respectable. DGG 03:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not personally familiar with the decision that "no amount of press coverage could make [up] for lack of intrinsic notability", but as far as I know that's not WP policy. And I'm not arguing that notable relatives make one notable; there's a difference between an article about a famous person's sister, and an article about a famous person's sister whose murder received lots of press coverage. Propaniac 14:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was Keep , and the earlier ones removed because they were just murders should have been kept as well. DGG 06:00, 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. Tyrenius 04:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power cell (science fiction)[edit]

Delete as completely unsourced original research. Otto4711 06:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, I couldn't have put that any better myself. Groupthink 07:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. Delete per nom or perhaps redirect to Battery or something like that on the off chance that the term is used as such. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 07:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specificaly, redirect to Battery (electricity) if a redir is the correct route to take. Groupthink 07:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Electrochemical cell imo. The article itself is original research, but the name is valid for lookup. Turlo Lomon 08:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Electrochemical cell per User:Turlo Lomon. -- saberwyn 08:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some fictional powercells are nuclear or similar and not electrochemical cells. They are an important part of science fction, along with rayguns and airlocks and transporters etc. The author saying how they are described in books and videogames, is to me not much like original research, or else nearly all information in Wikipedia that was got from books and films is original research.^{[clarification needed]} Anthony Appleyard 08:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Original research comprises, amongst other things, an original analysis of data forming a conclusion. You contend that the article that you wrote was not original research. Please cite sources to show where, outside of Wikipedia, your various conclusions such as how power cells behave ("The power cells of rayguns or other weapons often behave like [...]") and how realistic they are ("power packs in games [...] tend to be more realistic [...]") have already been derived and published in a source. If you cannot show that there's a source that has done those analyses and published those conclusions, then your analysis is an original one, first done by you and first published by you here in Wikipedia, which is exactly the sort of thing that is forbidden by our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Please cite sources. Uncle G 09:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He actually does have a point about terminology, however. This news article, for instance, refers to a "solar power cell", meaning that science fiction aside, the term has been used to refer to a photovoltaic power source as well as an electrochemical source. That leads me to think that replacing the current article with a disambig page is the way to go. Groupthink 09:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with Disambig as per Groupthink. —gorgan_almighty 10:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about this? Move the current page to Power cell (science fiction) and have Power cell point to a disambig page. You know what, that should happen regardless of whether or not this article is deleted, so I'm going to be bold and just do it. Groupthink 10:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but turn into disambiguation page, per Groupthink's suggestion. Perhaps move this one to Power cell (science fiction) per above, and stub this article. --SunStar Net ^talk 10:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info: I have put a possible disambigified version in Talk:Power cell. Anthony Appleyard 10:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info: I have removed the big OR paragraph. Anthony Appleyard 10:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your case would be better served by finding citations. The article is still an original synthesis. Groupthink 10:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Afd restarts here, as the original Power cell article has been moved to Power cell (science fiction), and Power cell now contains a disambig. The discussion must now relate to whether the Power cell (science fiction) should be kept or deleted, the previous suggestions of Redirect or Replace with disambig no longer being valid. —gorgan_almighty 10:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

Delete, original research and synthesis. Groupthink 10:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is original research and does not assert notability. It is an article about a fictional device, but as it does not state what fictional universe(s) it relates to, it cannot be verified or cited. —gorgan_almighty 10:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Power cells occur in many science-fiction scenarios. Anthony Appleyard 10:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then clarify & cite the claims in the article, and expand it with examples. —gorgan_almighty 11:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Improve. The article itself is a mess. However, the power cell in science fiction is an extremely notable creation. It is very notable in the right context; so I say keep absolutely! Meldshal 42 20:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There has yet to be a citation of a single source to show that the article can be improved, or that any of the current content isn't original research. If this concept is as notable as you claim it to be, you should have no trouble citing sources to demonstrate that it has been documented in multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources. However, the distinct lack of cited sources, despite repeated requests, indicates that it actually isn't notable at all. It indicates that this article is a wholly novel description of something that is heretofore undocumented, being made up by Wikipedia editors firsthand, because no-one outside of Wikipedia has considered this subject notable enough to actually note it. It further indicates that the real argument for keeping here is not one based in policy — that this is a notable subject for a verifiable encyclopaedia that is free from original research to include — but a subjective standard that Wikipedia should not be employing — you think that this is an important subject that someone should document somewhere, and you want to mis-use Wikipedia for that purpose. Unless you can show that someone actually has already documented it, it doesn't belong in a tertiary source such as Wikipedia. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G 11:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:N, WP:OR. That's about it. Terence 12:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 19:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Information: Since this AfD was started, the page has been much edited: please see this version-compare and reconsider. Anthony Appleyard 05:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many additional verifiable source citations have been added since this article was AfD nom'd? The answer is none, none more sources. Sorry, but my recommendation is unchanged. Groupthink 08:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. no sources cited to support the article. -- Whpq 19:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete unsourced and original research. A "Power cell" appears to be more of concept than anything else, an improved article would be filled with original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kessingler (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 speedy KEEP WP:SNOW we've debated this too often, too recently. -Doc 14:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Beesley[edit]

Angela Beesley was nominated for deletion on 2005-04-01. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley.

Angela Beesley was nominated for deletion on 2005-10-19. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (2nd nomination).

Angela Beesley was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-12. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (3rd nomination).

Speedy Delete, Recreate and redirect to Wikia - While she may or may not be notable i cannot find any indiction she is really notable. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed since the prior discussion. For the reasons given twice before, which still stand, keep. Uncle G 13:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination number four. Delete, I say. If Angela was a former boardmember of any other website in the top twenty of Alexa, this article would have been deleted a long time ago. It may also be interesting to note that two out of three previous nominations were made by Angela Beesley herself.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 13:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — nn M a rtinp23 13:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Fourth nomination, short time after the last one closed, and with no new arguments presented for deletion on this nom. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has any article ever been deleted after being kept thrice? WilyD 14:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Langham Place Hong Kong[edit]

Contested speedy for a couple hotels. Procedural listing. I am also nominating the following related contested speedy page:

Keep No reason to delete just remove excessive commercial schpiel. And the London Hotel certainly shouldn't be deleted. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually it seems to be a duplicate of an older article Langham Place- I think the two should be merged to this title to be more specific. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Actually they appear to be by identical- it looks like someone just wanted the article moved to this title but didn't know how to do it. So, speedy delete this then move Langham Place to this title. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Or maybe the title should be Langham Place, Hong Kong? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Langham Place Office Tower is Kowloon's tallest building (and HK's seventh tallest) at the present moment and one of Hong Kong's most prominent developments. Langham Place is a huge development in the Yau Tsim Mong district, and is a notable complex. Whatever is unencyclopedic and of advertising nature, it can be removed. Langham Hotel, London just needs a rewrite, its a notable hotel in London. The Times and The New York Times does have reviews of the British hotel. [19] [20] Terence 12:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Terence Ong. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This was just created by mistake as a duplicate of Langham Place. I believe the Langham Place article should be moved to

Langham Place, Hong Kong and this redirected to that. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:58, 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 Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of environment-theme lists of topics[edit]

This is the root page to a series of "List of environment-theme lists of topics". According to WP:NOT#LINK WP is not a "mere collections of internal links". Also the pages are redundant since there is a categorisation system and a search function. The pages do not add any extra functionality to WP since they cover vast numbers of topics over a broad range making it difficult to arrive at a particular article of interest. Alan Liefting 10:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all have the same problems:

Alan Liefting 10:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. The function of this list is better achieved using a category. --soum ^talk 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and above. Categories good, lists bad. Groupthink 11:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You went to a lot of trouble to make an index... but it's way too broad, with everything from a list of 17th century hurricanes to zoos in India. There are already lists of zoos, lists of hurricanes, etc.; Technically, everything in our environment has an "environment-theme" (a terrible title, by the way), but this needs to be pared way down. As an index, because it's too inclusive, it's not very useful. I think you'll find that most of these topics are on other lists already; a "list of environment-themed lists" would have been easier and more useful, although your definition of environment themes is still way too broad. My suggestion to the author-- SAVE IT on your computer it before it vanishes (and it will), don't get discouraged by the delete, consider something different. Mandsford 12:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, such lists are better off as categories and will be easier to maintain. Its very difficult to list all the articles of the same topic in lists by alphabetical order. I would not say this is listcruft but rather redundant these days. Terence 13:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I find the list containing zoos a bit weird. As defined by the wikiproject environment, it analyzes "the effects of humans on the natural environment". OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 15:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is precisely the thing categories are suppoed to do. Arkyan  ^(talk)
Keep the parent list until the appropriate contents have been categorized, then delete. There doesn't seem to be a category for Lists of environment-related lists. Since this will take some effort to accomplish, perhaps the Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment should take this on. Delete the subsidairy lists, since they seem to be redundant.--Hjal 16:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number of articles that do pertain to Category:Environment are quite likely to have already been categorised. The articles that are not yet included in the Environment category would be quite small. Therefore the task would be best done by other means such as using the search function. Alan Liefting 20:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete all per above. If anybody needs to search, Wikipedia has it, plus there are many categories to help.--Svetovid 23:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Articles should not be as lists of lists and categories have this purpose anyway + anybody can search them. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 23:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The list of environment-theme lists of topics was categorized [21] into Category:Wikipedia core topics on 8 September 2006 by Pegship. -- Wavelength 14:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all pages into List of environment-theme lists of topics, per example of other Lists of topics such as List of ecology topics, List of environmental issues, and List of conservation topics. If that is insufficient then also move the resulting page into projectspace (under Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment). --Quiddity 19:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main page and merge the rest into a more manageable number of pages, if too large for one. Few of these subpages are so large as to warrant separate pages for each letter of the alphabet, and each page unnecessarily duplicates a large opening section. Other than that it serves as a "structured list to assist with the organisation of articles", which WP:NOT#LINK explicitly allows. See also WP:LIST. DHowell 05:04, 23 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 by User:Jimfbleak. Peacent 03:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sub school charging[edit]

Reads as WP:NFT and WP:HOAX material, or at best a non-notable and unverifiable minor incident at a school. Prod was contested by adding a list of references, all of which are either completely unrelated or lead only to general information about schools. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is an unattributed tall tale that quacks like a hoax. Groupthink 11:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoaxalicious thing made up in school one day. (Lern 2 spel). Edison 14:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 16:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense, maybe if they spent more time studying they could spell better. Corvus cornix 20:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does this thing have any realistic chance of survival? Would an admin be kind enough to kill as snowballed? Groupthink 09:22, 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 Deleted by Coredesat at 03:04, June 18, 2007 as album by non-notable artist and possible hoax. Non-admin close by Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Back...On Da Track[edit]

See also "It Was Already Done 2wice" and "Divided I Am". non-existent album by WP:HOAX artist. Nothing on Google. tomasz. 10:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and also Image:JC23.jpg. The author has no neutral contributions, and his music is clearly not notable even if it exists. Yechiel Man 13:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per YechieMan Rackabello 14:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom.--Edtropolis 16:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more hoaxes. Corvus cornix 18:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. EnabledDanger 03:04, 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 no consensus - keep. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of environment topics[edit]

This is the root page to a series of "environmental lists". According to WP:NOT#LINK WP is not a "mere collections of internal links". Also the pages are redundant since there is a categorisation system and a search function. The pages do not add any extra functionality to WP since they cover vast numbers of topics over a broad range making it difficult to arrive at a particular article of interest. Alan Liefting 09:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all have the same problems:

Alan Liefting 09:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding added functionality, maybe some people are still using these lists as topic specific watchlists (like this). --Van helsing 09:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely releated changes for Category:Environment at [22] does fairly much the same thing? Alan Liefting 04:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... it does... sort of slightly didn’t know that... useful.--Van helsing 10:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom; categories are better than unwieldy lists. Groupthink 10:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, much better served by categories. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all or merge back to List of environment topics. This is not "a mere collection of internal links." The lists have substantial annotation, allowing users to find or avoid articles in a way that category pages do not. The lists also include articles that have an environmental connection in only one section, which might make them unsuitable for environmental categories.--Hjal 16:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these articles were merged into List of environment topics the resulting article would be so large as to be unwieldy. A combination of the search function, the categorisation system and internal links from environmental articles is a more efficient method of using WP rather than using these lists. Alan Liefting 20:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per above + my comment at the related AfD nomination.--Svetovid 23:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above and same reasons as on this related AfD. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 23:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To anyone who supposes that I have been demonstrating cognitive slippage in expanding the list of environment topics, I wish to point out that my sense of inclusiveness was guided, in part, by the main entries in the book Dictionary of the Environment (ISBN 0-8442-0931-7), although Wikipedia may have different standards for including topics.

In the view of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, global warming might seem not to belong in the list. Likewise, people differ in their knowledge and beliefs about other topics on the list.

To anyone who has an "all-or-none" view of Wikipedia lists in general, I wish to point out that Wikipedia does have many useful lists and a guideline for them.

To anyone who has an "all-or-nothing" view of the list of environment topics, I wish to point out that the list was started by 142.177.108.62 on 28 August 2003 with 4 topics; that the list had 49 topics listed before I made my first registered contribution to it on 4 June 2005; and that deletion of the article would delete the work of others prior to me. Incidentally, I found most of the added topics by searching from Z to A and from 1000 to 2099 in Wikipedia:Quick index from mid-2005 to mid-2006, and during that time the number of articles in Wikipedia doubled from about 500,000 to about 1,000,000.

The following external non-mirror pages link to the list_of_environment_topics:

http://www.ourquads.com/coal.htm

http://www.khake.com/page46

http://www.huge-entity.com/2005/07/is-g8-too-late.html

http://www.juliantrubin.com/encyclopedia/environment/bioremediation.html

http://www.juliantrubin.com/encyclopedia/biotechnology/biotechnology.html

http://www.utenvironment.org/sustainabilitycourse/

http://educate-yourself.org/lte/wilipediachemtraildisinfo18feb07.shtml

http://cosco.hiit.fi/search/wikipedia400-1205/show_topic_id_54.html

http://cosco.hiit.fi/search/wikipedia400-1205/show_topic_id_385.html

http://cosco.hiit.fi/search/wikipedia400-1205/show_topic_id_136.html

http://cosco.hiit.fi/search/wikipedia400-1205/show_topic_id_304.html

http://cosco.hiit.fi/search/wikipedia400-1205/show_topic_id_132.html

http://www.planetfriendly.net/active.html

http://www.directopedia.org/directory/Science-Environment/Biodiversity.shtml

http://protectionsquare.info/Topics.aspx

http://tpu.bluemountains.net/keyword.php?w=contaminants

Therefore, I propose, as an alternative to deletion, a drastic reduction of the list, a return to a one-page format, and possibly a revision or replacement of the introduction. Afterward, measures can be put in place to prevent or control any expansion of the list.

If the list is going to be deleted, I wish to thank Wikipedia for allowing me to contribute in some measure to public awareness about environment topics. Also, I apologize for any negative effect my contributions have had. -- Wavelength 13:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no accusations of cognitive slippage being made. I put the articles up for deletion for the reasons mentioned in the original nomination. There will alway be a line drawn as to whether an article should be included in a list or category and that varies depending on the editor. Some of the articles in the list have only a small part that is relevant to Category:Environment. It should also be noted that the word environment in the context of the category is the effect of human activity on the biosphere. The lists up for deletion contain entries which are simply natural science related articles, e.g. 1887 Atlantic hurricane season in the List of environment topics:0-9. It is irrelevant that external websites link to specific WP articles. It is up to the individual webmasters to keep their pages updated with changes made to WP articles just like it is up to WP editors to check for dead links from WP articles. Alan Liefting 03:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction which I wrote for each page of the multi-page list of environment topics refers to a "definite or significantly possible connection" between human activity and the natural environment. The article 1887 Atlantic hurricane season is relevant for investigating the history of connections between industrialization and climate change. Links from external websites are an indication of interest on the part of their webmasters, and therefore a suggestion of interest on the part of Wikipedia readers. -- Wavelength 21:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well-maintained list. the category system is not the only valid way to organize, and lists such as this supplement it nicely. It is useful to have a convenient way of seeing missing or deleted articles, especially since so many articles do get accidentally or unfairly deleted. Excellent for browsing, and shows the range of our coverage. DGG 08:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For another example of multiple ways to organize information, please see list of countries by population and list of countries by population (graphical). -- Wavelength 21:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom.--Tone 16:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This list is well-maintained and has been around for four years, watched, organized and maintained. If changed to categories someone will simply nominate them for deletion, and suggest they be changed to a list. Did you ask the list maintainers if they serve any functionality, or just assume they didn't without discusion? KP Botany 18:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity is not necessarily a reason to keep an article. Whether they are organised is debatable. The are organised as any topic remotely connected to the Earth. With the word environment in the article title I feel that the articles sould be related to List of environmental issues. The list maintainers were notified via the AfD box at the top of all the articles up for deletion. Also, if they were bing watched the change would have been noticed. There was a discussion about functionality some time ago. It seems that the extra functionality given to WP is fairly minimal. Alan Liefting 23:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per KP. There is something odd going on where categories are deleted cause lists exist and lists are deleted cause categoriess exist. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I agree that WP policy needs to be clarified regarding whether lists or cats are preferred, as far as this AfD goes, that's neither here nor there. Groupthink 08:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question If a list does indeed duplicate a category, or should be replaced by a category, why not redirect the list to the category (and thus keep the edit history of the list which could be used to maintain the category) instead of deleting the list and all its history? DHowell 05:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. List is well annotated, and categories are not. No harm in having both. —Pengo 10:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The annotation is sometimes simply an abbreviation for an article name (in which case a redirect should exist for it), sometimes it is a rewording of the article name. The WP search function should be able to catch most queries. Wading through a large number of lists is tedious - searchin is fast. Searching through databases is what computers are for. Alan Liefting 22:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other Lists of topics, or Move to project space so that people who found it useful can still use it. --Quiddity 20:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main page and maybe merge at least some of the rest into a more manageable number of pages. Some letters (e.g. X, Y, Z) only have a few entries, and each page unnecessarily duplicates a large opening section. Other than that it serves as a "structured list to assist with the organisation of articles", which WP:NOT#LINK explicitly allows. See also WP:LIST. DHowell 05:04, 23 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 03:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full Spectrum Warrior 3: Locked and Loaded[edit]

This video game appears to be entirely made up; no hits on Google. Also contains no actual text, just an infobox which seems to have been copy and pasted from the article Full Spectrum Warrior: Ten Hammers and adjusted slightly, along with the clean up tag. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 09:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If there are ever any sources about this game, the article creator is welcome to start over. He won't be missing much anyway. Yechiel Man 13:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails criteria of WP:NOTE and it's not an original thought.--Edtropolis 16:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. QuagmireDog 00:55, 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. Sr 13 03:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deceptive Overload[edit]

Almost certain hoax band, otherwise definitely non-notable. Precisely no Ghits. tomasz. 09:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, unsourced, and my be a hoax. —gorgan_almighty 09:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.EnabledDanger 03:06, 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 Speedy delete by The Rambling Man per CSD A7 (Bio). Non-administrator closing by Tikiwont 13:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Spiers[edit]

High school basketballer, who apparently set a school record. Still, doesn't come close to being notable —arf! 09:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete non-notable vanity bio. Groupthink 09:59, 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 03:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Western film actors[edit]

Another list with unclear criteria. WP is not a directory of loosely associated persons. And let's not have articles on their horses either. Clarityfiend 08:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Listcruft and made unnecessary by the list's corresponding category. Groupthink 09:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Um...that's it? Aren't there a lot of Western film actors? And how do you define Western? There are too many problems with this list to make it worth keeping. Yechiel Man 14:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and YechielMan. --soum ^talk 14:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory.--Edtropolis 16:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 20:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd vote for this to be converted into a category. --MacRusgail 22:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deep down inside, don't we all have a little western film actor in each and every one of us? Who among us can honestly say that they have never played harmonica soulfully by the moonlight or opened a can of baked beans with a bowie knife? Have you never annointed saddle sores with wads of chewing tobacco? Then perhaps you just don't understand the love that we share. You'll never know the joy of protecting cattle from buzzards and rattlesnakes. You'll never see the love in the eyes of these simple animals as we drive them on a long death march to their slaughter. If you must delete this article to justify your city-slicker lifestyle full of dandy creams and shiny buckle shoes, then so be it, but you will never erase the western film actor in our hearts. ~ Infrangible 02:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not fooling anyone. I've seen Brokeback Mountain, so I know what you western film actors are really up to out there in that soulful moonlight. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against western film actors, in fact some of my best friends are western film actors. Indeed (and I've never told anyone this before) one time Eli Wallach tried to get me to act in a western film with him, but I politely informed him that I only act in chick flicks... at any rate, I digress. I'm all in favor of western film actor rights. Y'all can do whatever you want out there on that dusty trail, but I DO NOT want my children stumbling across western film lists when they're looking something up for school on Wikipedia. God forbid my ten-year-old might secretly start wearing ten-gallon hats and jangly spurs. Groupthink 03:09, 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 Keep. But the references given here to support the article need to be included in it. Tyrenius 03:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Menachem Creditor[edit]

Not notable or, specifically, is not noted in multiple sources. The rabbi is noted in several online ~~Jewish-related~~ journals, but none in ~~mainstream sources~~ large publishing houses or newspapers. Iamunknown 07:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also must note that I originally prodded it, but it was contested. --07:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is a Judaism-related journal not "mainstream"? You're implying that Judaism isn't a mainstream religion, although I'm sure that you meant no such implication. At any rate, Rabbi Creditor appears to be a prolific figure within the Conservative Jewish community, which qualifies him for inclusion under WP:BIO. Keep ~~but rewrite to assert importance (my mistake, article does assert importance, it just doesn't provide supporting cites)~~ but rewrite to more strongly assert importance and properly attribute notability. Groupthink 07:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed I am not implying what you are you inferring. I was and am specifically referring to the publications I examined that document Rabbi Creditor. I challenge you to find citations that suggest that "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". Indeed, while there are a few mentions in two campus newspapers (The Daily Free Press and Campusj) and in The Jewish Week and The Jewish Advocate, there are none in The New York Times, The Times or other large publishing houses. Cheers, Iamunknown 08:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still unclear as to exactly what you mean. A search for Edward Witten in Google News also doesn't return any mentions in large-circulation periodicals, but does that make one of the most brilliant living theoretical physicists unnotable? Remember, meeting any of the listed standards in WP:BIO means that a person is generally notable. In the case of Creditor, "the person has demonstrable wide name recognition" suffices, so your challenge is moot (although I do think the article could use more/better citations). Groupthink 09:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, meeting any of the listed standards in WP:BIO means that a person is generally notable. - true; I guess I don't agree that Rabbi Creditor meets any of the listed standards. You argue that he meets the The person has demonstrable wide name recognition standard? That has yet to be demonstrated, so I don't consider my challenge moot. --Iamunknown 16:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, let me clarify. I meant that your challenge to find secondary source material in large-circulation materials was moot. Here's why I think that Creditor is notable:

Has been reported on here, here, and here. Granted these pubs are not widely circulated, but they do have WP entries (here, here, and here), and I would say that they should still be considered valid 2ary sources notable in the communities which they serve.
I actually did find a non-Jewish 2ary source that mentions Creditor: The Daily Free Press article here. Again, we're not talking the New York Times, but again, we are talking about a pub deemed worthy for inclusion in WP.
In this event posting, Boston University describes Creditor as "a leading Conservative Rabbi".
This article from Keshet Ga'ava (a GLBT Jewish organization) describes him as "a leading advocate of gay ordination".

That last one I would say points the way toward re-writing the article with proper emphasis on why Creditor is notable. Groupthink 23:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The rabbi appears to be notable; the problem is that the article makes him seem trivial. Fix the article. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP is not limited by the NYTimes indexing, but covers what is notable. WP is not a newspaper. DGG 08:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google search turned up 990 hits. I have personally have a cousin who davens there. --Shuliavrumi 13:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused -- why are those reasons for deletion? Groupthink 13:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the meaning intended was 1/990 ghits aren't enough, and 2/ just because one knows of somebody that doesn't make him notable for WP purposes. As I see it, ghit counts are irrelevant--it's what's in the ghits that matters. However, I certainly agree about person knowledge or ignorance of someone not being a good reason one way or another--but I dont think anyone had raised that argument. DGG 06:04, 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 delete both. Sr 13 03:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Benoit and Chris Jericho[edit]

Non notable, short lived professional wrestling tag team. Nenog 07:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Delete per nom.-- bulletproof ^3:16 20:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or de-merge I think the tag teams should only be mentioned into their respective articles. This removes some repetition--JForget 00:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, per nom. Both are non-notable un-official tag teams. This should be deleted just like "Shawn Michaels and John Cena" and "Johnny Nitro and Kenny Dykstra." Nikki311 03:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along the lines of Michaels & Cena, best covered in their individual articles MPJ-DK 08:36, 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. Peacent 03:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lantern tag[edit]

No sources given, and I can find no evidence that this is or was an actual game. JavaTenor 06:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research. Groupthink 07:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely original research. only reference to it is an unpublished story by the author himself? Yah. get rid of it. Turlo Lomon 08:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research and non-notable. This article clearly asserts it's non-notability several times!. —gorgan_almighty 10:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for probably being something made up in school one day. Someguy1221 04:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, and unsourceable. -- Whpq 19:45, 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 03:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disco Guns[edit]

Delete - looks to be original research; tagged for reliable sources since last August and none have been forthcoming. Otto4711 06:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Interesting read, but without decent attribution it needs to be chucked. Groupthink 07:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be original research. I would want to see some valid references to reconsider. Turlo Lomon 08:17, 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 under CSD G10. MaxSem 06:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Arbuckle[edit]

non-notable person, personal-attack, blp violation...you name it. {{db-bio}} removed by another new account...alert to meat-puppets and other process abuses. DMacks 05:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G10 or WP:CSD#A7. It was already deleted a couple days ago because it was an attack page. ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 05:51, 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.-Wafulz 21:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aventail Corporation[edit]

Article doesn't assert [[WP:|notability]]. - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, article on a company with no assertion of notability, so tagged. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 06:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ per above. Also qualifies as A1 (short/no-context) and possibly A11 (blatant adspam). Groupthink 06:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zounds, Eyrian, that was one damned fine edit. For the first time that I can remember, you've made me flip from one extreme end of the recommendation spectrum to the other. Speedy keep! Groupthink 08:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- While I respect Eyrian's edit, I don't see how that alone could change your stance that much. Then again, that's just my opinion (obviously, I still say delete) - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 09:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1 was primarily what made my head, and my viewpoint, spin 180°. Groupthink 09:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some additional sourced information to the article and removed the speedy tag. I feel the sources there could make a good case for notability. Spam, this is not--Eyrian 08:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, give this debate some more time. Daniel 08:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. This company could be notable, but IMO the article still does not assert that notability. —gorgan_almighty 10:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into SonicWALL. --Tikiwont 13:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into SonicWALL. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 14:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second folks, that corporate merger hasn't been completed yet! Shouldn't an article merge wait until that time? Groupthink 23:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, merging articles and companies doesn't follow the same rationales. The purchase notice affects both and the source has rather more to offer with respect to SonicWall. I've now inlcuded the reference there as well and therfore the current article doesn't tell you much more about Aventail than SonicWall. Sso unless there is a big chance for fleshing out the article, this Afd can be closed by redirecting. And if the merger does fail, one can still go back to an own article for each. Tikiwont 14:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per corporate merger. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The merger was only announced ten days ago. What if it falls apart? Groupthink 19:52, 22 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 deleted—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Arthur[edit]

This article has been created and deleted twice as db-bio. I see no notability on the page, and the page even mentions that much of the individual's day-to-day activities can't be verified. Further, the article links a dead people.com article and includes no references. Not listing for speedy deletion, as I suspect the author'll just create it again. Need additional opinions. -FeralDruid 04:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and salt to prevent recreation. Non-ref'd article on non-notable person. Groupthink 04:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CSD per Groupthink. Already tagged. - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:32, 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. Peacent 03:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Watson's revolver[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not for original research. Article has been tagged for a year for sourcing and none has been forthcoming. Otto4711 04:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's basically a collection of speculation about what gun he used. It doesn't appear to be a notable, or sourcable question. --Haemo 04:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Any verifiable information can be reintroduced in the main article once it is verified (and considered notable enough for inclusion.) Writing on the page appears to weasel it's statements by using inexact sources (e.g. others.) --206.248.133.41 04:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Were there a Sherlock Holmes wiki - say, "Wikiteria Lodge" - this might qualify under Sherlockian studies, but I can't see how it's notable enough for Wikipedia. --Charlene 04:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Groupthink 04:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks sources and is definatly original research. XAndreWx 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrew - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. It even says it is research on the talk page. Turlo Lomon 08:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like "fanspew:" loyal fans want to create articles about every microscopic fragment of cruft mentioned in his favorite fiction, cartoon, videogame, movie, TV program, novels or whatever. Lacks sourcing. Edison 14:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good grief, kill this cruft. Doczilla 09:39, 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 until further explicit details of the movie are released. Sr 13 03:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Age 3: A New Beginning[edit]

Crystal ball, only two ghits to this, neither of them reliable (they're "blacklisted" sites, can't list them here). Would suggest "salting" this and "Ice Age 3" until there is a formal announcement regarding the sequel. SkierRMH 03:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL- G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 04:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, there are several ghits for "Ice Age 3", and one of the movie principles has confirmed that production is greenlit. The working title, however, appears to be "Ice Age: A New Beginning", so I'm going to boldly move this page to the correct title. Groupthink 04:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After further review, I've decided that my initial impression was incorrect and everyone else here is right: this article is an amalgam of speculation, unverifiable rumors and prophesy. I'm changing my recommendation to Delete. Groupthink 06:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The first page of Google hits (taking out IMDB, Wikipedia and Answers.com) are all forum posts of speculation. No WP:RS, just a lot of crystal balling. -- Kesh 06:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. It's offical. 20th Century Fox announces there will be another Ice Age sequel.--Edtropolis 15:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All that's been announced is that it was approved to be filmed. There's no release date, no actors hired. There isn't even a screenplay yet. This is article couldn't be anything more than "Fox has green-lit a sequel." That wouldn't even be a stub. -- Kesh 16:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-I edited this article for spelling and grammer, and tagged it for sources, and none are coming, or likely to come. An article can be created if/when the film is released.--Rossheth | Talk to me 18:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's too early for this article. Being approved does not necessarily mean it is confirmed for production. Maybe wait a couple of months.--Kylohk 14:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, much too premature at this point in time. --Kyoko 22:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and lack of reliable sources to get the article beyond even a sub-stub—arf! 07:07, 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. Daniel 08:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cg-wlbargp[edit]

Non notable product. ~ Wiki hermit 02:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom and adspam. Groupthink 04:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by MZMcBride as patent nonsense (WP:CSD#G1). Non-admin closure. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mcbean[edit]

Non notable. Assuming its a hoax. ~ Wiki hermit 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as patent nonsense CitiCat 04:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete: fiction and nonsensical. Groupthink 04:16, 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} Speedy Close - already part of another AfD. Non-admin closure. Resolute 03:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Marshall 2007 Game Log[edit]

I believe this page to fail WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #9. It could also be viewed as potentially breaking WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory #3, although this may be stretching it a bit. I'm really not convinced this needs its own article. Suggested delete or merge with Sean Marshall, although there's already a table (just not as in depth as the one on this page) on the player in question's main page. AllynJ 02:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC) My apologies, this is currently being covered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Lilly 2007 Game Log. No AfD template on the page in question beforehand, hadn't spotted the discussion already in progress. Unsure of what the general consensus is in these situations, whether to blank this page or similar. AllynJ 03:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna be bold and close this. it is contained in the other AfD already.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kicked in_the_head[edit]

Non notable band. ~ Wiki hermit 02:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs to be rewritten, expanded and sourced, but see here for why article meets inclusion standards. Groupthink 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neither this article or the Answers.com article asserts WP:Notability or provides WP:RS. It, therefore, fails WP:BAND. --Evb-wiki 03:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this article doesn't do a good enough job of asserting notability, but I question your dismissal of the Answers.com article. Do you really believe that the All Music Guide isn't a reliable source, or that playing on the Warped Tour and opening for The Mighty Mighty Bosstones isn't notable? They meet WP:BAND criterion #4 as well. Groupthink 03:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source this and place it in the article, please. -- saberwyn 08:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Groupthink 09:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanke. Weak keep and expand per User:Groupthink and (at this point in time) evidence of scraping past WP:BAND. -- saberwyn 09:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Groupthink. 96T 14:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – barely notable, will always be a stub. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 14:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. As per Groupthink. Does meet the requirements of WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. --Edtropolis 16:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, marginally passes WP:BAND now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Random comment I saw them live (with World/Inferno Friendship Society), and had no idea they were notable. But if they are... cool. They played a good set. -- Kicking222 23:36, 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.

Nathanael McDaniel[edit]

The result was Speedy Close - already part of another AfD. Non-admin closure. Groupthink 08:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article overstates notability; basically a vanity piece not worthy of inclusion. Groupthink 02:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, this and his "company"'s page are PR vanispam masquerading as articles. --Evb-wiki 02:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination as it is redundant (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven O'Brien). Groupthink 03:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I will also take my vote and comments over there. --Evb-wiki 03:05, 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 Delete. Peacent 03:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Lilly 2007 Game Log[edit]

The pages contain information that does not deserve its own page, especially since they only cover one specific year. Information about a players statistics can easily be obtained from websites like ESPN, Yahoo! Sports, or MLB.com. Additionally, the Wikipedia Baseball project believes (through a consensus two weeks ago) that 2007 Game Logs should even not belong in their respected player’s article, let alone merit their own page.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the aforementioned reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - in baseball, it is very relevant to understand the individual games. The summary box does not highlight trends, and thus does not duplicate the information. It is already on a separate page, so does not impact the usability of the main page Terren Peterson ►Talk

Strong Delete All Fails WP:NOT#INFO (#9, Statistics). I don't see how saying how a player does in each individual game is encyclopedic. There are plenty of sites like ESPN or MLB.com that already have this info for those who would want it. TJ Spyke 02:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all. Where do you draw the line? Which pitchers get logs? Are we going to have to have multiple articles for every pitcher? As Jester points out, there are already sites that do this sort of thing. Clarityfiend 02:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all pages nominated above per above. Groupthink 02:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all, per TJ Spyke. (Nominated Sean Marshall for deletion before noticing this, sorry.) AllynJ 03:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all Team season articles, yes. Individual season articles, no. Individual highlights can easily fit within either the team season article or the individual's article or both. Resolute 03:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete all This is a bad, bad slippery slope. There are too many pitchers in MLB, present and past, for us to maintain a directory of statistics. Other websites are already doing that. Yechiel Man 14:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above.--Eva ^bd 14:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely useless - the stats in the player article are updated throughout the year. That's more then enough.--JForget 00:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Note that merge is a form of Keep, as the article history remains, behind a redirect. note also that a merge result is not binding on future editors, although it is usual to seek some form of consensus before undoing a merge that resulted from an AfD. DES ^(talk) 23:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary[edit]

This article violates WP:NPOV in the extreme; is filled with unencyclopedic religious language and appeals; makes claims that cannot be substantiated (yet alone cited); and is more of an essay than an article. I think it is unsalvagable, and more importantly, in my opinion the subject is not sufficiently noteworthy to merit an encyclopedia entry. It might be folded into the article about its parent organization. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 01:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had just written a response but it has been lost due to "edit conflict." I strongly object to removing the article.--RikEischen 02:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove POV material and Merge to Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Groupthink 02:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Evangelical Lutheran Synod. The article describes a particular religious denomination's main hymnal. The tone of the article can be improved to better follow the Wikipedia manual of style WP:MOS, such as by removing some unsourced statements such as " The beauty of the language shines through, praising God, from whom all blessings flow." This is just a function of the normal editing process, and similar statements have been removed from articles about Popes and evangelists of all descriptions. Any statements in the article which cannot be verified from the hymnal itself or from references can be deleted. An informative and valuable article all in all, but lacks sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources as described by WP:A. Edison 02:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Evangelical Lutheran Synod per Edison. —gorgan_almighty 10:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, Merge to Evangelical Lutheran Synod. --Haruo 11:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as argued above. A large part of the article is about the Synod in question and its differences and alliances with other branches of Lutheranism is better treated there. RikEischen: please reply again with your arguments for a keep - at least some of us here will want to hear them. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as per ↑. --Edtropolis 15:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RikEischen, see [23] for the library of your denomination's seminary. The librarian may be able to help locate reliable sources to help you write a great article about the denomination and its hymnal. They usually keep clipping files relating to coverage of church related topics in such libraries. A denomination which has been around as long as yours likely has been written about in numerous publications of your own and other Lutheran denominations, as well as encyclopedias of religion, books of local history, and newspapers. Whenever you write from personal knowledge, it will probably get deleted as original research. Edison 20:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a reasonable start with reasonable sourcing. we are judging the topic, not the article. The article can be improved, following the suggestions above. The nomination has me a little puzzled--because the hymns seem to refer to beliefs not all share, this is a failure of NPOV? No, its objective description DGG 08:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm asking this honestly, not rhetorically or sarcastically: Do you really believe that this topic has enough independent noteworthiness to be encyclopedic? Groupthink 08:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fair question. Yes. It's the principal liturgical reference for a denomination. There is a history behind it, and the article talks about that history. Hymnals are usually a massive compromise, and the compromise evolves over time. I wish we had more articles on similar subjects. DGG 03:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase: Why should this article be separate instead of merged with the subject's associated denomination? Again, not sarcastic or rhetorical; in fact, you might be able to convince me to change my recommendation. Groupthink 07:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Normally I'm not too big on deleting articles that are only a few days old. 1450 hits on Google suggest that there is potentially enough there to build a worthwhile article. While it does need a complete rewrite, I prefer to leave the article as is and re-examine the deletion issue a few months down the road after it's had time to develop. Trusilver 01:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the above. >Radiant< 16:39, 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 all. Sr 13 03:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven O'Brien[edit]

Vanity article authored by fourteen-year-old "president and CEO" of a concern whose article has already been deleted via AfD. Deor 01:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related ~~page because this is~~ articles for the sixteen-year-old "vice president" of the same company and for the company itself:

I guess I'll have to add this page as well—software by subject of nom, unsourced except for NewsForge posting authored by Steven O'Brien:

Speedy delete per {{db-bio}}, so tagged. Obviously non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Nathaniel isn't notable either, very much the opposite, so I tagged him too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, vanity, not notable. Groupthink 02:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, these and the "company" page are PR vanispam masquerading as articles. --Evb-wiki 02:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, add Motron Software, in case it doesn't get the speedy d. --Evb-wiki 03:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and SALT the Motron article. Non-notable company (it's basically a fiat company by a bunch of kids, who hasn't done that?), SALT to prevent frivolous recreate. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 06:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete or delete. Non-notable bio/pure vanity. I'm guessing the only point of notability would be that award, but personally I believe that falls under "trivial" (I mean who hasn't won some student/high school level award...jeez). Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 06:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Here's the AfD discussion from the last time Motron Software was created. --Onorem Dil 12:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per everything that's been said. Good luck to the kids in other endeavors, though… $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 16:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 and salt Motron Software article as a recreation, delete the others as non-notable software and software developers. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 17:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who wrote this? I don't know. -Purianite, a member of Motron Software Edit: Supposedly some user named Waacstats did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.120.190 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Keep and withdraw nom, per WP:SNOW. Move if you want. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astaire[edit]

Quite simply, there is nothing here that needs to be disambiguated in this way. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there isn't? It looks valid to me. --Haemo 01:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm reasonably certain - to the point that I think it could be G6'd, but I thought I'd go for concensus. See, I see Fred and Adele, but that I see, they're never referred to by their last name only when referenced, without context; Astaire, the stockbroking company, is redlinked, and possibly with good reason; Blondfire, while previously known as Astaire, needed to rename, so that might be questionable. that leaves Astair Airlines - one link. I'll hedge to concensus, but that's my story and I'ma gonna stick to it. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. JJL 02:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. You bring up some valid points Dennis, but there's just barely enough need for this page that it ought to be kept. Groupthink 02:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough here and we've got room. I'm visualizing a user who remembers some balding guy who can dance a little named Astaire... Clarityfiend 02:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend, but I can also imagine someone who used to like the band Blondfire before it changed its name, and wants to look it up. Having the disambig page would I think be appropriate. --Charlene 04:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while I don't think it's incredibly likely that someone will type in "Astaire" as a search term, the possiblitiy exists and disambig pages are cheap. No real reason to delete this. Otto4711 06:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move to Astaire (disambiguation) and Astaire to redirect to Fred Astaire. Magioladitis 07:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely the latter, that's an ideal solution. Groupthink 07:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Astaire (disambiguation) per Magioladitis and Groupthink. —gorgan_almighty 10:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no reason to delete.IP198 14:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I don't see a problem with it. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 14:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per above. your ordinary run-of-the-mill disambiguation page. ~ Infrangible 02:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, consensus says keep. I'm gonna hedge to that per WP:SNOW and withdraw my nom. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:50, 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. Daniel 08:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos A. Cook[edit]

Delete as not meeting criteria of WP:BIO. Self-published author. Google search for "Carlos A. Cook" shows about 310 results (54 unique), but none that establish notability. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL 02:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Groupthink 02:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Useight 02:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability, A7, so tagged. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 07:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:13, 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, and delete the redir. Sr 13 03:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny Puppy 2005 European Tour[edit]

Self evident! This is fan stuff and not necessary really anywhere other than a fan page on the WWW Postcard Cathy 01:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also lacks WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 01:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. Groupthink 02:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Magioladitis 07:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7, no assertion of notability. NO links, no explaination, nothing. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fan cruft.--Edtropolis 15:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. $\sim$ $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The event is notable, the article just had no context or background information. I believe that this tour is considered a part of the band's The Greater Wrong of the Right Tour, so I have merged the relevant info into that article. heqs ·:. 17:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I propose keeping this as a redirect to The Greater Wrong of the Right Tour. The original name, 2005 European Tour (now a redirect), should probably be speedy deleted. heqs ·:. 17:35, 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. DES ^(talk) 23:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subversion License[edit]

There is no Subversion License. It just uses the original Apache License, so the article is useless. Superm401 - Talk 01:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but not per nom: delete because the EULA for a specific product or project is not in-and-of-itself notable. Since this particular license is neither novel nor a model for other licenses, an article on it is not worthy of inclusion. Groupthink 02:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a EULA (EULAs are contracts; this is a license) and it's not a license for specific project; it's just the Apache license, which is notable. Superm401 - Talk 02:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK fine, it's a redistribution license, not a EULA. However: An End User License Agreement isn't a license?!? A license isn't a form of contract?!? Come on, Superm401, get real. As for your second point: I'm not sure if you're saying that the Apache license is notable, or it's notable that the Subversion license is merely the Apache license. If the former, well, nobody's arguing that it's not. If the latter, then I disagree -- plenty of products use the GNU General Public License verbatim. Groupthink 05:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. JJL 02:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apache license. Redirects are cheap; the linked to page uses the term "subversion license." --Karnesky 14:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, wouldn't that set a dangerous precedent? Wouldn't that raise the specter of a quadrillion redirects to Apache license popping up? How cheap is cheap? Groupthink 14:19, 21 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 17:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Colenso[edit]

prod contested; this article is about an extremely non notable actor IMHO that is not sources and also orphaned for a long term. If this guy had even a shred of notability, more than one role would be listed and he would be linked to the movie/tv show/etc that he acted in. Postcard Cathy 01:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This actor starred in the Thunderbirds film (it says that in the second sentence), isn't that notable enough? He gets over 17,000 Google hits; the article has no sources, so add some sources. I don't see any reason for nomination here. Masaruemoto 01:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of Thunderbirds, he is listed far down in the list of actors on the IMDB cast, it was the only role listed, and most of the article focused on his non acting life. Sorry, the way the article reads and the fact I never heard of Thunderbirds to me meant non notable. But I will go along with what everyone else things. Since it is more notable than I realized, I now am neutral on the subject. Cathy

Keep but rewrite. Has had significant roles in notable works, as well as a sizable fan following. Groupthink 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The IMDb shows 6 rolls in the last 4 years, [24] including Prince Andrew in a 2005 made-for-TV movie. --Evb-wiki 02:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and expand, all's he needs is sources. His IMDb page is rather telling of his notability! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I contested the prod, and this is why. Keep per above. Daniel 03:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The article needs some work, but the subject is notable. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 07:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, if not famous actor.
Keep/Expand In it's current state, the article is horrible. This just needs to be improved/expanded with more sources added. He is notable and article is deemed worthy for inclusion into wiki. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Rubbish article for a notable actor - the second line states he had a major part in a major movie. -Halo 15:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of black rock musicians[edit]

Way I look at it, violates WP:NOT (Indiscriminate collection of info): It's the same as listing portuguese books (an AfD which resulted in a delete): the list will never be complete and will only get more unwieldy to edit. David Fuchs 00:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is listcruft, and is redundant given that WP already has an "African American rock musicians" category which IMHO is a better means of indexing the subject in question. Groupthink 00:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I created that category only yesterday. But I agree that the list article is terrible. — Loadmaster 17:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not all black rock musicians are African American rock musicians, so the existance of Category:African American rock musicians doesn't make this list redundant. I wouldn't support keeping it though. Masaruemoto 01:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely correct, and I apologize for the lapse, but like you said, doesn't invalidate my point. Groupthink 01:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below, about renaming the category to be more inclusive. — Loadmaster 17:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 01:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's listcruft. Useight 02:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Listcruft, a lot of the musicians have red links or aren't really notable.--$UIT 08:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom-—arf! 09:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are a lot of reasons why this shouldn't be here. 1st of all, it's an un-managable list. 2nd, what constitutes inclusion of this list? Obviously if you are African-American, but what else, besides that? There are many people missing from this list that should be. It just doesn't make sense to have this list. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmaintainable list.--Blueboy 96 15:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and all.--JayJasper 16:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created the Category:African American rock musicians just yesterday, then found the List article. I tried cleaning it up, but it's still a mess, and appears to be a spam magnet. So I vote that we delete the List article and replace it with the Category. Note also that I'm considering renaming the category to Category:Black rock musicians, which would include all non-American black rock performers as well (see the talk page). — Loadmaster 17:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category has been renamed, so more fuel for the fire to delete this list article. — Loadmaster 17:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since the individual musicians have nothing in common other than their skin colour, this list is an indiscriminate collection of information. As rightly stated this should be a category instead. A1octopus 18:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOT#INFO. Not useful list. Carlosguitar 20:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for much of the reasons articulated above. Carlossuarez46 21:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong keep~~, This is a crucial list in black, African American, and rock history. What list are officially complete? That's the main point of lists expanding them. They share way more than a skin color and race and history, they share the love for rock music and being a minority in the punk-rock and rock music scene, like James Spooner, Afropunk shows. It is important to keep because as I state it signifies important rock bands in the black minority, like black Academy award winners, black inventors and so on important musicians in black rock music history. A lot may not understand the important list like this stand because for black minorities in the rock music scene this list is crucial. And I am really curious just a couple of the many who are missing from the list? And I think the list can be very well maintained.--Migospia †♥ 03:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Migospia, it doesn't matter that it can be well maintained. I could post an article about myself and maintain it REALLY well, but it would violate a policy, just as this article violates a different policy. This article violates WP:NOT - specifically, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. An article may be helpful, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the encyclopedia. I remember a while back a few editors were extremely upset that an afd was successful in deleting an article of suicide hotlines - which may have been really helpful, and which may have been easy to maintain - but most, including myself, although since I did not have an account then I did not vote, voted to delete because it violated the same policy that this article violates.--daniel folsom 03:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind - I did vote for it - the second nomination (which I actually nominated) was unaminous - the first one though ...)--daniel folsom 04:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine since there is a cat--Migospia †♥ 04:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MUST KEEP THIS LIST I can't believe people are talking about deleting this page. This is such an important page. I'm a music journalist, I was working on an article and this is the ONLY place i could find this information. The music industry has rendered black rock musicians invisible. Who cares if it's never going to be complete, there are many many lists on here that are not complete. But this list must be maintained for history's sake. To prove that black rock musicians exist. Don't understand what policy this list could possibly violate. I see information or categories listed on here all the time according to race. They have lists of people who are on particular labels, they have lists of musicians from particular countries, etc. What is so "terrible" about this list? Someone said: the individual musicians have nothing in common other than their skin colour--that's right!! and because of their skin colour they are being discriminated against in the music industry. I think there should be a category and a list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.108.150 (talk • contribs)
Would it be so terrible to have to go to Category:Black rock musicians instead of this page? The cat page has all of the information this last has, but it's superior because it's automagicaly updated as people are added to the category. What does utility does this list offer WP that the cat page doesn't? Groupthink 08:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am concerned about that because of the musician does not have their own and not all the members of a band is black, a list is so much better, I mean list like this exsist all the time and even less clearer list, no real reason for delete it can be maintaied and does not seem to violate anything--Migospia †♥ 08:45, 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. Daniel 07:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eating Addictions Anonymous[edit]

I don't believe there are enough reliable sources to justify this organization as notable.[25] — Craigtalbert 00:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Craigtalbert 00:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frag- agree that there don't seem to be any reliable sources- only stuff I'm seeing on the web is a directory for such groups and the wikipedia article itself. David Fuchs 00:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Has not risen to a sufficient level of notability yet. Groupthink 00:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all above and too vague.UberCryxic 01:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Nothing really on this organization yet on the web. Maybe it could come back eventually, but not now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HAL2008 (talk • contribs)
Delete Spammy, non notable article. - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 04:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability, A7, so tagged. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 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 Keep. — Caknuck 17:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday stamp[edit]

It's not clear to me what this article contributes beyond that already at Stamp collecting and Christmas stamp. Wikipedia is not a stamp collection. Vectro 02:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It seems that the nominator does not know a lot about philatelic topics, so let me explain why I cannot agree with this AfD. Christmas stamps do not include the other Holidays mentioned here that do not have a December 25 connection. Besides Christmas there are other holidays; Chinese New Year, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Saint Valentine's Day to name a few for which stamps are issued, regularly by some countries, that do not take place anytime close to December 25 annually and are celebrated by postal authorities issuing stamps. Stamp collecting is a general article about collecting postage stamps and not an article about specific types of stamps such as Holiday stamps. That answers both of your concerns completely, so perhaps you will consider withdrawing your nomination. ww2censor 03:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic deserves its own article. I disagree with the nom, this article does make a valid non-redundant contribution. Groupthink 04:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/ I learned something (quite a bit, actually) from reading this article. To be sure, it is a thematic collecting topic, and like other thematics it does not offer much in the line of philately. Instead, it tells us something about the stamp issuing authorities themselves. It is an interesting way to compare and contrast them. Much more can be done by including the stamps of other countries. It will be interesting to see whether the other holidays being celebrated/commemorated are as religious in nature. Fconaway 15:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ww2censor. --- RockMFR 17:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've had in mind to expand this article considerably, but have been sidetracked by image work. For instance, Japan has issued special New Year's stamps since 1935, probably the longest-running of all holiday stamp types, and this article is the place to present an overview of that tradition. Stan 20:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending the addition of coverage in other sources. I'm pretty sure that the Loveland post office has gotten some news coverage around Valentines every year. I'm sure there are others. But it certainly does need some work. FrozenPurpleCube 01:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added some Loveland Valentine Re-Mailing Program details. ww2censor 21:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are still many stamp collectors in the world to make this article fit for Wikipedia. Holiday special edition stamps are one of the most sought after ones, and widely discussed. This makes it a notable subject indeed.--Kylohk 16:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic deserves its own topic. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:41, 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 DES ^(talk) 21:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cornell Centrist[edit]

one year, 2 month old campus student newspaper. entirely non-notable. delete Cornell Rockey 19:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete - only if the Cornell Review and Turn Left go too. Otherwise keep. (All three have sections at Cornell University.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cornell University. I see no reason to remove useful information about a newspaper. The articles on other papers can be nominated separately and judged on their own merits. Edison 23:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. Many people on the Cornell Campus and at other universities are searching for this information as we collaborate on work and learn about other publications. I also see no reason to remove useful information about a newspaper. Don't be so hasty to delete this article. Also, this newspaper was founded in the fall of 2005, so it is nearly two years old. Additionally, the paper has contacts and seeks to develop contacts with numerous, notable politicians. (Jchawla 15:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Note, crystal-ballery about the future of this publication is not a reason to keep per WP:CBALL Cornell Rockey 15:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. Then let's be consistent and get rid of every single student publication at every single university. Why is this even such a big deal? It's not like the page and its links are clutter -- it's useful for people to have this reference. It seems like you have a personal vendetta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.57.6 (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 Speedy close as keep and redirect Pascal.Tesson 03:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biugoraj[edit]

Procedural nomination. Someone tagged it as a speedy candidate with explanation: "hoax". I know nothing about Polish villages but obviously some people will know whether or not this is a legit article. Pascal.Tesson 20:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Biłgoraj for which Biugoraj is probably meant (at least it seems to be the Czech version of the town's name or an approximation of its pronunciation - per the Czech WP). I'd do the redirect boldly myself, but while the AFD is going on it would seem out of process. Carlossuarez46 21:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's wait for a couple of people to chime in and then I'll close the whole thing myself. Pascal.Tesson 21:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect If you enter Biugoraj, Google Earth takes you to Bilgoraj, and it is in the same place indicated by the map in the Biłgoraj article. ~ Infrangible 03:01, 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.