Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 16 June 18 >

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

The result is Speedy delete G4 Repost, self closed. Leuko 23:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Element TD[edit]

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

Fancruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, such as articles on game map mods. Leuko 23:23, 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. Bad faith nom by sock of [email protected] IrishGuy talk 22:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Savage[edit]

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

Non-Notable paramilitary; no accomplishments in his own right. Accuracy in Reporting 22:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep You did note the rather large reference section and the subsection entitled "Legacy of Martin Savage" right? IrishGuy talk 22:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - speedy keep without prejudice to renomination - the only thing is that this is a sock puppet of this banned editor.--[[
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Palau#Transportation. Closing this early since agreement, including from the nominator, appears to have been reached, since there are no objections to the content itself. (Non-admin close) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transport in Palau[edit]

Transport in Palau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article contains only some dry statistical data from the CIA World Factbook. There is not much to write about transportation in Palau, probably not enough to warrant a whole article. I have compiled all this in 3 succint sentences on Palau#Transportation. What do you think? Targeman 00:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reference Palau#Transportation fully (with the factbook I guess) and then delete Transport in Palau - insufficient content to warrant a sub-article. Thanks/wangi 00:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to appropriate section in Palau. Seems like a reasonable search term so outright deletion is not really necessary. --Polaron | Talk 01:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is actually a better idea than the one I proposed. My vote goes to redirect. --Targeman 02:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - nice save on the material, but this article is no longer needed. --Haemo 03:37, 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 10:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferenc Puskás Statistics[edit]

Ferenc Puskás Statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - contested prod. Wikipedia articles are not long sprawling lists of confusing statistics. Otto4711 23:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pumping House[edit]

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

I'm not convinced this genre exists, and as another editor has shared my concern on the article's talk page, I'm nominating it for deletion. A lot of the tracks referenced at the bottom are electro house, flat beat, for instance, is already mentioned in the electro house article. The creator has also added a paragraph on the pumpin' house article which suggests that "pumpin' house" and "pumping house" are separate genres, which is hardly believable. I've looked for some references for this and found none which explain what this genre is exactly. - Zeibura(talk) 23:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey. I read that subsection, started out by deleting the "electroclash is a music style intended for gay people" sentence (which is completely false and unverifiable), then realised there'd hardly be any of the subsection left. That whole section (Music styles considered "Euro-Trance") is just a weasel nest, and unreliable without references. So still not convinced the genre exists. - Zeibura(talk) 05:21, 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.

Without any offence, Zeibura is a 19 year old British that suggests to delete an info about a music style that never became popular in UK (most of the hits I linked to the page never released in the UK market...). Those hits produced around 2001-2004 when he was 13 to 16 years old... I don't know his knowledge about the european non UK based dance music, neither I agree with him regarding what is "electro", etc. But this is another mater. He does his job.

Personally, I suggest to find someone there in wikipedia with knowledge about the european dance music to judge those things. And - if possible - old enough to know all those music styles first hand. Beyond that:

It is more than certain that the european dance music styles, and especialy those not so popular on UK/USA, may have different names (terms) in other places of the world. Terms comes and go in dance music and I suppose the point here is to write down all those terms, so when someone tries to find out what is what, to get the info. If something is branded "X" in one market and "Y" on another, there must be a reference that "Y" is called "X" somewhere else. From my knowledge, in European Dance music, every little while, a dance music style pop up somewhere in Europe and if it became popular enough it may end up to Germany and later to the UK market (and from there to other markets)... Each time those hits presented in a new market, a local term appears. The British and the Americans, which they have organised music industries, tend to accept only the terms that appear in their on market. For example, the term "eurodance". In the discussion page, that shows a lot...

Regarding Pumpin House and Pumping House, the sound is obviously different. Pumpin House is French house with heavy horns and funky elements, why Pumping House is a later french house variation, full electronic and with a very specific baseline. There was around 40 hits presented in the top of the page, with a very specific sound, enough to "proove" if not the term, at least the existance of this music style. But I bet, this is not the point here. You need "proofs" beyond artists and hits. But there is a slighty problem: With dance music in Europe, there are always not acceptable references to proove the existance of a music style. The Germans, the Italians and the Spanish producers, don't care for those things, only the new Poland artists care a little to show themeselfs. On the other hand, DJ Sets and local scenes are underground and things like bootleg mixed CDs and flyers are not evidence. I can't proove something if I upload a flyer for example... And I believe this is a problem with dance music everywhere those days.

Just check all the articles about dance music: Start to count: Eurodisco, Eurodance, Eurotrance, Italodisco, Hi NRG, Eurobeat, Europop, New Beat, Vocal Trance, Progressive Trance/house, Uplifting Trance/house, an so on... All those music styles are european dance music styles, they do exist and all labbelled by the wikipedia moderators as "This article does not cite any references or sources" Yeah, but then, why people write about them? IMO, you will never see references or sources for those music styles. There is no a music industry like the UK/USA model for those music styles. The references are usually things told on MTV by VJs (when MTV use to be MTV Europe) or some DJs, some dance events or, some CD compilations with imports from other markets.

Anyway, you decided to delete the article, I won't take any action to change that. But please try to find someone that knows about european dance music to judge those things. It will help a lot. (Labrokratis 23:40, 25 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 withdrawn by nominator. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shakespeare's works[edit]

List of Shakespeare's works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced list of information already outlined on the William Shakespeare page, as well as the {{shakespeare}} template, which is posted on several Shakespeare pages. All in all, unsourced, redundant, no real room for or reason for expansion. Speedy Delete Wrad 23:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn and Speedy Keep per recent changes and discussion. Wrad 02:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Obviously redundant. VanTucky 23:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge per aboveJForget 23:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Isn't there already a list of Shakespeare's works on here? Mandsford 00:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree. It's redundant. --Tea and crumpets 00:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree. It simply repeats already listed information. Smatprt 01:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 02:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to William_Shakespeare#Bibliography. Redirects are cheap, and this is a conceivable search term. (Indeed, I think I've used "List of Shakespeare's works" as a search term in the past, before the article was created.) Zagalejo 02:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Keep, per below. Zagalejo 21:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds reasonable. Wrad 02:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Zagalejo. Doczilla 06:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as a reasonable search term (although using "shakespeare's works site:en.wikipedia.org" gets Shakespeare's plays as the first result). I'm surprised the bibliography is included on the main article, although it isn't really that long even with the apocryphal works. We already have several articles covering this including a chronology. --Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per above. Lugnuts 07:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current MOS permits such lists. Although this could conceivably fit into the article, it is also useful to have one straightforward list by genre. Addditional bibiliographic information can of course be added.DGG 05:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • RedirectKeep per Zagalejo. Likely search term. List at William_Shakespeare#Bibliography is better -- more complete and has links. Given all the new information, my opinion is to let the author finish the article. Capmango 05:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep or Redirect (FYI: It is generally considered good wikiquette to leave a note on the talkpage of the principal contributor, after making an AfD. I have done so for you.) Unless User:Editor at Large declares an intent to work on the article soon, redirecting this list to the more complete list per Zagalejo makes sense. Done so below. Changed recommendation to speedy keep. --Quiddity 07:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since Shakespeare's article is one of the top fifty viewed sites at wikipedia, I do feel that his articles and subpages deserve careful consideration. It is unfortunate that this page is not yet a full bibliography, listing the various quartos, folios, and other important editions for each work, but that is beside the point. The question is whether the concept of the page is legitimate. Obviously it is; there are many such lists of works on wikipedia and the MOS even encourages them. We should not limit the editors working on Shakespeare to a simple listing of the plays. This kind of page, which is obviously a work in progress, can include much more information than the current William Shakespeare page and can be sourced to any number of Shakespeare bibliographies such as McManaway and Roberts' A Selective Bibliography of Shakespeare: Editions, Textual Studies, Commentary.
  • Shakespeare's plays is not a detailed listing of the plays and their publication history. It is an article about the plays themselves. Trying to integrate a detailed list of important editions would be disastrous.
  • Shakespeare's sonnets is also an article about the sonnets themselves, not a detailed list of all 100+ sonnets. Including such a list would strain the page.
  • Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian is a proposed chronology for the authorship of the plays, if they were written by Oxford, not a listing of publication dates and information about those publications.
  • Chronology of Shakespeare plays tries to sort out the mess of dating Shakespeare's plays. It is not a page about publication information.

None of these other pages has the same purpose as this one. I have not seen a convincing argument from those who want to delete that relies on wikipedia's deletion policy. Simply because the page is incomplete at this time does not mean it merits a deletion. The page's concept is legitimate and much more information can be added to flesh it out and make it useful. If the editors here who are in favor of deletion want to delete all incomplete pages, they should begin by eliminating all "start" and "stub" articles and demanding that any new article that is posted be relatively complete. I was under the impression that wikipedia was supposed to improve slowly over time and ideally multiple editors would contribute to each page in order to make it better. Deleting legitimate but incomplete pages does not encourage such practices. Awadewit | talk 07:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from creator - whoa... I only got the notification this was up for AfD just now. This is a work in progress (which I unfortunately have had little time to get to recently) and I have a much better version in the works in a text document which I am not quite finished. My plan was to have the list (once much further expanded) replace or expand upon the section William Shakespeare#Bibliography. I'll outline my plan below so people know what it is going to evolve to beyond a mere list of titles;
  1. Better formatting, in a table; with information including date work is assumed to have been published, folios/quartos/editions of note, notes about authorship if warranted, etc.
  2. Addition of images, of which there are many high-quality ones available on the Commons
  3. Better sorting, including divisions into tragedy/comedy/historical
  4. Further details that may be thought of in the future or that other persons can bring to the list
As Awadewit stated above, the other four articles on a similar subject are not comprehensive lists of just the works. Although the bibliography section has much the same information, it would be nice to expand more and have a little more relevant information available in one place. The articles on his plays and sonnets have too much background information and take longer to sort through. I am going to make this list far more than it is currently, and other people adding to it will help it expand and grow; as it stands it is a pathetic little stubby start containing only the bare-bones information. It was not intended to stay this way for long. I ask that it be kept so that it can be expanded and built upon; if after a month or two it is still not satisfactory then another deletion request can determine if it is needed. -- Editor at Large • talk 08:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually I agree with the delete votes that point out that the article as it now stands (or stood when I last looked at it) is redundant; I don't support the existence of articles that are redundant but might well become worthwhile, instead believing that they ought to be worthwhile from the start. Editor at Large would have been wise to build it up in his or her userspace, and only when it had reached a stage where it was clearly worthwhile spring it on WP's dazzled and grateful readers. Still, an improved bibliography would be worthwhile, and Editor has clearly and convincingly expressed an intention to improve it soon. So let Editor (and others) work on it. -- Hoary 09:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to William_Shakespeare#Bibliography. Wikisource has a rather complete list of his works at Author:William Shakespeare. I have noted on the Wikisource talk page that there are a few entries missing from that list. John Vandenberg 09:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just about a complete list in Shakespeare's case. It is about adding all of the interesting information that the primary editor has outlined. The Commons page has none of that - is it heading in that direction? Awadewit | talk 10:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is much more appropriate that the intentions of Editor at Large (talk · contribs) are carried out on Wikisource, which is a project devoted to presenting the works of authors. In general I dont mind lists on Wikipedia, but in this case there is a more useful location for the list. John Vandenberg 10:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the List of Oz books, which is a featured list. Yes, having this information on wikisource is good; but there author pages are more about listing the person's works with links to their documents within wikisource, and some background information on the author. Here on wikipedia this list of his works will be more about having information and a comprehensive overview of the most important points about them, other than just dates and links. You are more than welcome to copy the list there once it expands, but when people are looking for a list of his works and information on them they will think "I'll look it up on wikipedia, where they have information on things", not "I'll go to wikisource where they host books". I am a contributor to Wikisource as well, and I know that it is more than that; but random people won't. Wikipedia = primarily information, Wikisource = primarily resources and documents. While you could provide a soft redirect to the wikisource page, if people are looking for information like will eventually be located on this list they will want to be on the encyclopedia, where they can also look at the information on the individual plays and sonnets and poems and the man himself. -- Editor at Large • talk 11:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to there being a list here if it is more useful than the Wikisource author page. At the time I commented earlier, this list wasnt developed beyond that stage. But, the list is now looking useful so ... Keep. John Vandenberg 01:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from submitter Sorry I didn't notify the creator, but this is my first RfD (I actually looked over the editor's recent contributions, saw no Shakespeare-related edits, and figured he had forgotten about the article). Anyway, I like the idea of developing it a lot (in both senses), perhaps in a table format, with proposed creation dates, collaborative authors, revisers, early publications, classifications, etc. I also think it should be renamed to List of works attributed to Shakespeare, in order to acknowledge that his authorship of several of these works is in question. Wrad 18:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the current version (as of 19:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)) seems to mostly duplicate content in William Shakespeare, I believe that this list could be further developed into something in-between a mere list and a full-fledged article on each play, something akin to the Featured list List of major opera composers. Perhaps this list could have brief, spoiler-free descriptions of each play, such as "Romeo and Juliet: Romeo and Juliet fall in love despite coming from rival families." OK, so that description needs work, but you get the idea: a brief, even pithy description of the initial plot, perhaps combined with best known dates of each play's premiere, etc. Something similar could be done for each poem listed. Admittedly, that would make for a very long article if each sonnet were described, but Wikipedia isn't perfect. A list like this, as far as I can tell, would not duplicate precisely anything on any Shakespeare page currently existing on Wikipedia. Please allow the page time to grow. --Kyoko 19:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now that we have heard from the creator (no, not THAT one) about his plans for the page, and the eloquence with which he made his argument, I am changing from delete to keep. I agree with Wrad (above) that we should allow for time for the page to grow in the way described. One quick note - presently The Two Nobe Kinsman is listed under apocrapha instead of his accepted works, as it is generally agreed that he was a co-writer.Smatprt 19:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and Kyoko. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  23:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but needs improvement, per above. Modernist 04:08, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Figure Skating Club[edit]

Georgia Figure Skating Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local branch of national organization (United States Figure Skating Association); see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Club activities listed are typical of thousands of other figure skating clubs and not evidence of notability. Has never been a major training center for the sport of figure skating or played a notable role in the history of the sport; compare Skating Club of Boston, Philadelphia Skating Club and Humane Society, and Broadmoor Skating Club for counterexamples of skating clubs that are notable. Dr.frog 22:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This might merit an article if sources could be found to back up its notability assertions. If it really is one of the largest clubs, or if the Peach Classic is as important as the article makes it sound, then perhaps this place is notable. Without sources, however, this is a delete. --Fang Aili talk 13:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before deleting, please let me add the notable skaters and coaches. I didn't realize that an article had to be full and complete before it was added. I thought that the articles could be added to. Rlichtefeld 15:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles must assert the importance of the subject. What makes the Georgia FSC more important than any of the other thousands of figure skating clubs throughout the world? The other notable skating clubs listed above have been the training home of multiple national champions and World/Olympic competitors over a period of several decades. I am not aware of any such notable skaters who have trained at or represented the Georgia FSC (which has been in existence for less than 10 years), much less enough of them to make the club notable in its own right as an elite training center. Dr.frog 15:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The skaters you listed are not considered "notable". Dr.frog 16:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rlichtefeld, I believe the "lowest" we go in terms of notability is World Junior level. Got anyone from there? --Fang Aili talk 17:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable organization. And I don't think competiting at the novice level is inherantly notable for an encyclopedia. Kolindigo 18:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article fails to assert notability per WP:N. If there is a skater associated with the club who competes at the national level, I may reconsider. --Kyoko 19:03, 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. The Sunshine Man 20:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get the Guns[edit]

Get the Guns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a bootleg compilation that was not released by Eminem. As such, it does not meet the notability guidelines for music. It has no sources, very little editing activity, and very few articles link to it. Daniil Maslyuk 05:08, 11 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, Nabla 22:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and suggest merge in the normal manner. There are 20,000 hits for this, making it a useful search term that should redirect to Eminem if it doesnt warrant its own article. John Vandenberg 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks notable to me: just because it's a bootleg, does that make it non-notable? -- MightyWarrior 09:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followday[edit]

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

Was tagged as "speedy - notable" (?) which was contested, and removed as there is a vague assertion, and CSD A7 doesn't extend to neologisms. However, the title only returned 20 google hits, none of which seemed to be relevant. - Zeibura(talk) 22:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of use can be found nor are any sources provided. The New Jersey claim of origin tugs at my heartstrings, but a search of Google and Google News/Archives finds no relevant source that can be used to support the term. As such the article fails WP:NEO. Alansohn 00:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Bren talk 07:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a dicdef at best, but thre's not even evidence of widespread use. -- Whpq 21:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per Whpq Thehalfone 08:47, 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 Warriors (book series). History will be left intact since there appears to be strong interest in merging, whether, what, and where to merge is an editorial decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark River (Warriors)[edit]

Dark River (Warriors) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an unreferenced article on a book that doesn't come out until January of 2008. Nothing in the article suggests that the book will be notable. The article is filled with speculative terms and the main content of the article is a action summary from an excerpt of the book from the previous book in the series. This should be deleted until after the book is released in half a year and notability can be proven and sources can be found. Metros 22:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Warriors (book series), which has an empty header with only a link to this book name. Any crystal ballery can be removed from there. - Zeibura(talk) 22:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Outcast We don't have enough info on them, so it makes sense to make a small article on both of them. ~Crowstar~ 15:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per Zeibura. Can always be recreated in the future.Legalbeaver 17:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have modified it so that it has a infobox with a fair bit of info. I have also added a reference that should be reliable enough and that has a page on the book, Dark River. (Amazon.com). If anything, the idea of merging Outcast with it is also a good idea.~Bella 17:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now This will be a notable book, Metros, there is be no question about that. However, the reason this should be deleted is simply because you can't write an article with sources on a book that hasn't been published. The only thing we know about it is the two page preview at the back of The Sight. The information about when it will be published could easily be merged with the main article. When the book comes out would be the appropriate time to rewrite this article. KjtheDj 20:07, 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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Child-Cavill[edit]

Amber Child-Cavill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

These are some child actors that play toddlers in some series and that more or less it. IMO, being filmed when an actor carries you around doesn't make them notable for an encyclopedia. Also nominating:

I was considering a separate nomination for each but the reason is the same for all. Tone 22:10, 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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Deans[edit]

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

Non-notable biography. Only claim to notability was being the final (and surviving) husband of Judy Garland. Ozgod 21:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - his coverage in umpteen Garland biographies attest to his notability. He wrote a notable (and apparently best-selling) biography of Garland that went into multiple printings and has been cited (albeit unfavorably) in other scholarship on Garland and so appears to pass WP:BIO as a creative professional. Seems kinda silly to have articles on the rest of her husbands and not Deans (yeah I know, but still). Otto4711 23:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vincente Minnelli and arguably Sid Luft certainly pass the WP:Notability, but merely being the last husband of Judy Garland and his written his (and only one) book Weep No More Lady does not necessary (to my understand of WP:Notability) make him eligible of his own encyclopedia article. His marriage to Garland and subsequent book could be suitable subsections of her main article. I also feel Mark Herron is a potential AFD, but I will re-examine his article and google his name to see if he achieved anything other than being another husband of Garland. --Ozgod 01:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally if an article becomes too long and cumbersome it is appropriate to break off to sub-pages. To incude a discussion on each husband's life would be problematic; to include a bio on one would overstate his importance relative to the others. A double edged sword. --Kevin Murray 02:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Morris[edit]

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

This one's been speedy deleted a few times for A7 and G11... It's been recreated again with a bit more work with the references... However the subject simply isn't notable enough (and I think it's taken that the author of the article is the subject). Does not meet WP:BIO, sole reference is not a WP:RS. Oh, and the station itself is hardly a roaring success - it'll close down in about 10 days time.

In summary - not yet notable Thanks/wangi 21:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While I'm not sure Adamiow was the author (in that case it would be vanity, although he was a contributor), still, delete per WP:BIO and WP:RS. His name is mentioned in the article for the station. That's enough. This guy doesn't need publicity. He needs a job.--Ispy1981 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a guy with a job (and not even that for long, it seems). Doesn't come remotely close to the criteria for entertainers on WP:BIO. —Cryptic 21:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firstly, I am not the person that the article is based on. I am just a fan, who happens to have the same first name. Secondly, I believe that he is a notable person. He has worked on two nationwide radio stations, broadcasting to in excess of 200,000 listeners on Capital Disney, as per RAJAR results. I also think that the comments on Capital Disney's success aren't really relevant. In reference to his future jobs, I don't think that is a matter for here either. Adamiow 22:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: If Adam Morris is indeed notable then you should have no problem updating the article to meet the WP:BIO notability guidelines. If you're not Adam Morris then I think you need to do a bit of work on a couple of images: Image:AdamMorris.jpg & Image:AllanLake.jpg — who is the copyright holder? A photo being uploaded to myspace isn't a general release to use it somewhere else. Thanks/wangi 23:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I will sort out the copyright for the photos in due course, after this page is sorted. Adamiow 06:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see any evidence this person meets WP:BIO. There is no significant additional claim of notability beyond the versions that were speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 or WP:CSD#G11 (and for sake of full disclosure I am one of the admins who previously deleted this per a speedy tag).--Isotope23 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I am assuming radio presenters are part of Entertainers on WP:BIO. However, this criteria is very unclear, as I could say Adam has a cult following and his work on Capital Disney is significant, as the station is a major station, with awards and audience figures to show. Adamiow 22:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, have some reality and perspective when talking about "cult following"... Cult following is used to define fan behaviour of the like shown toward the Rocky Horror Show. Capital Disney was never a major UK radio station - it was DAB / satellite only. Thanks/wangi 21:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I accept the cult following situation, but I was just trying to demonstrate there are no clear criteria with regards to radio presenters. However, I very much disagree with your views on Capital Disney. The station is a major UK radio station, as the audience figures show. It makes a much larger impact than many stations on the RAJAR results. As well as this, it has won numerous awards, including the Sony Radio Academy Digital Station of the Year, which is the highest accolade possible for the station and for any station which is not local or on FM/AM. Adamiow 09:07, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Cross in popular culture[edit]

Iron Cross in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - another largely unsourced indiscriminate collection seeking to capture every trivial or non-trivial reference to or appearance of a particular German/Nazi/neo-Nazi symbol/decoration in any context without regard to its meaning or importance either within the work or in the real world. Not as egregious as the deleted "Swastikas in popular culture" article but still quite poor. To forestall one inevitable response, strongly oppose merging any of the content into Iron Cross. This article was created as a place to dump material that wasn't wanted in the main article and it is no more encyclopedic in another article than it is on its own. Otto4711 21:10, 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--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people in Playboy by Birthdate[edit]

List of people in Playboy by Birthdate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another list that qualifies as WP:NOT#INFO. All the info needed can be found at individual playmate's articles, no need to have a list like this. Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. Tone 20:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Listcruft.--Ispy1981 21:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. Useight 22:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I am pro beautiful women and honoring their birthdays, I don't think that this type of list is encyclopedic for any group of people regardless of whether it is my favorite baseball team, my personal friends or a list of bunnies. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This isn't a list of the Playmates birthdays, it's a list of their years of birth (birthdates), time of first appearance and age at the time, age at time of death (that needs to be made clearer), etc. Everyone of them is a bluelink. I kind of like the idea that there's an 84 year old lady out there who was Miss January '55. Say what you will, but it's informative, well organized and it passes the notability test. Mandsford 00:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is not informative, is irrelevant, and duplicates information that exists in other lists on Wikipedia. These ladies simply aren't that important that we need dozens of separate lists about them, and their age is one of the less important things about them. --Charlene 01:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's high time the phrase "indiscriminate collection of information" was redefined or reinterpreted. <KF> 06:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a poster child for indiscriminate. If there were a Playboy wiki, or even a pin-up wiki, it might fit in, but I just don't see what function the list serves beyond making a list. For example, I could just barely see a justification for List of Playboy Playmates by age at first appearance which might conceivably tell us something about the ages considered appropriate for nude models in different eras. I don't think it would survive AFD, though, either. --Dhartung | Talk 07:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add fold-out illustrations, for the benefit of Wikipedia users (no current nude picture of Miss January '55, please) Mandsford 11:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only vote once, please. Eusebeus 12:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant list. Eusebeus 12:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless list and violates WP:NOT Kwsn(Ni!) 16:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. --Ace of Swords 16:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Everyone [sic] of them is a bluelink." Then make sure the information is present in the individual articles, and delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 19:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it does boggle the mind that we have articles on every playmate, but since we do grouping them this way rather than by age at time of appearance, or by order of appearance, or by height, weight, cup size, whatever, seems unnecessary. Carlossuarez46 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It's a list article and it's not indiscriminate, one has to be a Playboy Playmate to be on the list. The list makes it easy to see which former Playmates are still alive and how old they are, and how old they were when they appeared in the magazine. The list doesn't count as "indiscrimiinate collection of information" because it does not fall under any of the 10 sub-sections listed on WP:NOT#INFO. The data is within a table. The article is neutral, verifiable, and contains no original research. "Cruft" is a subjective term meant to belittle any piece of information. Even if there was a common definition as to what "cruft" is, there is no policy against "cruft." As far as I can tell, there are only two articles on Wikipedia that list every Playmate on one page and I think this is a useful article. Everyone on the page is notable, and the article is useful for comparing their current ages. --Pixelface 22:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third option. Can't we use sortable tables to generate a list with this functionality that also allows sorting by date of appearance, date of death, age at time of appearance, alphabetically by name, etc., thus serving all the desired functions at once? --tjstrf talk 22:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to suggest the same. Sortable tables reduce the number of articles about the same thing drastically. --Tone 09:29, 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 Young Snipe. Sr13 21:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Listen, & Learn[edit]

Look, Listen, & Learn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This isn't an original work, but a mix tape of other artists' music. Non-notable. Also AFDing the artist, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undaground Rap Mixtape Vol.1 eaolson 20:48, 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 redirect all. Mangojuicetalk 16:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undaground Rap Mixtape Vol.1[edit]

Undaground Rap Mixtape Vol.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This isn't an original album, but a mix CD of other artists' works. Non-notable. Also going to AFD:

eaolson 20:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as no assertions to notability have been made. In addition, Undaground Rap Mixtape Vol.1 and Ben Frank:The Mixtape are both borderlining on CSD A3, as they have nothing other than a track list and an infobox. - Zeibura(talk) 03:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Young Snipe. John Vandenberg 02:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep per WP:MUSIC: "If the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Assuming this was verifiably released by a label, I'd say there's no reason to axe this, although some expansion is obviously needed. Numerous other professionally released Category:Mixtape albums have been kept. That said, the definition of an album in that quote might not be relevant, given that the album was released on the artist's own non-notable label. MrZaiustalk 16:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The line line in WP:MUSIC about albums inheriting notability is weak and disputed...I default to: Has the album received any indepedent coverage to justify it as an article on its own? No? Merge it into the main article, there's plenty of space. Track listings with no other information are indiscriminate in my opinion. — Scientizzle 16:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. - KrakatoaKatie 11:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial Day Miracle[edit]

Memorial Day Miracle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Fails WP:NEO, as there are no reliable, verifiable sources using the term. The article is completely unsourced. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Okay, I never heard of it, but it's apparently a great moment in pro basketball history, right up there with the Immaculate Reception, the Miracle on Ice, the Helicopter Game, etc. Mandsford 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It's not on par with the Miracle on Ice, but it's an interesting moment in NBA history. The NBA itself lists Sean Elliott's game as a legendary performance; in addition, the book 'At the Buzzer' devotes an entire section to Elliott's game-winning shot (which also appears on the cover of the book - see top image). As for the nom's claim that "there are no reliable, verifiable sources using the term," I found 91 Google News hits for "memorial day miracle" + "sean elliott"; the term also appears in the two sources I mentioned above. Zagalejo 02:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there seems to be many reliable sources for the event and the name; there seems to be a very clear link to the NBA reference at the bottom of the article. How did you go about determining that there were no 'sources using the term'? Kuru talk 01:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I remember the moment well and it was an extremely important event in basketball that needs to have an article.--Southern Texas 05:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are plenty of sources, as Zagalejo says, that use the term "Memorial Day Miracle." However, I still think the article covers a non-notable topic. Mention of it certainly belongs on relevant pages (such as Sean Elliott, San Antonio Spurs, 1999 NBA Playoffs, etc.) but the shot in itself is not notable. It received significant coverage as described in the notability guidelines, but only because every NBA game is covered by mainstream media. There are no separate articles for John Havlicek's dramatic steal or buzzer-beaters by John Paxson and Robert Horry. I know this is the dreaded what about X argument, but I think it's reasonable to assume that those events form a solid peer group. Articles in the category "National Basketball Association lore" (of which the MDM article is a part of) point to an individual player's page such as Gar Heard; why should this be different? SliceNYC (Talk) 21:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily just the shot; the name refers to the game itself, which was an improbable comeback capped by a rather difficult shot. If you want to play the 'what about x' game, you can probably find hundreds of articles on notable individual games, including basketball ones: The Phantom Buzzer Game, The Shot. I'm sure they have varying levels of subjective notability; I certainly wouldn't compare this to the Miracle on Manchester or the Music City Miracle (ok, maybe that one), but it is clearly referenced as a significant historical, not current, NBA event in news media and books as noted above. It's possible I'm missing your point; you're saying you're comfortable that it meets the notability guidelines, but not your personal threshold for inclusion? Kuru talk 00:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that the guidelines can be deceptive. Sure, the game received lots of coverage that would qualify it as notable, but that's because NBA playoff games are highly scrutinized events even if it's a blowout. Informally surveying the basketball articles on here, it seems like notable games are incorporated into the playoff series' article or the individual players article. Also, I'd prefer not to conflate the shot and the game as you seem to be doing; the shot makes the game better-known. If the game was decided by one point but without a last-second shot, odds are nobody thinks to create a page for it even if there was a big comeback. SliceNYC (Talk) 15:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I know nothing about basketball but I assume that the NBA site is reasonably authoritative for the sport. Although this is the only source establishing notability, I think it's just enough. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 09:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bad faith nom by sock of [email protected]. IrishGuy talk 22:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collooney railway station[edit]

Collooney railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-Notable Accuracy in Reporting 20:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - speedy keep without prejudice to renomination - the only thing is that this is a sock puppet of this banned editor.--Vintagekits 20:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue--I am not a sockpuppet of anybody (unlike User:Vintagekits who has been accused of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry); article remains wholly non-notable as its creator well knows as he/she cannot even justify it here. I explained what happened to User:Thunderwing regarding this afd, although I question whether almost all British and Irish railway stations have articles in Wikipedia or deserve to. Accuracy in Reporting 21:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, you live in New York you should be enjoying it! This is not just a commuter station this is a mainline intercity station, P.S. I didnt create the article so if you think you are annoying me you are wrong. --Vintagekits 21:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no desire to annoy you and my name is Jim. I do currently reside in NYC, not that it's your business. Whoever created the article is not justifying it is all I said.Accuracy in Reporting 21:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gees, how did I guess you were in NYC "Jim"? Now there is a shock - you live in New York but chose Collooney railway station to AfD within your first twenty edits!
  • Keep Stub for expansion, railway stations are generally notable. EliminatorJR Talk 20:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Stub article that could do with expansion. Most (if not all) UK and Ireland railway stations have articles. Thunderwing 21:17, 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. Sr13 07:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Moore (politician)[edit]

Charles Moore (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete: Non-notable minor political candidate, whose only claim to fame is achieving 2% of the vote in the Congressional elections in (apparently) 2004. Fails WP:BIO. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS If the article is deleted, please also remove his entry from Charles Moore (disambiguation). Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable, failed candidate. Montco 23:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Peacent 02:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titans of Justice[edit]

Titans of Justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete article on insufficiently notable fanfic site. Doczilla 19:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete--Tone 22:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caskanje.info[edit]

Caskanje.info (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet WP:WEB, no WP:RS. Only 10 Google hits (with this article being first), and Alexa rank of 386,000. Disputed WP:CSD#A7. Leuko 19:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under A7. On a side note, Alexa rank shouldn't matter. Kwsn(Ni!) 19:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: True, I realize the limitations of the Alexa rank in regards to establishing notability, and the arguments for and against its use, but I just added that to show the site was nowhere near notable. Leuko 19:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Meets criteria for speedy deletion under A7. Xtreme racer 19:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete-Not notable, and is practically an advert for the services offered by the website.--Rossheth | Talk to me 19:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7 and G11. Tagged for G11. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:47, 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. Sr13 07:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SaLon Gallery[edit]

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

Speedy A7 was declined by admin User:Rklawton, who recommended AFD. Notability is not established. Conflict of interest is likely given the author's username, which also has no other edits. YechielMan 19:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete, A7, no assertion of notability. Leuko 19:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this article was originally listed as db-spam. I removed the spam bits. Notability is claimed via artist(s) represented. I thought it might be useful to give editors a chance to improve the article. If no such improvements are forthcoming, then count my vote as "delete", too. Rklawton 19:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Assertions to notability are there as Rklawton says, and the press page on their website claims they've been reviewed by some guides and magazines which look like they might be reliable sources. Can't find any of them on the internet, but if these can be obtained as hard copies and used as references, I think it'd be keepable. - Zeibura(talk) 20:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Switched to Delete per Victoriagirl's reasoning. - Zeibura(talk) 03:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:ORG, the primary criterion of which states "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." I write this recognizing that the SaLon website claims that the gallery "has already appeared in the March 2006 editions of the Hill, Grove & Kult magazines, the October, November & December 2006 editions of Gallery Guide for Europe, the January 2007 edition of the Resident Magazine". This leaves the reader to wonder what is meant by "appeared"... a feature article, a profile, a column, a review, a listing, an ad? Really a non-issue, as the article itself doesn't attempt to provide such sources. Victoriagirl 00:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It was me who nominated it for speedying. If you have to write your own article, then methinks you're not notable enough. Chris 20:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while this may be an indicator that problems may exist with the article, self-authorship is not a deletion criterion. Rklawton 21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: True. But, this says "We also tend to discourage authors from writing about themselves or their own accomplishments, as this is a conflict of interest. If you have made notable accomplishments, someone else will write an article about you eventually." Chris 08:13, 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 deleted (G11) by Seraphimblade. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic Radio[edit]

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

Blatant spam and conflict of interest. The author has a suggestive username and has no neutral edits. I am also including the following miscellany in this discussion:

User:Celticradio
User talk:Celticradio

because their content is nearly identical. YechielMan 19:02, 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

There seems to be consensus that there isn't enough reliable material for an article. There are also biographies of living persons concerns. After one year and hundreds of edits the references remain of remarkably poor quality. The subject may merit a line or two in List of internet phenomena if it can be shown to pass the standards for inclusion in that article, and can be sourced adequately. --Tony Sidaway 18:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Frosties Kid[edit]

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

sources do not show notability of the subject and arent reliable sources. tried to add tags for cleanup but tags are deleted and they say i should "prod or afd" instead. Elbowdrop 18:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Frosties if WP:RS exist, otherwise delete.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has some notability as a Meme/Urban myth. i have been involved with the article since its creation and it has gathered more comment than it is worth. Wikipedia should mirror the internet and have raised the subject of its deletion on wikipedia email. A google search on Frosties Kid raises over 40,000 links [Frosties Kid search] I cannot really see how a deletion is appropriate. The article does need sourcing. but a delete is inappropriate Mike33 19:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Little or no notability, virtually no sources to speak of, and is not written in an encyclopaedic tone. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 19:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have two votes:
Merge if more proof of a meme/urban myth can be shown, right now, it can't be. Otherwise...
Delete unless he does make the 2008 team, right now, there's a serious lack of notability since anyone off the street can be in a commercial (hell, I've done an anti drug commercial before, and I don't consider myself notable). That, and the sources aren't reliable. Kwsn(Ni!) 19:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment calm down. It is not a biography. Sven Ruygrok just happens to be the internet meme. Does wikipedia echo internet memes, yes. Does Wikipidea become part of a meme? no way. The article has stood for the last year. It does need clean up. WP:BLP warriors - prove how it worked last week and falls from grace this week? Mike33 19:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is so uncool in Afd. please save remarks like that to my talk page. unjustified. Mike33 21:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you'd like more evidence of how widespread this meme is, check out the article "Why the Frosties ad is the worst of all time" by Alistair Foster in the Evening Standard on August 14th, 2006. It's an article just about the commercial and the reactions its inspired. It's not All Your Base, but it has widespread coverage including coverage in mainstream sources. Chris Croy 19:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Frosties. One newspaper article and Snopes does not satisfy WP:BIO. Also smacks of spam by the cerieal company to gain more free publicity. Someone might consider reviving WP:MEME with criteria which would consider the significance of memes. Edison 21:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain, with a sidenote that I'd support a merge. He appears to be the equivalent of Mikey over here in the United States, but research turns up nothing much. Perhaps a local over there can turn up something. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the merge idea was kicked around last fall. without canvassing I can find some of the editors who opposed a merger. During the WP:BLP storm I asked for clarification about this article. The feedback I received is that it is meme. If we are going to start deleting all meme then surely we have lost sense of those guidelines. The article has gone through ad infinitum changes. As it stands today I think it has credibility. Mike33 21:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am voting keep based on the fact that Little Mikey thrives and because I don't really think people should just keep taking stabs at the apple. The article is marginal, but somewhat encyclopedic. If Lucky Vanous had an article I would surely vote to keep. I am not sure where the notability hurdle is on human spokespersons, but I support as an interesting topic. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not sure if I understood all the text. red links certainly dont help your argument. Little Mikey may well be a good example (its been a featured page), however, The Frosties Kid, will never get to be a featured page. It has its own validity, but certainly not to the extent of Little Mikey. Mike33 23:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a lighter note my home page is google and use the search "frosties kid wikipedia" to edit. what am i gonna do if it gets deleted? its gonna sugest I recreate the article! Mike33 00:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's deleted per concensus, I'd suggest going to Deletion Review. Recreating the article post deletion is a sure-fire way to see it deleted as per WP:CSD#G4. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was intended as an offside. I have no wish to recreate the article if it passes through Afd. Lighter note is just a wikilove. Mike33 22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...my sense of humor was not working at that moment. =/ --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In this Afd and the last, my arguments have always been based on the Idealist idea the the article is about the advert and the interest it created (see Frosties kid talk "what is this article about"). During my editing of the article it has remained purely about the advert and has never been a biography. Search strings like "frosties actor" are a little weasle, and certainly dont help to form consensus. Further to that, AfD is not a vote. It is about consensus. The article was raised because tags were removed, and a consensus decision in Afd is often a great way of resolving matters. As for WP:NOTABLE, that is a guideline. I beleive it passes notabilty guidelines. In terms of validity, The simple question we should ask is "does this article make wikipedia good or bad by its inclusion?" Mike33 17:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Mike33. Lugnuts 07:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Dhartung. The Parsnip! 17:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redirect to Frosties. Any article that's only known as "The Frosties Kid" seems a little silly to me. Include the rumours and info on any ad campaigns in the Frosties article. It's not important enough to have it's own article. Barbara Osgood 18:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is no Frosties it is a redirect to Frosted Flakes and would simply create a new edit war. I have archived Talk:Frosted_Flakes about the frosties kid long predating an article. The advert was never aired outside the UK and Eire. Mike33 18:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... then redirect to Frosted Flakes. Comment if it's redirected from Frosties, why does the article begin Frosties (or Frosted Flakes in North America) If the Frosties is noted first prominently in the article, surely the disambig page should link to "Frosties", with "Frosted Flakes" being a redirect? Barbara Osgood 19:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A merge to Frosted Flakes would create more mess (see Frosted Flakes archive. A redirect? Either you haven't made your self clear, but this AfD has never been about a redirect. My answer to you is that a merge with a North-American page is not an option. Disambiguation pages should list the most notable instances with preference over others. Frosties in the US is more notable as a cool-ade than frosties as a kellogg brand. You seem too have headed very far off topic. Mike33 20:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator says "sources do not show notability of the subject and arent reliable sources". Has been featured in articles by the Sun (UK's best selling paper) and the Daily Mail/Evening Standard/ Metro (all part of the same group but separate newspapers - 1 national, 1 London-based, 1 regional I guess). Also mentioned by Scott Mills on BBC Radio 1 (national radio) ([1])Very well-known in the UK, if not in the US. '"Frosties kid"' gives 9000+ hits on Google. 'Frosties suicide' gives 27000+ hits on Google. Paulbrock 23:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not sure where you get the 9000 figure from on google, my simple google search tallies 40,500 [Google Search using "frosties kid"] Google also directs me to try related searches (Searches related to: frosties kidfrosties advert frosties kid suicide frosties frosties kid dead frosties kid myspace frosties kid death kellogs) I haven't yet needed to use any of those wonderful search suggestions, and would not think it very wise to! Mike33 01:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, to clarify, the 9000+ search was [2] Paulbrock 09:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of potential WP:BLP problems. Doesn't sound like this guy wants a wikipedia entry (yeah, I know it's not under his name). Capmango 05:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The BLP problems would pose a cleanup. Aside from that, unless the party in question comes out and says "please remove it", we can't really make those assumptions. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to WP:BLP issues and lack of reliable sources. RFerreira 05:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing Comment - I just seem to be repeating the same arguments.
(1) This was raised as tag dispute and a further reason was notability. Notability is not a criteria in Afd but very helpful - in various googles it hits over far over the 1 or two articles suggested. (passim 40,000, 9,000plus, 27,500 etc)
(2) "The Frosties Kid" might well be a living person, but the article is about the advert, its reception as a meme and media reaction to the meme. In terms of WP:BLP one could use the same rule to delete Essjay controversy and you would find a very big no way. A bee helps to create a new flower but the bee does not become the flower.
(3) Mergers have been considered before. Frosted Flakes is largely a US article and The Frosties Kid didn't sit on the page for very long and went through an edit war.
(4) A delete is only acceptable if the article makes Wikipedia bad. If editors consider this article makes wikipedia bad then please start removing all cruft from Wikipedia, some of the editors commenting have contributed to articles that are very Cruft.
(5) None of the original editors seem interested in the article, but it has been policed successfully for the last 11 months. It is a constantly vandalised article, but this certainly dosen't make it bad.

Mike33 07:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Frosties ...it's no longer current but is relevant and it is referenced ...? the fact that is is regularly vandalized would seem to say it is notable ?

lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Vandalism does not make the subject of an article notable... The Parsnip! 15:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most Notable articles on Wikipedia are also the one that are either Locked to stop vandals or are the most vandalised it shows that it is a "Well Known" subject and people are interested in it (regardless of notability) "The Frosties Kid" is Notable since it has been referenced in several UK newspapers (Note this is more that the article on Slashdot has!) lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 16:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources, and we're not here to regurgetate tittle-tattle and rumours.--Sandy Donald 13:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Poorly written article, but notability sufficiently established even if the subject seems trivial to me. Obviously not a biography, so WP:BLP doesn't come into it. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 09:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn, speedy keep. I thank User:Capitalistroadster for rewriting the article and adding ample references. YechielMan 13:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Apple (rabbi)[edit]

Raymond Apple (rabbi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. The author of this article "bulldozed" a speedy A7 tag but did not address underlying concerns regarding notability and conflict of interest. YechielMan 18:54, 17 June 2007

  • Comment: Authors are not allowed to remove CSD notices from pages that they create. The tag should have been replaced, and the author warned with {{uw-speedy}}. 19:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks like they were and the author warned. I'll re-add the tags now. Kwsn(Ni!) 19:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 20:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per original nomination. COI of author - page really seems to be intending to promote OzTroah website.Garrie 21:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7. Looks like it's already been tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Keep. If the content of this article is correct, then he is clearly notable. That would suggest that the article should be cleaned up to address the COI issues, not deleted. There is certainly a claim to notability. --Bduke 23:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep first off, it can not be a speedy if it asserts importance, and "Doctor of Laws honoris causa from the University of New South Wales and an Honorary Fellow of Sydney University and holds the Distinguished Alumni award of the University of New England (NSW)". An honorary degree is an assertion of importance. As for whether he is important the offices would seem to be but it needs a source. As the Great Synagogue (Sydney) does not have a WP article, I cannot tell if this is informally considered the chief rabbi of Australia. Certainly needs editing, and I've removed some of the fluff. Certainly needs at least one good source, but unsourced alone isn't a reason for deletion.DGG 00:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Raymond Apple was Senior Rabbi at Sydney's Great Synagogue between 1972 and 2005. Google News Archive [3] and Google News both have articles referring to him. Needs sourcing but that can be fixed. Should definitely not have been speedied. Capitalistroadster 03:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and Capitalistroadster. John Vandenberg 04:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NN. With all due respect and k'vod haTorah v'kavod haRebbeim, this article is simply not encyclopedic. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 04:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The original article was a copyvio. I have rewritten it with sources. Capitalistroadster 06:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rewrite by Capitalistroadster. Davewild 07:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stopped At Stalingrad[edit]

Stopped At Stalingrad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not qualify under WP:BK. Feshbach Fan 18:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also nominating Image:Haysto.jpg for same reason. Feshbach Fan 18:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not wualify under WP:BK, and furthermore is a clear and definite advertisement.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lazy article, which I am improving; shouldn't be held against it--the subject is N, not the article.. I've removed the detailed contents, which is the inappropriately advertisment part, and added references so far to about 8 reviews in academic journals, with quotes from some of them. Reviews demonstrate N of books. as condition (1) of WP:BK.DGG 22:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is present in 398 libraries, according to WorldCat [http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/top3mset/a76c858f16a34440a19afeb4da09e526.html}, including many public and it seems like all major academic libraries and a great many college libraries as well. DGG 23:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep War historians consider this book to be a significant contribution to the study of the Battle of Stalingrad. It has also been reviewed in various military history magazines, but I don't know if these are on line. I will look through my stack when I get a moment, also. KP Botany 23:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:BK, as noted by DGG and KP Botany. Victoriagirl 00:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - appears to meet WP:BK. --Charlene 01:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the criterion "...subject of multiple, non-trivial published works... with at least some of these works serving a general audience," I'll have to recommend weak keep. All of the refs recently added to the article do not serve a general audience with the exception of the Times Literary Supplement cite. That last cite just barely qualifies the book under WP:BK. "One" isn't exactly the same as "some", but for a pub as significant as the TLR, it'll do. IMHO it fails the other WP:BK criteria. Groupthink 08:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As an aside, I would admonish the nom for making a disruptive point, but unfortunately, I do think it needs to be noted that it's disingenuous of the WP community to assert that an article on Hayward's book is worthy of inclusion while Hayward himself is not (see here here) for more. Seems to me like that's trying to have your cake and eat it too. I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I still think that this should be pointed out. Groupthink 08:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took it upon myself to clean up the Joel Hayward article, and it looks like it's actually going to survive (nope, it's been AfD'd). It still needs work though, and some of y'all might be interested in making some improvements (but not me, I've had my fill). Groupthink 20:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per previous comments. The article still needs a lot of cleanup, though. Edward321 03:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:BK as the subject of multiple, non-trivial works about it. I found a few reviews just by a quick Google search. Also, although WP:GOOGLEHITS isn't really a legit argument for whether a subject is suitably encyclopedic, all the same the fact that this book gets 692 hits on Google shows it's fairly well-known. --Ace of Swords 21:29, 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. « ANIMUM » 23:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslims by date of birth[edit]

List of Muslims by date of birth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list is just too vague. We are talking about 1 billion + Muslim people in history. Not to forget, WP:NOT#INFO. What could be acceptable, would be perhapes a list of important Muslim religious scholars or something like that but to list people just by religion is too indiscriminate. Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. Tone 18:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a chronological list of people by any faith is ridiculous. Otto4711 18:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Leuko 19:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, even implying the word "notable" it serves no purpose. Carlossuarez46 21:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate list of info and as a directory. Useight 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Delete. This is a weak list to begin with. I can't believe that Sadat, Khomeini, Omar Khayyam, Saddam Hussein, etc. aren't on here. It does meet the Wikipedia standards for silliness by including squash players and comedians in there with historical figures, but it's not well researched. If you're serious about something like this, you would look at the lists of people born in each year, pick out the notable Muslims, list their A.D. birthdates (1979, 1980, 1981) along with their Moslem birthdates (in A.H. 1399, 1400, 1401). How many folks born on the 10th of Ramadan? But anyway, do we need a list of Moslems by birthdate, any more than we need a list of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc...? Not a very well done list. Mandsford 00:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list would just be way too long.--SefringleTalk 01:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - useless.Proabivouac 01:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not appropriate for Wikipedia. We are getting too many ethnicity lists - there really should only be a handful. Cedars 05:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Peacent 02:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of births and deaths on Coronation Street[edit]

List of births and deaths on Coronation Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

One list more in the series of articles in contradiction with WP:NOT#INFO.Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.--Tone 18:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - wouldn't that list cover almost every character? As per nom. Rgds, --Trident13 20:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & per WP:FICT if these are important rather than trivial - which I doubt - put them in the main article. Carlossuarez46 21:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because this is a disguised list of trivia with no real-world context. Such information is unencyclopedic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:47, 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. Sr13 07:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lynotic[edit]

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

Not verifiable. Can find no sources that indicate that this is a real language (or that 'Lynotic' is another name for a real language, as has been claimed on the talk page). Proposed deletion was contested. Pan Dan 18:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why? I don't see that they even claim to be related, not to mention actually verifiably being related (or a language at all). Leuko 22:15, 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 02:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic Youth Organizations[edit]

Masonic Youth Organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. This is nothing but a list of internal links to other full articles (and some nn groups as well). The same material is duplicated in the Freemasonry2 template which is on every Freemasonry article page, and as these are different groups, there is no way to redirect to one page and have the redirect be accurate. MSJapan 17:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteJ ust a list, and not even a complete one at that. Escape Artist Swyer | Talk to me 17:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 07:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haberarts[edit]

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

Bringing here to determine consensus, contested speedy deletion

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

The result was delete. Sr13 07:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuxes[edit]

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

Unreleased book by vanity press. Questionable notability. WP:NOT a crystal ball, at the very least. Deproded by author with no explanation.

  • Keep - Tuxes is in fact available for pre-ordering - see Amazon. BeachSidePress is not a vanity press - Mr. Fivelson has never paid us. Some additional information about publishing that may shed some light on the subject: it is usual practice in the industry to begin selling a book many months before its publication date. And the book is available on Amazon and from our website now. I beg the question: what determines the existence of a book - sales, or the passing of the publication date which by common definition is a fiction. (See inside Kramer's 1001 Ways to Market Books) Respectfully, Ron Beachsidepress 06:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Fivelson, AFD nomination for the author. eaolson 17:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails WP:BK. As noted above, the book has not yet been published. Speculation as to whether it will meet WP:BK after publication is pure crystal ball. Victoriagirl 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - same as Victoriagirl. With additional comment - as said by BeachSide Press, it does not appear to be a vanity press, but a brand new small press. Their site states that they pay royalties, do not charge the author a fee, both the reverse from vanity press practices. Felisse 19:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the author will pass AfD, but the book still doesn't meet WP:BK. Coren 02:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL. John Vandenberg 02:58, 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 all. Sr13 06:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of sampled songs[edit]

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

Tagging for the nominator the following articles:

List of sampled songs starting with a non-letter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with E (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with F (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with J (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with L (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with N (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with O (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with P (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with Q (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with U (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with W (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with Y (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of sampled songs starting with Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I prodded this article, the template was removed so now I list it here. This article (with subpages for every letter) lists sampled songs. In my opinion this is in contradiction with WP:NOT#IINFO, indiscriminate collection of information. Besides, as the article says, Obviously, this list is by no means exhaustive or complete. And there are no references, apart from two listst with similar content.

  • Keep -please keep the lists. i love going thru it and seeing the songs that have inspired others to make music.its interesting to me atleast.i have spent hours listening to these songs to see the samples and i like figuring out how they did it.again please keep the list.this information doesnt exist anywhere else.oh and in case you do delete please let me have a copy of it =(
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Tone 16:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bravedog 16:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree there is a problem with this list, but I think you still have to note the deletion on all the sub-pages. FrozenPurpleCube 16:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could anyone with AWB be so nice and do this instead...please...? Thanks in advance. --Tone 16:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've been wanting to nominate these lists for deletion myself for a while now. They are indiscriminate lists, directories of loosely-associated topics. The lists reach across every style, genre and thematic structure of music to bring together any song that has nothing in common with any other song beyond someone went in and copied a beat or a musical phrase from another song. These lists tell us nothing about the sampled songs, the songs that include samples, the history, process or technique of sampling or music in general. Otto4711 17:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep <sigh>. Valuable information to those who seek it. <KF> 17:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - how valuable the information might or might not be (besides being largely if not completely subjective) does not answer the policy concerns the article raises. Otto4711 18:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above (Otto4711). JJL 17:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Otto says it exactly. Also, "Valuable information to those who seek it." is a tad weak (similar to WP:USEFUL). Kwsn(Ni!) 19:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - might as well list every song recorded in the last five years. Rgds, --Trident13 20:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ye flippin' Gods, major WP:LIST issues. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto7411. Exactly. --Charlene 01:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The list has always been messy from the start and seeing as it fails WP:NOT#INFO, it just needs to be deleted. No actual resources either. Douglasr007 03:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very, very trivial inclusion criterion. Might as well make a list of "all songs played in clubs". --Haemo 03:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A song list(s) that violates WP:NOT#IINFO? What are the chances of that? Masaruemoto 04:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not appropriate for Wikipedia. Cedars 05:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom., and others.--JayJasper 17:10, 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 02:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors from Germany[edit]

List of actors from Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list is a random collection of names only which is not being maintained. No effort has been made since the deletion of the good, comprehensive list (which would have been worth keeping; see User:Black Falcon/Sandbox/List of German actors (from 1895 to the present)) to improve this one here. Category:German actors serves the purpose of this list much better. <KF> 16:17, 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 redirect to Steve Cole (author). Sr13 06:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cows In Action[edit]

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

Contested prod. Brand new series of books of dubious notability. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Rick Block (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of Cows In Action article and am dissapointed that my article has been nominated for deletion. I'm new and i don't know a lot about how to improve an article. The reason im not putting more into it is that the chances are somebody will improve my article. I am not advertising this book. Astrosaurs and Cows In Action are one of my best books and i was inspired to write an article about them. Don't delete my article please because if you do, I probably will create it again. Please let it stay on and if it is not improved in 1 Month Delete it. This article will probably be improved by other people. I just started it so people would look at it and put more into my article so its not rubbish. User Woggy June 18th 19:09

The issue is not the quality of the article, but the notability of the topic - which is an issue because Wikipedia articles are meant to be written based on reliable sources. If the article is deleted, please don't recreate it (it will simply be deleted again). Per my suggestion on your talk page, how about changing it to a redirect to the author's article, and including something about this new series there? If you'd like to create an article, there are loads and loads of articles requested at Wikipedia:Requested articles, or any of the red links at Newbery Honor would be fine topics. We like new users, and definitely do not want to discourage you from contributing. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved my Cows In Action article now and i am still working on it. There are links to different articles in the article and a contents list. I am hoping that this is enough to stop my article from been deleted. I didn't know much about how to improve an article, but i have found out and its looking better than it was now. Im really hoping now that you won't delete it as i will and probably other people will improve it and make it better. It now includes information about the books but no images as i don't understand how you get images. The books that are not available yet i can't write much on. And i am sorry that i can't. More information on the upcoming books will be available when the book is published. I am also going to include something about Cows In Action on the authors article. User Woggy June 18th 20:23

Woggy, like Rick Block noted, you have to demonstrate notability. See this page for what we're looking for, and also see this page for what we consider to be reliable. Sorry, but unless it's notable, it's not going to survive. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I spoke up for a keep on Astrosaurs, the other famous series of books written by Steve Cole, but Astrosaurs is much longer running and much more successful than Cows in action. I would have a hard time supporting C.I.A. on notability grounds at present; if it goes on to be a Blockbuster success as well, then maybe it can be revisited at that time. Don't be discouraged though, Woggy. Losing an article to an AfD is a rite of passge that all Wikipedia editors go through. --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Article does have notability. I put some in when i wasn't logged in yesterday. Thanks for the suggestion Rick, But somebody did it for me. There are a lot of redirects to different articles in my article. User Woggy 15:27 (UTC) June 19th 2007

I am going to keep it as a redirect to the author. I am not at all dissapointed that its been nominated for deletion. I have 2 questions. If somebody else creates it again and its improved and its notable, Will it be deleted? In the future when Cows In Action gets more books and is more popular will i then be allowed to restart the article again? I mean like in 2 years or 1 year. Because im new, Im not sure how to create a redirect. Could you tell me? User Woggy June 19th 2007 (UTC)

  • Woggy, if the books become notable, then they will survive a future AfD. Procedure for creating a redirect is found here. Your understanding is appreciated, thanks. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:50, 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 as a redirect to Ralph Klein. Changing that into an article about the event, not the person, is left to editor's discretion. (And, obviously, even the person may become WP-notable later) - Nabla 13:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Huygen[edit]

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

Article doesn't meet notability guidelines. The references are more about Klein and his antics, mentioning Jennifer in passing. UnfriendlyFire 15:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Dalejenkins 17:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep lots of news attention, but it will probably fade...borderline, but currently notable. JJL 17:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete belongs on Wikinews if anywhere. Also a bit of a coatrack as mentioned above. EliminatorJR Talk 19:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge This material can stay in the Klein article. -- but Legislative pages do tend to go into politics eventually, & I doubt she'd mind the publicity. DGG 00:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Although it's been over a year since this happened (and therefore her notability is not temporary) I'm not sure she's as notable as the event, which was notable; reliable sources (canada.com, etc.) say it may have contributed to King Ralph's abdication. However, I don't think merging it to Ralph's article is an answer, since that page is already long enough and the event was one of the most notable of his reign. --Charlene 01:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No significant biographical content. All the relevant facts about the book-toss event are present under Ralph Klein's Controversises section. Canuckle 18:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As creator and sole contributor to this article I don't feel qualified to pass a vote on this issue. Furthermore, I know her personally and am as such biased. However, I will endeavour to add an argument in its defense.
As stated in the article, the incident and its fallout received significant provincial news coverage for a number of days and was significant enough to receive national coverage as well. Furthermore, it is my personal assessment that it was a contributing factor to Premier Klein's early resignation, although how heavily it factored in is open to debate. That the incident merits mention on an article as major as that of Ralph Klein I think suggests that, should the opportunity arise, we should endeavour to maintain at least a stub-length article on the issue. I strongly disagree with the assessment that it is superfluous; rather, I would submit that, having passed the test of at least marginal notability, we should maintain and improve it in the spirit of the free availability of information.
I have a friend that, before either of us knew her, wrote a school paper on the incident. While this anecdote is in itself rather insignificant, it serves to illustrate that the event, while small, is not necessarily trivial and as such, I submit, merits keeping.
However, by way of correcting DGG: no former Alberta Page has served in provincial politics to date. Alumni tend instead to find jobs in the civil service at various levels.
For what little it is worth, she received a small degree of media attention again on June 14, 2007 when she became the first Alberta Page ever to address the province's Legislative Assembly.
Thank you for your consideration and I appreciate all of your votes, for or against. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 03:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On further reflection, perhaps this should be merged/redirected into an article on the incident itself instead? That might present a suitable compromise. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 16:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was thinking along the same lines. The event certainly seems notable. JJL 18:45, 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 Merge and redirect to Monash University. - KrakatoaKatie 12:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Monash[edit]

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

Ex-amateur radio denied a license who now streams on the 'net. No assertion of notability. Coren 15:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • statement that Radio Monash is ex-amateur is assumption. Please provide proof of this statement Coren. Cazza411 11:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doczilla 19:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have made some changes to the article - sources conflict each other and none are WP:RS, but at least we have some clear idea of exactly what we are voting on now :) Orderinchaos 16:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per BDuke. It's been on the air for quite a while, but RS appear to be a problem, so merge for now. John Vandenberg 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain Notability asserted given organisation's history and the fact that it is still operating. Should remain separate from Monash University as it is in itself independent despite financial contributions from the University and it's operating location. In fact Monash University administrative support further asserts the notability of the organisation. I suggest people take the time to read Talk:Radio_Monash. --60.241.201.106 10:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The concern being raised here (by Australians who would want to keep this article if it were encyclopedic) is that Radio Monash has not been mentioned in newspapers, magazines, etc. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, please do. John Vandenberg 11:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    John, recent publicity of "Radio Monash" (as it is currently named) is naturally restricted to closely operating organisations such as, obviously, Monash University (including staff and students) and affiliated groups and thus I would be surprised to read of Radio Monash per se in newspapers and magazines. Yet I believe that the significance of the evolution leading up to the organisation as it operates today is such that it warrants an 'encyclopaedic' representation especially since the organisation still exists albeit under the name of "Radio Monash". I ask that you read this page from cbonline.org.au that mentions some of the historical context in which 3MU evolved, and the self-published history that can be found here. Community Radio is clearly an important aspect of society (and I am sure you are not arguing to the contrary) - the roots from which Radio Monash has since evolved in their own right, in my opinion, warrant notability. You can read more about that in an article by Dr. Jeff Langdon called "The Social and Political forces that led to the Development of Public Radio in the 1960's" published in 1995. I, however, do believe that this article does lack somewhat in historical context and detail, hence I can see why so many perceive that this page should be merged or deleted - but clearly I do not agree with those perceptions. The page should be expanded on and boast the significance (which I argue is readily seen if one looks) that this organisation holds which is distinct from the University itself.--60.241.201.106 13:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"naturally restricted to closely operating organisations", I dare say that's pretty much one of the definitions of "not notable". That's a good argument for delete, not keep! Coren 23:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha sure, if you take it out of context it is. --60.241.201.106 02:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. However the context is plainly visible above, and fully supports my comment. Coren 05:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oookay Coren, if you say so. ;) But to everyone else who isn't as steadfast in their opinion, you should be able to see from what I wrote that Radio Monash and all prior names are one and the same. There is clearly historical significance and it is my opinion (but clearly not the opinion of others such as Coren) that this is weighty in terms of notability. I also think that the authors of the article (of which I am not one) convey this. To clarify the quote of myself by Coren, I am trying to say that the organisation is now limited in its publicity due to licensing and being a youth/student service. It's exposure is reduced due to the relatively inaccessible nature of the medium (being the internet). This is akin to the way of Australia's Channel 31 where the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting coupled with licensing requirements hinder the station's viability since more and more households are changing to digital thereby making Channel 31 inaccessible. I would not relate the reduction in Channel 31's audience to a reduction of notability. Nevertheless, if people choose to deny the history as significant then indeed Radio Monash is not notable. --60.241.201.106 11:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing notability with popularity. Nobody here, I think, is claiming that this radio station is somehow unimportant. It does appear to have relevance to Monash University (which is why many here are suggested that the article be merged (back?) into the U's article). But it does not match the minimal guidelines for notability by itself. This is no reflection on what you perceive to be a significant part of history, but on the appropriateness of having an article. Do you have any idea how many amateur/community/college/student radio stations there have been since Marconi? Coren 15:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Coren I think you are the one confusing popularity with notability. 60.241.201.106 makes no reference to popularity, and the statement that "I would not relate the reduction in Chanel 31's audience to a reduction of notability", seems to have deliberately been taken out of context in order to fuel your argument. The writer never equates popularity with notability, or vice-versa. My interpretation of the writer is that the audience (and you could potentially argue popularity) is irrelevant to the notability of the station. Although Chanel 31 is less obscure to some than Radio Monash, Radio Monash is arguably of equal relevant notability. Just as Channel 31 was Australias first Community TV station, Radio Monash was Australia's first 100% online student radio station, as per the evidence of notability I've posted.Cazza411 11:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per BDuke. Ichibani utc 00:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence of Notability & Independent Reference In answer to John Vanderberg, as per no newspaper articles re Radio Monash, and in additionally to Coren who ASSUMES no notability, this link shows Radio Monash was Australia's first completeley online university radio station. I think that answers the question on IMPORTANCE. Admittedly the reference is somewhat obscure, but obscurity is a poor measure of validity (note Mendel's laws of genetics were published 1866, but languished in obscurity until the 1900's; they are now considered seminal works in the field of genetics)Cazza411 09:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain but reclassify after having read various arguments, I agree with --60.241.201.106 to keep page, but classify as a "start" page. I think it is worthy of notability, if a little obscure for those in the Northern hemisphere ;) however the quality of the article content could use some improvement. Article talk page said it was started by a fan. Note it seems Coren is not a person to accept individuals disagreeing with him/her, and I felt that he/she was deliberately attempting to provoke and argument with --60.241.201.106. Rather childish behaviour really. Cazza411 11:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Sr13 06:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UCW-Zero Tag Team Championship[edit]

UCW-Zero Tag Team Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable championship for a minor non-notable wrestling promotion, fails WP:V which is why the content was removed and fails WP:N, claims of being a member of the NWA is in itself not enough to warrant notability as even the smallest indy fed can pay the dues and call themselves an "NWA" federation, there has to be more to it than just paying the NWA due to achieve notability for the promotion. If Prod is removed without sources being provided it will go straight to AFD. Andrew_pmk | Talk 15:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffere from the same problems as the UCW-Zero Tag Team Championship article and all pertain to articles about the same federation maintained by the same user:MPJ-DK 15:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UCW-Zero Mexico Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
UCW-Zero Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
UCW-Zero Ultra-X Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

note: the bundle was added after user Coren voted just so there is no misunderstanding MPJ-DK 15:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete The federation has no inclusion requirement beyond paying the dues, and the championship has no notability of its own. Coren 15:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I keep my !vote for the whole bundle, for the same reasons. Coren 18:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the original prodder I vote delete does not in any way show notability, did not even attempt to show notability or verifiability when removing the prods MPJ-DK 15:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All BMG said it best. This kind of stuff gives the project a bad name. Darrenhusted 16:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, not notable in any way. Nikki311 23:20, 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 wasSpeedy delete--Tone 22:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Farrelly[edit]

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

I am not able to find reliable sources that show he passes the criteria for inclusion of biographies or even that verify the content of this article. Deprodded without comment. Pan Dan 15:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete I would have gone A7 all over this article if it hadn't been AfD first. Coren 15:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I would've been hesitant to speedy delete myself, there are no reliable sources (the only thing I could find, outside a wiki mirror, is the subject gushing about his "idol" on a message board.) Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC.--Ispy1981 16:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Delete because this article is non-notable, self-promotional, and has no common-sense means of surviving this process. StudierMalMarburg 16:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — It's non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC, and it has no reliable sources. *Cremepuff222* 18:53, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fragmentalism[edit]

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

Appears to be OR/personal essay and may be a neologism, not quite sure as the ghits give a lot of usages in varying contexts [4]. Asked for notability but couldn't work this out with sole editor of article so bringing it here.   ⇒ bsnowball  15:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Only sources and reference are on blogspot? Original research anyone? Coren 15:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (See my comment below)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  15:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  15:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The creator of the fragmentalism article edits with a very strong anti-science POV. Other essays he has written should be examined. As for fragmentalism, I can't find any reliable sources beyond the first cite in the article, and that is unavailable to non-subscribers. If someone could find the abstract, or better yet quote relevant sections, it would help us evaluate it's reliability better. Cheers, Skinwalker 18:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the recent edits to the article, I change my vote to keep. The newly cited material may find a better home at reductionism. Skinwalker 13:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per above. Doczilla 19:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not sure if this is a real concept, but if it is, it is written poorly--SefringleTalk 03:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Changed my mind after recent additions--SefringleTalk 19:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The issue here is not about how well written it is or if my views seem mildly antiscience to some strongly pro-science people, the main issue about deletion should be concerned to show whether this term is a neologism invented by me, and if it is a legitimate term used in academic discourse. If it can be shown that it is not a neologism invented by me and that it is a valid term then the article should stay. I believe it is possible to show this and below I present evidence that though it is not a commonly used term, it is a valid term used in intellectual discourse. The term appears to have first been coined by the American psychologist, Alexander Goerge Kelly [1905-1966] see Biographical notes
I present her some good examples of the use of this term: 1. "fragmentalism, which is that truth is collected piece by piece" [5] 2. "FRAGMENTALISM or REDUCTIONISM whole is equal to the sum of its parts whole is different from the sum of its parts that all things in nature are inter-dependent with each other...two opposing beliefs about how we come to know about nature." [6] 3. "This is why we WILL and ARE seeing fragmentalism taking over the world, except in the area of corporate consolidation, one of the very fuels toward the fragmentations." [7] 4. "fragmentalism - the notion that knowledge is a growing collection of substantiated facts or "nuggets of truth", independent of human reconstruction." [8] 5. "every fragment has a memory of the whole," [9] 6. "individualistic and ethnocentrist fragmentalism" [10] 7. It was Alexander George Kelly, referred to above, who "suggested that his philosophy of constructive alternativism was an approach to science that was an alternative to the scientific method favoured by psychology, for which he coined the term accumulative fragmentalism." [11] 8. "The deviation from the principle of ameliorative equilibration takes the shapes of monotelism, fragmentalism, and reductionism" [12] 9. "We celebrate fragmentalism. He most assuredly did not." [13] 10. "The three worldviews - fragmentalism, pragmatism, holism, - as identified by Greig, Pike and Selby (1989)" [14] 11. "Fragmentalism in knowledge is a natural response to professionalism and especialization out of which come the absence of overall conscious whole, of self-conscious attitudes and trends, of relevant critical theory and arguments against ever-increasing distance between professionals and real life,nature, social attitudes and the true-honest relationships of man with each other. Fragmentalism has, unfortunately, in one way or another, become 'scientific religion' of the academicians who are expert on one property or feature of man’s activities, actions, interactions or behaviour." [15] 12. "As a matter of fact, some have made public that the very creed of postmodernism is its declaration of "fragmentalism" as the real fate of man." [16] 13. "...one of the most persistent themes up to 2020 will be judging the economical, financial, technical and scientifically globalization in opposition to fragmentalism maintained by the smaller cultures, so long neglected and now brought to life. Here are the reasons we have reserves about setting up global cultures or a regional culture, that is an European culture with an European consciousness - because it is essentially for any culture to underline the difference." [17] 14. "That is the solution, not beating the worn out drum of fragmentalism which is european (reserved for Africa) by nature." [18] 15. "When a unitary and comprehensive outlook seems to be looking in on us in our unaccustomed state of heightened or vivified receptivity, we feel a disconcerting awareness, an overriding consciousness somehow posed over against our ordinary and less intense fragmentalism of cognition." [19] The term is also used in the following place: 1. [20] Concerning the article by M L Pope (ref 1 in article) see also: [21] Overall, given this wide-ranging evidence, I think it is incontestible that the term 'fragmentalism' is NOT a neologism invented by me, that this article is thus not OR, and though it is not commonly used, 'fragmentalism' is certainly a legitimate term used in academic discourse in quite a wide range of disciplines. On that basis, I recommend the article should stay. I would further propose to see the article revised to include some of the above new material so as both to clarify it and to give it greater weight. Peter morrell 09:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite Although this is not a well-referenced article as it stands, this term does appear to be used in some parts of the philosophy of science. For example:
Andre Kukla Antirealist Explanations of the Success of Science. Philosophy of Science, Vol. 63, Supplement. Proceedings of the 1996 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers. (Sep., 1996), pp. S298-S305. It is also used in cognition under the term "accumulative fragmentalism". I will edit this page to remove the anti-science POV, and add higher-quality references. TimVickers 15:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bizarre as it is, and generally unknown as it is, this does seem to be a philosophical position that has been referred to, criticised and developed by a number of different professional philosophers in professionally recognised journals and books. Anarchia 03:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've further rewritten the article to make it clear that the most common usage is pejorative. TimVickers 14:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on rewrite.
  • this seems to me to make it clearer that we are dealing with, at best, synonym for the critical/'pejorative' use of 'reductionism', so don't see that it needs an article. tho with the caveat that i can't access the subscription only references (none of the others use the term in anything other than its normal dic. def. if they use it at all) perhaps putting the relevant quotes in the fns wld help.
  • second, we seem to have another coinage (definitely no neologism now:) "accumulative fragmentalism" which might deserve an article (tho at a single page of ghits [22] i don't know) but is a little tangential here. see what others think, but i'm not sure it changes that much, sorry.  ⇒ bsnowball  15:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to check the references yourself, send me an e-mail and I can send you copies of the Pdfs. Apart from that, if it is a term discussed in peer-reviewed journals, even just a few, then it easily passes the notability criteria. TimVickers 16:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
for verifiability it would be better if you quoted them in the article, then anyone can see for themselves. cld you also pls make it clear where you are summarising or quoting directly (the italics are confusing, are they meant to indicate direct quotes?) half the quotes (fn 3, 4 & 5) only use the the word fragmentary in its usual sense or don't use it at all. hence when looked at closely it now seems to be OR in the sense that the article is describing usage in primary sources instead of summarising definitions from secondary sources & again, there appears to be no difference between the claimed usage & reductionism. possibly closer should consider MERGEing on these grounds.  ⇒ bsnowball  08:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a requirement in the policy, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. I can provide copies of these references if you wish, but articles are more than an collection of quotations. TimVickers 15:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The rewrite is much better, and has sufficient references to establish the term as really used, if perhaps still marginal. Philosophy isn't my forte, so I defer validity to someone else, but the article now actually reads like it should be in an encyclopedia. Coren 01:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merging reductionism and fragmentalism is not a preferred option as these are two different things. Fragmentalism is the breaking up of the world into parts and the assumption that these parts are real. Reductionism also involves that but takes the parts and builds them into models and mechanisms and then assumes that these 'reduced' models comprise a fair representation of reality. Both involve assumptions and both are conceptual acts, but it is clear that they are sufficiently different from each other to keep them in separate places and under separate names. In point of fact reductionism is the secondary conceptual act and fragmentalism is the primary. Thus if anything it is reductionism that should be merged under fragmentalism and not the other way round. They both underpin the modern scientific worldview that has spawned such things as the Periodic Table of elements, the Linnean taxonomy of living organisms, the anatomical names of body parts, the features of the Moon, the names of planetary bodies, the names of continents and countries, etc, etc. On this basis, I would say the suggestion is not therefore tenable. Peter morrell 11:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting --Pgreenfinch 18:54, 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. Sr13 06:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot of Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo[edit]

Plot of Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Article has been tagged for months and, while some discussion ensued on the talk page, the article remains a plot summary. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson's Creek: seasons 5 and 6, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson's Creek: seasons 3 and 4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson's Creek: seasons 1 and 2 for similar plot summary article deletions. To answer one objection I imagine will be forthcoming, WP:WAX and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS do not serve as arguments to save this article. Otto4711 15:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • deleteness I don't even see how an article called "Plot of X" could be salvaged into something else. Coren 15:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:IINFO is policy. Cool Bluetalk to me 16:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge any useful info. to the main article. JJL 17:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 19:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NE1fm[edit]

NE1fm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, station only launched a few days ago. Speedy deletion contested. Adam Cuerden talk 15:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as per nom. Rgds, --Trident13 20:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, for a number of reasons. Firstly, just launching is not a reason to delete something. Secondly, this is a station broadcasting on FM, across a major city, on the same level as Metro Radio and BBC Radio Newcastle. It's launch was heavily promoted and significant in the city. Furthermore, all FM-based stations in the United Kingdom have articles. By deleting this, it's essentially opening up a can of worms as to whether local stations are notable at all. It should also be noted that Adam Cuerden's opinion is, like mine (as I created the article), biased on this subject - He originally deleted the article totally out of process, and is biased due to his connections to Hitz Radio UK (Hitz Radio have had problems with one or two members of NE1fm's staff, and they've looked to have many articles deleted because of their own personal issues.)
If this article is deleted, I won't look to have it re-instated again, but I find it absurd that it has even been nominated for deletion - It's an FM radio station, and every FM radio station in the UK has an article. Just because this is the newest one doesn't make it any less notable. The articles does require expansion, but the topic is very much notable. Esteffect 17:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, WHAT?!!! WHAT connections to Hitz Radio? I'm a bloody biology student who listens almost exclusively to classical music!!! Adam Cuerden talk 22:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A further comment from me here - NE1fm is a community radio station. All of the community stations in the UK are listed on this Wikipedia page. Many, as can be seen, have articles. Deleting this article would certainly raise the question as to whether any of them are notable. I also add that many internet-based stations that have nowhere near the exposure or reach of NE1fm currently have articles also. I'd also finally like to request Adam Cuerden not close this AFD as he has ended others on other topics he is biased about early. Thanks. Esteffect 17:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please prove your claims of bias, or retract them, and please stop repeating them. See WP:NPA. Corvus cornix 22:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought If this article is deleted, then I move that every article about an organisation which launched within the last six months be given the same treatment and deleted as well. Eugenespeed 10:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's hardly the main point: It's launched very recently and the page does not assert notability, and, despite the personal attacks, no-one has made any attempt to make such an assertion. The only argument so far made is "There's other articles on similar subjects." However, those articles (presumably) assert notability. This one doesn't. Its recent launch just makes its failure to assert notability all the more glaring. Adam Cuerden talk 11:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Launch date is irrelevant in my opinion.

Reasons article should be kept:

1. It is the first full time non-commercial community radio station in the Newcastle / Gateshead area.

2. It is the end product of approximately 10 years of other lead up broadcasts.

3. It is the official broadcaster of Newcastle's The Green Festival

4. In it's first week, Maximo Park were guests on the station. (Al Smith's - The Tuesday Club)

5. It is fully licensed by OFCOM

6. It has recieved write-ups in local Newcastle based print media. (e.g The Evening Chronicle)

7. It is on air now (and online) and people are listening to it.

8. It is listed on UK Community Radio websites.

9. A team from the station was invited to partake in the North East Radio Academy fun night.

10. It has a parent company, who are council funded, called CBIT (Community Broadcast Initiative Tyneside)

Well, if any of that was in the article - particularly Evening Chronicle writeups - we wouldn't be having this conversation. Add it! =) Adam Cuerden talk 11:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • facepalm* I just looked up the Evening Chronicle article. This is it. A short sidebar merely saying it launched isn't a non-trivial source. Adam Cuerden talk 04:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This has been in the Evening Chronicle actually, we have the article in the radio station - although it was not published on their website. We could upload the article after scanning it in, but no doubt you would then complain of the validity of the article. Again, I question your actions in deleting articles in the past for a number of reasons which I will not go into. It's insane to say a new community radio station (the first for Newcastle & Gateshead) is not notable. If you actually did any research you would see we were operating, we are on the Ofcom website, we're broadcasting on FM and online and the list goes on... In my opinion - if you delete this, again you will have deleted an article you have voted on, and as already stated, will question the validity of all articles on radio stations. I would be inclined to raise this with the rest of the Wiki admins. I personally question your increased interest in NE1fm & its participants and motives for 'just wanting to delete it' Kev Akas 13:47, 21 June 2007 (GMT)
  • Strong Keep. The station is significant enough within the Tyneside and broadcast communities for people to want further information regarding it, and find other information about people and shows associated with it. A small entry on a global community radio page is not going to satisfy the appetites of most people looking for a definition of it, and judging by the forums these people are likely to be significant in number.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.193.115 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. I can't find any reliable sources about it, and none are present in the article. My opinion could change if the article is improved, but since I don't see any way to improve it mysekf right now, this is how I feel. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:00, 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 No consensus. — Scientizzle 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Blond[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. No coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:BIO criteria. Valrith 14:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Almost no information is provided, and what little there is would make more sense as a list than anything else. The lead section is the only section in the article, which lacks even a table of contents. Finally, the article has been tagged for expansion since March 2007, with little or no additions since then (5 if you count a bot edit, a revert, and this nomination, 2 if you don't). Therefore, it can be gathered that Shelley Blond has little notability in the community. There is simply not enough information in it to qualify it as anything remotely encyclopedic, and furthermore it merely takes up space on our servers. Arknascar44 ¡Hablar Conmigo! 15:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, yes, I agree, Wikipedia can have as many articles as it wants, but articles like Shelley Blond simply don' t provide enough information on the topic. If there was some more information in the article, then yes, I would vote to keep the article. However, as of now, it seems that deleting the article is the only option (unless someone adds something major to the article, and fast). Arknascar44 ¡Hablar Conmigo! 01:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The original voice of one of the most, if not the most, popular video game characters in history. --Oakshade 15:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Arguably notable enough for inclusion (even if just barely). Article could use some fleshing out, but deletion is probably not the solution. Coren 15:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Her screen and videogame resumé falls far short of WP:BIO. Edison 21:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, minor actress with no notable roles. Perhaps if she had won an award for her VG acting, but she did not. --Dhartung | Talk 07:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. OK, it was only a voice role, and only for the first game, but Lara Croft? Puts her over the line for me. --Groggy Dice T | C 17:26, 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. Sr13 06:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Radney[edit]

Non-notable musician who fails WP:MUSIC. Claim to notability is a runner-up spot on a contest to perform on the Grammies - since then, seemingly nothing. fuzzy510 02:24, 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. Sr13 06:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Lohan's_third_album[edit]

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

Another speculation-filled and mostly-unreferenced article about a supposed upcoming album. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Kurt Shaped Box 14:49, 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. Sr13 05:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Carter[edit]

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

non-notable fictional character, possibly a hoax--Google searches don't turn up anything useful. Created by the same editor who created Hertex (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hertex). Article was prodded, but creator removed tag. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as something that has all the earmarks of WP:MADEUP. What's with the Greek transliteration (which retransliterated gives "Fiomet Gastes)? Deor 16:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find anything on Google. Seems to be made up, maybe a personal fantasy? Escape Artist Swyer | Talk to me 17:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clumsy hoax.--Wetman 22:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No article exists on Harry Jones or his "tale of Violet Carter". Zetawoof(ζ) 00:01, 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, no reliable sources. Fram 10:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hertex[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional characters, possibly a hoax. Was prodded, but creator of article removed tag. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Peacent 02:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of American Idol spin-offs[edit]

List of American Idol spin-offs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - tagged for cleanup for ten months. The absence of even vandalism patrol ("for both television and cinema sluts" indeed) indicates the low level of interest in the article. There is an extensive navigational template that captures actual AI-related spin-offs and series. The bulk of the article, when it isn't veering off into weird bits about Arthur Godfrey and The Gong Show, consists of trivial mentions of AI in other TV shows or films and most egregiously tons of WP:OR entries about other shows which share details of format or style with AI but which are "spin-offs" nowhere but in the minds of the editors who added them. Otto4711 14:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete List of irrevelent entries, some inaccurate. Unreferenced. Lots of WP:OR. Escape Artist Swyer | Talk to me 17:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if you don't count the thinly disguised "In popular culture" section, many of the entries on this list are dubious as "American Idol spin-offs". Come on, the video game is a spin-off? (It's a tie-in.) Even if this article were pared down to true spin-offs, there would be, what, two or three entries? The topic of AI spin-offs can be covered more than adequately in American Idol and List of television spin-offs#P (where AI and two spin-offs are listed under "Pop Idol"). szyslak 19:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 19:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From the first sentence: "Whether they be official or not." Arbitrary and unsourced. The template serves the same function better. Resolute 23:18, 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. KrakatoaKatie 12:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henryk Batuta[edit]

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

An article about a hoax on the Polish Wikipedia, with a few media sources. 588 Google hits including Wikipedia, mirrors, Polish Wikipedia et al. WP:ASR applies heavily here. References are inadequate. Delete or maybe merge into Criticism of Wikipedia.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - get rid of it per nom. Don't give him the publicity of a merge! Rgds, --Trident13 20:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable hoax. This is elaborate enough to be encyclopedic. DGG 00:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the media attention in Poland appears to grant minimal notability. We should ASR, but notability isn't relative to whether it's a self-reference. --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Henryk Batuta (hoax). It's notable enough as a hoax that duped major newspapers. It is the hoax that is notable. --Kimontalk 14:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The mention in the Polish and British newspapers seems enough to show external-world notability, beyond the walls of Wikipedia. Since the article tries to document the history of the hoax, it might be worth adding to the article that the original was created by an anonymous editor in 2004, and we no longer allow anons to create articles. In general there is some risk of glamorizing vandalism when we publicize the former existence of hoax Wikipedia articles, but this one seems helpful as an object lesson, plus it's not in the English Wikipedia, so the risk of glamorization seems reduced. EdJohnston 17:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 05:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide attacks in popular culture[edit]

Suicide attacks in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - the first nomination of this article closed "no consensus," with many of the keep voters earnestly asserting that the items on this unsourced list could be sourced. Three months and no substantive edits later, this remains a completely unsourced list, in addition to being an indiscriminate collection of loosely-associated items which may actually be suicide attacks or which may only be suicide attacks in the opinion of the editor who entered it (e.g. In the 1954 film adaptation of Animal Farm, Mr. Jones is seen planting explosives in the farm's windmill, but is not seen leaving the vicinity, implying he carried out a suicide attack.). Otto4711 14:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Chaser - T 17:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violetta (performer)[edit]

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

It's dubious whether she passes WP:BIO. Under 100 ghits minus Wikipedia and mirrors, most of which are personal websites, not WP:RS. This is about a performer in circus sideshows in the 1920s without any limbs. I think this is a case of WP:INTERESTING more than anything else. Does have an entry on the German Wikipedia and one on the Finnish Wikipedia, both of which are unreferenced stubs. Unreferenced stub. Doesn't show how she is notable besides her deformity, which in itself is not notable. Perhaps her performances are, but I'm not so sure.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - a merge may be possible if anyone wants to do that.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you searched under her real name. Search under her stage name and more hits generate, although it's difficult to filter them from other Violettas. A number of the hits look promising but my office filter doesn't allow me to view them. Otto4711 14:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Unreferenced stub"? LOL. Can this be merged somehow? On its own, its not much of an article. Freshacconci 17:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google shows that she was notable mostly for being featured in Ripley's Believe It or Not!. See [23] and [24] (the only external link). I have no proof, but I have a feeling "Violetta" was an elaborate hoax from the beginning. How does she balance on that stool? In one of the photos in the first link I provided, note that the stool is about how long her legs would be. I have legs, and I can't balance on that. I suspect trick photography and/or mirrors. She's a non-notable sideshow performer, and possibly not a real one. I encountered this article a while ago while cleaning up Category:Possibly living people, which included her at the time. Who knows why I didn't nominate it for deletion then. WP:INTERESTING, maybe? szyslak 20:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although limbless people do exist, there is little of note here, and this ultimately should be deleted per WP:INTERESTING. I guess that's why we have Ripley's Believe It or Not!: Wikipedia is not a directory of all information ever, as per WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING, so Ripley's, Cryptozoology blogs and Conservapedia exist to cover the strange, the dubious, and the crackpots. Freshacconci 20:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't arguing for deletion on the basis of "Violetta" being a possible hoax. If she were a Wikipedia hoax, that would be a different story. I just brought up that possibility as part of a larger argument about notability. As in, a sideshow act from the 1920s isn't notable, and certainly not a fake sideshow act. Just because WP:BIO doesn't specifically mention that possibility doesn't mean it's not relevant. szyslak 01:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the subjects of most of these articles are notable. However, there are thousands of people who have performed in sideshows, most of them not notable. szyslak 00:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I now find this source initially published in London Life magazine January 27, 1940, which features an extended description of her act. Noting that even if she is a hoax (which I don't believe she is) we have an entire Category:Hoaxes and the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Otto4711 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment above. szyslak 01:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is copied from the german WP, and they are rather good at keeping hoaxes out. They are also have stricter standards than we usually do about human interest articles, and I would defer to their judgment when they keep one in. (They do seem to have a peculiar habit of not bothering to source their articles) DGG 00:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal pages are not RS, but the fact that many people are still interested in her so many ears after seems to be indentification of some level of notability. Therefor, week keep I'll say. Kneiphof 07:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find there is a problem with verification still, which over-rides other considerations, though I would like the article to be kept otherwise. Tyrenius 12:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Otto found a source... but even from that source I see no evidence that this would ever be more than a microstub. With so little reliable info to start from, I don't think we should cover the subject. (I don't think the hoax issue is important, but the depth of coverage here is pathetic.) Mangojuicetalk 16:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. (This does not prevent someone from being bold and carrying out a merge to Nighthawks.) Waltontalk 16:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nighthawks in popular culture[edit]

Nighthawks in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - indiscriminate collection of loosely-related pieces of trivia. The items on this list have little or nothing in common beyond someone who worked on them apparently thought it would be amusing to arrange some characters in a manner that resembles the painting. Strongly oppose in advance the inevitable suggestion that this be merged into the article on the painting. It's trivial cruft on its own and would be every bit as trivial and crufty in the painting's article. Otto4711 13:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nighthawks and reduce to demonstrably notable instances. Шизомби 14:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nighthawks per User:Schizombie. feydey 14:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please cite multiple independent reliable sources that indicate that any of the items on the list are demonstrably notable. Otto4711 14:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As above I still recommend reducing the article to demonstrably notable instances when merging. These items per se are not notable, but describe the painting's importance and influence on popular culture. feydey 15:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nighthawks The uses by other artists is the most interesting aspect of this picture. Any failures to meet Wikipedia's standards will remedied over time. Len 16:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Furthermore, I agree with nominator's opposition to a merger. ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 21:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Articles frequently have a section "X in popular culture". This is useful and valid information in a study of culture, particularly the relationship between traditionally "high" and "low" culture. It shows the wider influence of a notable artwork. No objection to merging it with Nighthawks or keeping it as a valid content fork. Tyrenius 00:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - dozens of "in popular culture" articles have been nominated and deleted over the last several months and debate about the appropriateness of such articles is ongoing. The simple existence of a type of article does not serve to justify the existence of every such article of the type. Otto4711 12:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor does the deletion of other articles serve to justify the deletion of more. I am adding my view to the debate. Tyrenius 19:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, precedent is looked at in these sorts of debates, which, by the way, no one suggested you shouldn't add your view to, regardless of your view's reliance on such poor arguments as "this is useful." Otto4711 03:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge notable attested instances to Nighthawks, discard the rest. Nighthawks is one of the more important paintings of the 20th century, at least in the U.S., and it is definitely worth noting times that it has been invoked thematically, even in jest. I lean toward the idea of a paragraph approach to such mentions instead of a bullet list, since it's too easy to add any minor half-reference. Otherwise, Delete. --Dhartung | Talk 07:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, per Tyrenius, very popular painting, lots of connections to film noir, and art history. Modernist 20:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notably parodied painting. The introduction to a book of conference papers on parody uses Nighthawks as its example of parody in art, mentioning that a parody of the painting by Michael Bedard inspired a parody of its own (Parody: Dimensions and Perspectives, ed Beate Müller, ISBN 904200181X). Gerd Gemünden's Framed Visions: Popular Culture, Americanization, and the Contemporary German and Austrian Imagination discusses a number of parodies and homages, including a film by Wim Wenders and the Helnwein painting with Marilyn Monroe and James Dean. This story talks about the painting's influence, and more generally Hopper's influence, on film. The Banksy painting with the boxer-clad man throwing a chair through the diner window can certainly be sourced. The article will need some gardening, but it's not as bad as most "...in popular culture" articles I've seen. —Celithemis 20:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In a way, the numerous popular culture references and spoofs speak to the notability of the painting itself. To lose that would be to lose what makes this painting notable or memorable compared to other paintings by the same artist, with the same theme, or from the same period. It would perhaps help, though, to cite to a review of a movie that references it, rather than merely to note it's in the movie. That would at least establish the reviewer thought it was notable enough to mention. Шизомби 13:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge(and redirect) to main Nighthawks article per Tyrenius... Ranma9617 02:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Total trivia fork article. Just an indiscriminate list. Biggspowd 21:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the lot to Nighthawks and let the consensus there establish which instances are "notable" and which are not. I find it incomprehensible that the nominator considers the list as a whole to be "loosely-related". The common thread and the blindingly obvious cultural references are directly to the iconic painting; and far from "loose". The fact that the parody-creators (eg: The Simpsons) and direct-expositors (eg: Ferris Beuller) were inspired to the point of using the painting as part of the set make it notable. I would agree in a parallel case that every mention of or reference to the Mona Lisa in popular culture (TV, movies, books, etc. - could be hundreds of them) need not be exhaustively mentioned at that article, or in a separate article. But it would seem that a carefully screened list of, say, the top 10 or 12 cases (as determined by consensus) would make sense for inclusion (eg: The DaVinci Code). Therefore I think a goal of settling on a dozen or so instances of "Nighthawk sightings" would be appropriate at the nighthawk article. Delete after completing the merger - redirect is not needed since it is extremely unlikely anyone would go to the trouble of typing all that up in the search box to get there. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 15:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heroin in popular culture[edit]

Heroin in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - article has been tagged for cleanup for a year and a half, needing sourcing. This is in the main a sprawling indiscriminate list seeking to capture, without attribution, every song, book, film or TV show in which heroin plays some role. Given the lack of interest in bringing the article up to standards evidenced by its 19 month old tags, it's time for the article to go. Otto4711 13:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After peeling away the original research, all that's left is a laundry list of bare-mention trivia. --Eyrian 19:44, 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. KrakatoaKatie 12:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stugots[edit]

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

Delete - orphaned stub, so tagged for the last seven months. No real assertion of notability for this fictional boat either within the series or in the real world. Otto4711 13:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The amazing owen[edit]

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

Fictitious bio/vanity page (i.e., "vanihoax".) Only source is a YouTube page. This entire page is complete bollocks. Evb-wiki 12:52, 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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 image is kept, but is an orphan until some editor uses it) - Nabla 13:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woman in the mask[edit]

Woman in the mask (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure whether the subject of this article, who was injured in the July 7 London bombings, passes WP:BIO. She has been mentioned in the news but Wikipedia is not Wikinews - this article seems somewhat unencyclopedic - and individually this has no prospect for expansion beyond a stub and she is not notable in herself - it's the photograph that the article is about. Delete or failing that merge. See also Google UK hits for "woman in the mask" and "london". Also Google UK results for her name, barely 1,200 - and this will include Wikipedia and mirrors.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm unclear about the standards being applied in this case. The subject of the article is the photograph, not a person. Therefore references to WP:BIO are spurious. In fact, Wikipedia does not have specific notability standards for articles on photographs (most likely because we only have a few dozen articles about photographs and most of those are clear cases for inclusion). Falling back to the 'General notability guideline' we note that "Significant coverage" is in fact a consideration, negating Otto4711's comment above that newsworthy does not equal notability (remember the subject is the photograph, not Ms. Turrell). I think the article does satisfy the other points in the general notability list. I think the impact of the photo is fairly well established and that this shows notability. My problem with this article is that it purports to be not about a single photo, but about several photos, of which we are only shown one example. Moreover, we are not told the name of the photographer or given details about how the photo was created. If this article was limited to a single photograph and provided better documentation of the impact of the photos and awards given, then I think it would clearly merit inclusion. TheMindsEye 15:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article's lead sentence is "The woman in the mask" became the name used for the subject of several photos, some by the Associated Press, that became iconic of the 7 July 2005 London bombings. (emphasis added). This, plus the fact that the remainder of the article is devoted to the identity of the person, including such details as her name and occupation and the circumstances surrounding her injury and recovery, indicate strongly to me that the topic of the article is the person, not the photographs. Quoting from WP:N, Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. If there are reliable sources that demonstrate that the photograph has become notable in the long-term, beyond an initial short burst of news coverage, then an article that is actually about the photograph can be written that includes them, including significant information about the photograph itself rather than the person depicted in it. Otto4711 16:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Has there been news coverage of the photograph? JJL 17:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article deals with a non-notable subject and would be nearly impossible to expand. Put the photograph into 7 July 2005 London bombings and delete the article on the photo. Escape Artist Swyer | Talk to me 18:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are several articles on iconic photographs. The article isn't about her, but the image itself. See Identical Twins, Roselle, New Jersey, 1967 --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article, keep picture Redirect and put the picture on the 7 July 2005 London bombings page. Kwsn(Ni!) 23:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She did not plant the bomb, and she recovered from her injuries, so her relation to the newsworth event is peripheral. Per WP:NOT "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." The 2 newspaper references are inadequate to show that her having a strange looking first-aid dressing placed on her face and being photographed makes her or her photos encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an archive of every person or image who made it into a couple of newspapers. If an adequate rationale can be stated, the image might be used to illustrate the article on the bombing, or to illustrate an article on current first-aid dressings in Britain. Edison 21:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge unless more can be said about the use of the picture, as RAN suggests; otherwise I go with Edison this time. DGG 00:49, 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. Peacent 02:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of birthdays in Emmerdale[edit]

List of birthdays in Emmerdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - lists of fictional birthdays? Perfect for an Emmerdale fansite, unsuitable for an encyclopedia. If the individual character has an article then post the information there, but a standalone article is excessive. Otto4711 12:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Waltontalk 16:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yanni Theodoridis[edit]

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

Completely unsourced for over a year, in total 24 google hits including Wikipedia and no google news, books or scholar hits. Should probably be considered 'unverifiable' or at least not notable. Addhoc 11:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If that's true, delete as non-notable musician.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the external links may not even be about him. In fact there are NO non-Wikipedia-related ghits about him as far as I can see. Possible hoax. Bear in mind however that the Greek language uses a different alphabet from the English language and the article may be mistitled.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if you look at the creator's contributions, you'll see that he made quite a few edits to Greece-related articles, even George Michael (an ethnic Greek). However this does not mean that this isn't a hoax. In fact, this could be a hoax of the magnitude of Henryk Batuta.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have a feeling a post-war Greek jazz musician may not have a lot of Ghits whether he's notable or not. I've put a call in on the Greece Wikiproject. --Charlene 01:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In response to Charlene's notice above, I did a search on the Greek Google site and I cam up with a few hits for this person as a Jazz musician. There is another Yanni Theodoridis (or more accurately in Greek: Γιάννης Θεοδωρίδης) with a multitude of hits but, it is a for a PhD in Psychology. --Kimontalk 14:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment His phone number is 0030-210-8946240, now you can call and talk with him.It is a real person,unlike Batuta.
    • Comment Being a real person alone does not in itself merit that the article should be kept.-

h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Call him to verify it.What do you expect?
I'm suggesting the content of the article cannot be verified using reliable published sources. Addhoc 11:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A biographical article about a living person that includes no reliable sources risks being incorrect. There are just barely enough Google hits to show that a musician of that time did exist and played the trumpet (so it's not a hoax). Lack of hits on Greek Google shows there's not much more we can do with this. Notability of musicians is usually shown through WP:MUSIC, and he doesn't meet those criteria. The claims for his 'legendary status' seem way over the top given the lack of sources. EdJohnston 16:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentA person that doesn't have a website and is not active anymore means that he was not worthy in his time? Remember that the worldwide internet is a story barely 10 years old.And at the end, is musician any of you? How you can judge if he's notable or not? Squezzed
Yup, that's a reasonable question. Eventually google books will have a scanned copy of virtually every book ever published and this should make internet searches a more viable means of establishing notability. If you're interested, the second external link given in the article gives him a very brief mention using the alternate spelling of Giannis Theodoridis. Addhoc 17:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 05:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Work time-out[edit]

Work time-out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Looks like either a hoax or original research, no sources and cannot find any to support existence of this concept Davewild 11:30, 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. Mangojuicetalk 16:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who Killed Tom King?[edit]

Who Killed Tom King? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Strong Keep - Nothing like this plot had ever been done before, it contains a full guide, which would not fit in the Emmerdale article. Thenthornthing 11:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exceptionally weak keep - only because it contains some details about the out-of-universe aspects of the storyline. However, the obsessive level of in-universe detail is a clear violation of style guidelines and the article needs a massive re-write to emphasise the out-of-universe impact and reduce the plot details by about 75-80%. If the article is kept but not re-written, I would support deletion when it's nominated again. Otto4711 12:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thenthornthing, as much as I hate Emmerdale, this storyline was the first "interactive plot" in Britain I believe. Bravedog 16:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep If the first of its kind in the UK claims are true, then I see no problem. However, it is very, very in universe, and needs to be hacked down a lot if it is kept. Kwsn(Ni!) 20:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as absurdly detailed and wholly inappropriate. So non-encyclopedic that it might be best to start again. DGG
  • Comment This is a nightly soap opera comprising oif over 300 (yes 300!!!) episodes each year. It is hardly a shorter 23 episode run of a US series. The programme covers so many minor and dragged out storylines to fill as padding throughout the year. This is just one of them. In a ratings ploy the producers plugged it alot - just as they did with the death of Trisha, plane crash, increase to 5 eps a week etc. As I stated before this has to go or be merged into the main Emmerdale article AlanSmith17 11:21, 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. Tyrenius 03:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Colbys episodes[edit]

List of The Colbys episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Wikipedia is not a TV guide. ListcruftAlanSmith17 12:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point about the article size, and I prefer merging to deletion, but articles aren't meant to incorporate lists (especially this long); doing so would be counterproductive to the article ever improving in quality/status. And for the record, most episode lists don't have much in the way of describing the parent series, they just provide the appropriate link back (assuming most readers will have arrived there from the main article). TAnthony 04:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, notability, the never-ending struggle! I would argue that the episodes are notable because the show itself is, and all the episode lists I can think of don't contain much more info than this (out-of-universe context?! It's a LIST). There are airdates listed, and I will actually put in short episode summaries when I have a little time and I imagine that will make the list more acceptable. TAnthony 17:08, 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. Consensus clearly in favour of this - early and non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 18:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_American_Heiress_episodes[edit]

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

Delete Wikipedia is not a TV guide

  • Keep as a reasonable entry in the well-established structure of lists of television episodes. See WP:EPISODE. Otto4711 12:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a summery of the series. Although, not complete, the show is still currently running.
  • Keep per above comments. Bravedog 16:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I know it's not the best reason, but there are lists of episodes of lots of other shows. Useight 22:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is clear precedent for articles such as this instead of trying to roll this information into the main article (and far beyond the scope of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). 23skidoo 01:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm glad to see someone brave enough to recommend the deletion of a list of episodes of a TV series. First, this type of thing is well-covered in the episode guides that are part of the show's website and the websites by fans. Second, Wikipedia shouldn't be a TV guide; unfortunately, it is, and that's one of its less endearing qualities. This is typical of deletion debates..."List of Japanese corporations"- bad!; "List of episodes of American Heiress"-- good! (And as a person who forgot to sign the first time, please sign your name if you're wanting to delete someone else's work... whether you agree or disagree with the article, it's not fair to the author if you remain unidentified).Mandsford 02:32, 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. Sr13 05:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Przemysław Gidel[edit]

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

Non notable as per WP:BIO: a very amateur youth league, no achievements (even local). —Visor (talk · contribs) 11:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, sounds like local hero, an equivalent of college basketball star; soccer at that stage is not professional. greg park avenue 15:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Every week while pruning the new articles list I see a lot of sportsman: apparently being hired by the smallest club out there or competing in the tiniest tournament makes a person notable for some. This is a good example of what I call sportsbiocruft. It would be good to estabilish a precedence and delete them, considering that we have a much stricter criteria for inclusion for most other groups.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. --  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the arguments made that junior athletes such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke (second nomination) just aren't notable. If one-time state record holders aren't notable, then just playing on a team doesn't make one notable. Edison 21:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: According to Polish Wikipedia, klasa okręgowa is a 5th (6th in some voivodeships) league in Polish football (soccer). —Visor (talk · contribs) 08:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, absolutely nothing notable in this article. Hero? Punkmorten 10:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The club he plays for are notable, but he is clearlyy not playing for their first team and presumably has not done so thus far as he appears to be playing for their Youth team. I doubt he is a local hero, just a case of a footballer being added too soon. Also a goalkeeper who has scored 5 goals yet no clarification as to how? ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How? While executing direct free kick, penalty kick or its series, I guess. See Peter Schmeichel with 10 scores. greg park avenue 16:25, 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. Sr13 05:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wojciech Jurak[edit]

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

Non notable as per WP:BIO: a very amateur youth league, no achievements. —Visor (talk · contribs) 11:00, 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 redirect to Football hooliganism#Poland; already merged and section links to the transwiki. Sr13 05:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ustawka[edit]

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

A neologism/slang. Delete as per WP:NEO: no original research, not verifiable and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (Optionally move to Football fight.) —Visor (talk · contribs) 10:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. There has been another incident during second game of semifinals for Europe's Cup between Widzew Łódź and Juventus Torino in Łódź, Poland, on April 20th 1983, when a drunk fan tossed a bottle hitting the line umpire in his head. The game was suspended for about 20-30 minutes while the umpire was being treated on scene. The alleged perpetrator was found by militia and paraded through the stadium led by six heavily armed guards, though, the common opinion was that they've got the wrong guy. Sorry, I couldn't find any references on web, too long time ago. greg park avenue 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, pal, but this is not Polish wikipedia and mere voting doesn't count here. You must give your reasons. greg park avenue 15:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But he already did it. WP:NEO states about original research, verifiability and WP:WINAD. 'Ustawka' article fails all mentioned criteria. Visor (talk · contribs) 16:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. He did, however, some explanation in black ink would be helpuful. Otherwise it's just a guessing game and not everyone is up to it. greg park avenue 18:07, 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 delete. Peacent 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7 Day Theory (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

Ridiculous article that is pure nonsense and as unencyclopedic as one could imagine an article being. RandomHumanoid(⇒) 05:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a massive WP:OR violation. No reliable sources quoted, no assertion of notability. -- Kesh 05:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That's not my article, but I am warring tired of trying to make that article look decient. Too many times, I tried to make this into Seven Day Theory, I tried to place reasonable information in the article, and tried to compromise with unwilling users. Go ahead, I am tired of these horrible articles with lack of creativity as explained in originality. LILVOKA 06:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like a hoax to me. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's something someone appears to have made up, and it appears to be numerology. No sources, totally unencyclopedic. It's no Paul is dead. --Haemo 07:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it may not be a , but it is complete WP:OR, has no references, and pure unencyclopedic nonsense. east.718 08:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The nominator followed improper procedure in sending this to AfD, here's the first nomination. east.718 08:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grumble. I'll fix this. --Haemo 10:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's done; I hope no one complains about the re-bumping of this. --Haemo 10:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, missed that, sorry.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 14:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am somewhat surprised this survived two nominations. Basically an unsourced collection of trivia, and I see no reliable sources talking about this theory. J Milburn 11:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- WP:OR Thunderwing 11:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crunch13 14:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Interesting, but not verifiable. WP:OR, and no sources. *Cremepuff222* 18:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-- Sorry, but as someone who used to think that his life was filled with references to the numbers 7 and 11, I can say that one can manipulate numbers as much as it takes to find a pattern... including getting a job at a Seven-11, living in a place where the highway numbers added up to 7 and 11, etc.... It ranks up there (or down there) with the Bible Code.
  • Delete albeit reluctantly. I maintain that, to a certain sector of society, this is a notable conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, it's that self-same sector which has made the article practically unusable and full of unsourced original research. Last time round, I tried to clean it up and introduce some kind of sanity into the thing, but this time around I don't think it can be done. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I THINK THINK THIS ARTICLE SHOULD STAY FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS

  • THE INFORMATION IN THERE IS CORRECT
  • ITS TRUE ITS A CONSPIRACY THEORY
  • IF YOU DO ALL IT SAYS LIKE LISTEN TO THE SONG OR DO THE THE MATH ALL THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT
  • TRUE, YOU MIGH NOT LIKE THE ARTICLE BUT THERES ALOT OF PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIKE THIS PAGE SO PLEASE DON'T DELETE THE PAGE SINCE PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIKE IT
  • IT SHOULD STAY BECAUSE THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT BUT THE THING IS, YOU JUST CAN'T FIND THE INFORMATION ANYWHERE ELSE SINCE ALL THIS IS DONE USING MATH.
  • SO PLEASE CONSIDER THIA AND SAVE THIS PAGE— Preceding unsigned comment added by Visalia (talk • contribs)
In response to those claims: (1) There's actually no proof that the information is correct (either in the sense that the conspiracy is true or in the sense that several of the things being claimed are true). (2) See the first response. (3) See the first response. (4) Whether or not we "like" the page isn't (or shouldn't be) relevant for those of us advocating deletion. What matters is whether or not the information is verifiable and supported by reliable sources, which currently it is not. (5) Where are the sources showing that people have done this? Without them, it's original research. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research, bad numerology. Edward321 03:37, 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 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lino Galea[edit]

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

The player has never played in a professional league rather than the amature very weak league of his country and also has only one cap with his national team --KRBN 09:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd say even one international cap merits an article. Mattythewhite 19:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Mattythewhite, he has a full cap, so fair enough. Proposer seems to have something against this particular league, it's a recurring theme.WikiGull 19:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1 cap is enough. ArtVandelay13 20:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It depends what you mean by saying "have something against this particular league". I believe generally that playing in a non-fully professional league he is not notable. And I find it joke to say notable for someone who has played only in a very low level league.--KRBN 21:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep already discussed b4. Matthew_hk tc 22:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per all reasons given above, played international football. And agree with the recurring theme comment, not only though for this league.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 01:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per the above. He's played at international level, so that's good enough. Daemonic Kangaroo 06:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - international footballer = notable. Agree with WikiGull, proposer needs to re-evaluate what is notable in terms of international footballers as per numerous recent consensus decisions here. - fchd 19:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 1 international cap is sufficiently notable. Jogurney 01:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. International footballers are always notable. --Carioca 04:16, 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.

Allied occupation of_Europe[edit]

The result was No consensus. Vassyana 10:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is a WP:POINT attempt to artificially lump together Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe 1939-1991 and Allied occupation of Germany 1945-1955, apparently in attempt to reduce the significance of the former. It had an associated category; I went through the category and found all its entries better described by one (and in few cases both) of these more precise categories.

In its current form, the article is non-salvageable WP:OR and ought to be deleted. Digwuren 09:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

Bad faith nomination for two reasons:
  1. User has also removed 80+ articles from the related category Category:Allied occupation of Europe. The nominator has a history of removing tens of backlinks to articles, and then taking them to AfD, claiming thet they should be deleted, as no article links to them. The nominator should have waited for the outcome of this process, before taking such desruptive action.
  2. The nomination is part of a personal vendetta by the nominator, whose contributions to Wikipedia so far are limited to WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:ATTACK, WP:POV, WP:3RR, WP:TROLL and other forms of disruptions. The POV he is trying to push is narrow nationalistic agenda of "my country was more occupied then yours", or more generally "some countries of Europe were liberated by the Western Allies, while others were occupied by the Soviet Union", a nonfactual rewrite of the history of WWII and the Holocaust.
Also, it seems to be generally agreed that the nominator is headed for WP:ARBCOM and most likelly a WP:BAN well, I do not really like the prejudge what the com might or might not do. -- Petri Krohn 10:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. (Some of the former content of Category:Allied occupation of Europe has been placed in Category:Allied occupation of Germany and Category:Soviet occupation, the later is classic WP:POV. Both of these cats are now uncategorized.) -- Petri Krohn 10:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. The article and the related category is under attack and revert warring by the nominator. Before placing judgement, please see the hitories of the article, the related category and the article space edits by the nominator. -- Petri Krohn 14:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you pardon my NEO, I would call the latter event the Big Sock Fishing. Digwuren 12:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Petri thinks that it is time for WP:ARBCOM then I would suggest him to start it.--Staberinde 15:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- lead article for the Allied occupation categories Thunderwing 11:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's definitely an idea. Let's create category: Estonian_Nuclear_Warfare_Against_USA, and article for it. Although the topic is total fantazy of a sick horse, the category justifies the article and vice versa. Suva 11:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - legitimate article although scrappily written at present. PatGallacher 11:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an overview of the occupation forces in post ww2 europe is neededAnonimu 12:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about austria, italy, iceland, denmark... all go in "allied occupation of Germany"?Anonimu 13:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Occupation of Austria, a partner of Germany in Anschluß and a long-time cultural relative, belongs to Category:Allied occupation of Germany. Brief presence of Allied forces in the immediate aftermath of World War II belong in the WWII-related articles, such as ... let me think ... perhaps aftermath of World War II. Digwuren 14:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention Greenland, the Faroe Islands and all the forces stationed in Western Europe in support of the "offical" occupation forces in Berlin until 1991. In fact there were quite many of these in category:Allied occupation of_Europe before the cat was nuked by the nom. -- Petri Krohn 14:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no Allied occupation of Germany since 1955 when Bonn-Paris conventions entered into force. Since then, West Germany has been sovereign, and the American military bases on its soil are there in accordance with corresponding international treaties, to which West Germany itself is a party. (Don't forget to take a look at North Atlantic Treaty, to which Germany has been a party since the Bonn-Paris conventions restored its sovereign power to participate in international relations.) The remaining occupation in the East Germany was a clear-cut case of Soviet occupation of parts of Germany; no Four Powers' activity was in it whatsoever.
Your inclusion of Greenland and Faroe Islands are just red herring. But what else is new? Digwuren 14:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a red herring: You removed the category from British occupation of the Faroe Islands in World War II. I do not remember if we also had an article on the occupation of Greenland. I cannot find it, as you obviously have removed the category, if there ever was one. -- Petri Krohn 08:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. This is a transparent attempt to create a moral equivalence between the brutal Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe (and the imposition of Communism there, for decades), and the US/UK/French occupation of Germany and Austria in 1945-1955 (which led to the Wirtschaftswunder, instead). As such, it's misleading, and only meant to prove a point (whatever the point is, I don't really care). Turgidson 13:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Split per Turgidson. Should be deleted or split into two articles, one about USA, UK and co actions in Western Europe and other one about USSR doings in Eastern-Europe. Putting them together in one article is ridiculous.--Staberinde 15:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now as I have little time I explain my point little more in detail. Biggest problem with article is that it puts together occupations during World War II and occupation after World War II. Concept of Allies of World War II applies after end of war only to occupation of Germany and Austria which main allies did jointly(although even there cooperation was quite "problematic"), in everythere else they acted independently and trying to make some arbitary connections is breaking WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Also could anyone explain to me how Allies could occupy Benelux, Greece or Palestine(British colony) then those were also members of Allies?--Staberinde 10:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article needs a POV cleanup. It is a one-sided view, weighted to the "occupation" viewpoint. — ERcheck (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and rename to Allied occupation in Europe following World War II to cover the entire subject of World War II allies (Western and Soviet) occupations--which did not exist in a vacuum from each other. Hmains 15:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Petri's arguments seem to be convincing. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is not a good article at present, but is useful as a partner article to those on the Allied Occupations of Germany and Austria. There is a lot of POV in the article, but the solution to that is to edit it out, not to delete the article. If the nominator has deleted unjustifiably 80 articles from the related category, should he not be considered for adminstrative action? Peterkingiron 17:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - largely unreferenced, or taken from very biased sources. Plus, we have relevant articles for actual occupations of individual countries, so this is a transparent content fork. Biruitorul 18:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a content fork, but a main article for the category for the "articles for actual occupations of individual countries". The invividual articles should be referenced from this article, with some content duplicated. -- Petri Krohn 07:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but only if it is immediately made the target of a significant improvement campaign. It's a valid historical concept and can be presented quite neutrally and encyclopedically, but I agree that what it currently is is a bunch of unreferenced POV nonsense. Renovate, don't delete. K. Lásztocska 01:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly an article with this title is needed; how it handles its subject matter is another matter. JJL 17:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Split - awfully POV at present, and the limited information could be split into East/West or even specific country based articles. Rgds, --Trident13 20:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Split - Title is wrong, both France and Spain are significant parts of Europe and they were not occupied by the Allies. In fact Frane was one of the occupying powers in Germany, ditto for the UK. Ireland, Switzerland and Sweden were not occupied either. To say the Allies occupied Europe is not correct. So split and merge sections into country specific articles, such as Allied occupation of Germany, US occupation of Iceland, Soviet occupation of Poland, etc. Martintg 21:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. This article is really a POV fork as per reasons of Turgidson: "to create a moral equivalence between the brutal Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe (and the imposition of Communism there, for decades), and the US/UK/French occupation of Germany and Austria in 1945-1955 (which led to the Wirtschaftswunder, instead)". Martintg 21:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
moral is against NPOVAnonimu 21:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come again? Biruitorul 04:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be a valid main article for many other post WW2 articles Alex Bakharev 21:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep On the WWII page, everybody always complains we have too much info in that article, and need to merge it into other articles. Many articles that are recently made are POV, it takes time to work them out.--LtWinters 00:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article really just duplicates existing country level occupation articles, at best it is merely a category, it adds no extra information that should be available in the individual country articles. It really is a content fork. Martintg 00:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good summarization of all those countries' after the war, instead of chunks of information taking an hour to read on each one. Some of the countries listed don't even have those articles on them. And you are saying this is a category, we there are many individual articles, well I mean you could say the same of the WWII article and that we don't need it because there are subcategory articles for each topic mentioned in the WWII article. --LtWinters 13:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, improve and expand. First point in favour of keeping: since one guy's POV is another guy's NPOV, POV is not really a good reason to delete articles - only if they cannot be improved or expanded to get rid of it, deletion or merger is a possible way out. Looking at this article it is so obvious that improvement is perfectly possible that I agree this is a bad faith nomination. Second, who is to say that lumping together what the USSR and the Anglosaxons did in 1945 was not comparable. Example one: King Leopold III of Belgium is on record as having said that Americans and British (actually most of the first entrants in Belgium were Canadians) coming to Belgium in 1944 was an occupation, and not a liberation. Example two: I know people who even today consider the arrival of Russian troops a liberation, and their subsequent replacement by Polish ones an occupation. Hint: it is to do with religion. (Zełwągi) And yes, there is a second point I want to make for keeping this: most of this end-of the war stuff is now either in a limited number of articles that are getting too long, or in a string of stubs which usually start with the nice POV word "Massacre". Congratulations to Petri Krohn on this one: he really hit the jackpot big time. This article could solve a lot of the problems we are having, by incorporating that information. --Pan Gerwazy 14:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. King Leopold II of Belgium died on December 17, 1909. Where and when did he make the alleged statement about "Americans and British ... coming to Belgium in 1944"? Turgidson 16:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see that you changed now to King Leopold III of Belgium. Same question, though: where and when did he make the alleged statement? Is there a source for that? Turgidson 16:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a long list of articles where a particular brand of users seem to be very fast on the draw. Now for the occupation: I know that this is a very difficult part of Belgian history, which nobody really wants to live through again (people old enough to be interested do not write blogs or create websites). But there are books about it and Maurice Dewilde in his TV series paid a lot of attention to this political testament of Leopold III. Of course, they can be traced on the web, if you know Dutch or French: "Leopold nam ook een redelijk negatieve houding aan tegenover de geallieerden, die hij beschreef als "les autorités occupantes".[134]" 134 (at [26] this) gives links to several books in French and Dutch. There is no doubt whatsoever that he used "occupants" and that word later came back to haunt him and his supporters during the Royal Question (unfortunately, there is no English or German article on that constitutional crisis, only Dutch and French - and only the Dutch article mentions the testament - work to be done)--Pan Gerwazy 17:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "particular brand of user", " very fast on the draw" -- is that a criticism of my drawing attention to your incongruous statement about Leopold II? As for what Leopold III may or may not have said in his "political testament" (I still do not see any reliable reference for that claim, just some kind of a blog, and sorry, I can't read Dutch), I don't see how this affects one way or another the case for or against the article under discussion. Turgidson 18:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is this related to the issue at hand? Why don't you take this to Talk:Leopold III of Belgium. -- Petri Krohn 19:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete b/c this article was created by copying fragments from already existing WP articles (compare Aftermath of World War II). This article is an example of selective soursing from WP articles to create a virtually new article supporting a certain POV. I don't care if the POV is legitimate or not, this style of writing (copying from sourses without any thought about how the content is presented in the encyclopedia as a whole) is at the level of 7th grade at best. :Dc76 10:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See results of google scholar search: [27]. There is no such thing as allied occupation of Europe. It was invented in Wikipedia.Biophys 05:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

The article needs to balance between several POVs. The WWII occupation cannot be discussed separately from the liberation of Europe. As an example, we now have an article, with a POV title Soviet occupation of Romania, which also covers the events of the liberation of Romania. This article tries to avoid this POV, by pointing out (in the very first sentence), that the foreign troops entered Europe as liberatrors. Another POV issue is what constitutes an occupation? Are foreign troops stationed by agreement in a souvereign member state of the United Nations occupation forces? There is a point of view that such toops are in fact occupation. We should however avoid stating this as the only interpretation. On the other hand, the occupation of Berlin only ended in 1991, it can be argued, that troops outside Berlin and Germany, but in support of the front line troops also constituted part of an occupation. -- Petri Krohn 16:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S - There are strong arguments presented in Talk:Soviet occupation of Romania (and archives), that for something to be called an occupation, it does not have to be a military occupation in the strict sense. -- Petri Krohn 17:49, 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 deleted as spam by me. J Milburn 11:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parkview Homes (Athens)[edit]

Parkview Homes (Athens) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Written like a real estate promotion. Also of dubious importance Takumotanji 08:42, 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. Sr13 05:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Me ... London[edit]

Do Me ... London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - This looks like an advertisement. A search on Google for the service brings up few results aside from Wikipedia, although the search results may be sensitive to how the search term is written (which is why I did not go the speedy delete route). Nonetheless, the company and this product appear to be non-notable, which is why I have nominated this for deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 08:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • clear Delete - it's WP:SPAM. Kbthompson 09:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100% delete - no question hjuk 10:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom et al. --Evb-wiki 13:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Adam Cuerden talk 15:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - its an adver-article! Rgds, --Trident13 20:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether it be an advertisement or not, it is a brochure, and it is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LtWinters (talk • contribs) 00:25, 18 June 2007
  • Delete - one question; Would Encarta or Brittannica have an entry on this? non-notable spam. Jhamez84 01:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please see the related nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Whitehead. Dr. Submillimeter 15:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:SPAM & per nom Rossrs 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nothing more than advertising. --RFBailey 17:40, 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. Sr13 05:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Road Rules:Fresh Meat II[edit]

Road Rules:Fresh Meat II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lack of real information, speculation Od Mishehu 08:26, 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. — Caknuck 15:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Tamilee Webb[edit]

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

Nothing noteable about subject KenWalker | Talk 08:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep She's one of the most well-known fitness instructors in the world, her videos have sold millions.[28] The Aerobics and Fitness Association of America (AFAA) have written an article about her.[29] Dionyseus 08:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to be notable, but 'most well-known fitness instructors in the world' seems a little much. J Milburn 11:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I'm surprised we don't have a Buns of Steel article (I'm not sure Abs of Steel is as notable, though). She may not be known by name, but her video series has even become a catchphrase and certainly made it OK to talk about toning your buttocks in a way that wasn't possible before.--Dhartung | Talk 07:47, 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 redirect to Kiss discography. Sr13 05:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List Of_KISS_Songs[edit]

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

Listcruft. east.718 07:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:IINFO. Not necessary, and not wikified, WP:MOS issues, etc.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IINFO :) Marcin Suwalczan [our talk] 10:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, any notable songs can be grouped in a category, otherwise, stick those released seperately on a discography page, along with the albums, and those released only as part of an album on the album page. Lists of non notable songs are unneeded. J Milburn 11:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, belongs on a fan site. Notable songs will be featured in the main article/album articles. Lugnuts 13:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you see duplicate articles, your first port of call should be Wikipedia:Duplicate articles, not AFD. Deletion is not the sole tool available for fixing all problems. This problem, for example, can be fixed by a redirect to Kiss discography, which the nominator could have done xyrself in fewer edits than it took to make the AFD nomination. Uncle G 14:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notable songs do/will have their own articles. And there is already a category for Kiss songs. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. And what a terrible article title. Doczilla 19:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge-Delete I don't think we need multiple articles which list the songs - it should only go with the repective CD's articles and possibly the KISS articleJForget 23:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kiss discography per Uncle G. -MrFizyx 15:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the above. Lists of songs, unless extensive and fully bluelinked, are not necessary, but redirects are cheap. - Zeibura (Talk) 21:32, 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. Waltontalk 16:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cinepoetry[edit]

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

Neologism. Original research. Long-term orphan. Main source is site of author. Term gets 91 unique ghits, filtering out that site and Wikipedia/mirrors. Drat (Talk) 07:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:OR, WP:NOTE, no reliable sources, and possible COI (?). María (críticame) 12:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources, and apparently a neologism. EdJohnston 04:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary. 5 google scholar hits and the name being connected with film festival awards[30][31] should be enough to attest its use for wikt purposes. John Vandenberg 05:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mangojuicetalk 17:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I decided not to redirect gregori Chad Petree and Jeremy Dawson who have been in multiple other bands with articles. Apparently their other claims to fame were not noticed in the debate. Mangojuicetalk 17:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carah Faye Charnow[edit]

Carah Faye Charnow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician whose sole claim to fame is being in the band Shiny Toy Guns. Her article should either be deleted or redirected to her band's article. Also nominating:

-- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all then redirect all to the band's page on the basis that the band members are not notable for anything other than being in this band and the articles do not contain any information not already in the band's article. A1octopus 22:55, 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 redirect. Sr13 04:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Penhaligon[edit]

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

This article is redundant, as the vast majority of the information is about the books, which already have their own article. The information about the character itself is minimal, and already exists in the section on the character in the Characters of The Keys to the Kingdom article. Alcemáe T • C 06:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahipene-Mercer, Ray[edit]

Ahipene-Mercer, Ray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not assess notability, completely unreferenced. east.718 06:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The article looks very well developed and sourced now, and WP:N is met in my opinion. east.718 21:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A city council member in a small town is hardly notable. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Wellington is the capital and second largest city in New Zealand, hardly a small town. Some research prior to !voting would lend your opinion more weight. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 08:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, it's not a small town, but it's not a particularly large city either. 410,000 for the urban area and 179,000 for the actual city limits, over which the city council has jurisdiction. That's rather small, in my opinion. Medium-sized at best. The fact is that he hasn't done anything particularly notable. While he has been a musician, activist, and politician, he was/is prominent as none of those. He'd definitely fail WP:MUSIC, and he fails WP:BIO in regards to being a politician (and I quote):
        • Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.
        • Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
        • Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.
      • A city council member is not a "major" local figure. If he was mayor, that'd be another story, but city council is hardly notable. He has to actually accomplish something. If he really has done something notable during his activist career, show a source, but it looks like it's still local stuff. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 11:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - While being a councillor, even for a capital city, does not automatically equal notability, the music career and activist career, should just, if sources can be found, get this article over the line. If kept, it needs to be renamed Ray Ahipene-Mercer. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 08:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 10:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — He seems to have some notability by being the leader of the Clean Water Campaign, but there aren't any sources to back the claims. *Cremepuff222* 18:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article has been sourced since the nomination was made, and there are a number of claims to notability, as Mattinbgn points out.-gadfium 19:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as city councillors are generally notable, even in large cities, unless they have independent major political influence and it can be demonstrated. This is campaign advertising, & I would have speedied this as a G11. However, if the music part is notable, which I can not judge, the article can be rewritten around him as a musician with some incidental involvement in politics. DGG 00:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Politically, musically, geographically, not a very important man. Kripto 03:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Member of a group that had top 10 hit in New Zealand as Ray Mercer [32] and council member of the capital of New Zealand. Seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to those who have commented about this entry. It is the first I have made. I would be disappointed to see it go. I am working on a history related to this entry. Some comments on points made so far: Ahipene-Mercer is one of less than a hundred Maori in local politics in New Zealand. he is I believe (have no source yet) the only Maori on a major council. He is only the second Maori ever to sit on the Wellington City Council. Clearly the importance of this is not obvious outside this country. Indigenous political progress is a major issue here. The Wikipedia guidelines talk about "state" and "provincial" level politicians. Well, New Zealand has neither states, or provinces. The social an leadership role in this country is taken by local politicians. This is particularly important against the background of our unicameral parliament and absence of a written constitution. Local politics are the only "other" politics going, except national-level politics. As for Wellington's size: something like 70 percent of homes in Wellington are connected to the internet, so that's a potential local-only audience for items about wellington of about 250,000 adults. I'd be perfectly happy if only one person read my entry, so the potential seems significant to me. I have attempted to add references and will continue to do so (though I'm sure I'm doing something wrong technically as well as upsetting those who think my home town and its leaders are not significant. Any way, nga mihi aroha ki a koutou katoa (warm regards to you all) Projectbob 12:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Numerous items on which to base a claim of notability, both those already in the article and those further explicated by Projectbob. The fact that a figure is not well-known outside his/her locality does not disqualify them under notability guidelines: see WP:IDONTKNOWIT which reads Some subjects' notability may be limited to a particular country, region, or culture. However, arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this systemic bias, Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population.. The real notability criteria for bios are at WP:Notability, and this article meets them. Article mainly needs better sourcing. As already noted, it also needs to be moved/renamed to Ray Ahipene-Mercer per Wikipedia article naming conventions. --Ace of Swords 17:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Some of the arguments for deletion here border on the absurd and appear to be made by people who would be challenged to find New Zealand on a map, let alone know anything of the context (outlined by Projectbob and Ace of Swords above) within which Ahipene-Mercer acts. As both a musician and a politician, he fulfills notability criteria and the article now has references to support this. I see absolutely no reason to delete. - Axver 22:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article now has fairly complete sourcing. A couple of days ago I added more references & a little bit more info, & marked places still in need of sourcing with the {{fact}} template, & the article's originator, Projectbob, has now added citations for most of those. So, the article has had significant changes and improvements since being proposed for deletion, which people might want to consider. --Ace of Swords 20:04, 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 No consensus. Pascal.Tesson 17:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Fivelson[edit]

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

Does not assess notability well, low content. east.718 04:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Non-notable, and probably want to add Tuxes as well; future book by vanity press from that author. Coren 05:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the changes now properly assert notability. I'm still worried about the obvioius conflict of interest, but the article itself is now okay. Coren 02:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Worse still, both articles were created by one Beachsidepress (talk · contribs), who just happens to be the above vanity press. Obvious vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 06:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Questionable notability, COI, likely spam. eaolson Keep. The author appears to be notable, thought the book is clearly WP:CRYSTAL. eaolson 03:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added: "This article is made by his publisher" I am certainly not a vanity press - Scott has paid me nothing - ever, as my website indicates - I never charge authors for any services. And several external articles have been added that show he has been published by other publishers as well. Also, the book Tuxes is available now for pre-orders on Amazon, and we are taking orders from our website and shipping now, so it is currently available. I did not put a link to Amazon on the article either. I am seriously working to maintain objectivity, and am open to other comments you may have. Respectfully, Ron Beachsidepress 05:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The changes apparently made to assert notability are enough. The author has previous publications, including books, articles in big name magazines, and movies (script). A note could be included in this article about his forthcoming novel. The separate article about the forthcoming novel should, however, be deleted. Felisse 19:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I have looked up the past articles Scott has written both on Google and in the archives for the Chicago Times, Playboy, ... and have seen for myself that he has been published by these major papers. I suggest we reconsider and vote for a strong keep. Ribike 20:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ribike, could you provide links to those articles so that I and others can reconsider? John Vandenberg 03:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, there are news archive results that may be useful, and the Route 666 (film) is held in a Danish library[33]. John Vandenberg 03:43, 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carrom Dron Award[edit]

Carrom Dron Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Author continues to create articles of non-notable subjects related to carrom. This subject has one ghit. Nothing indicates that it's a notable award. Article states "created in 2006" and "compromises a trophy and a necktie (?!?)" CitiCat 05:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. The article can of course be recreated if verifiable sources are provided to show its notability. At the moment there are none. Tyrenius 02:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surrey Centre[edit]

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

Non-notable shopping centre. Recration of previously speedied page (see: User talk:DAP384). Previously contained a list of stores - see the history. User in question has also created other, similar pages that were speedied. Speedying this page was unsuccessful, and going to AfD was recommended. Astrovega 04:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - looks like it fails WP:CORP - unless we're creating articles for all shopping malls. Rklawton 04:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rklawton. Shopping facilities need something more than merely existing to merit an article CitiCat 05:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • DEleteyes...c'mon, we've fished a good one.User:Kfc1864Talk to me 08:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too vague and failed to assert notability.--Kylohk 16:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no information about number of stores, history, tenants occupying the mall (this should have been kept before), might as well put it in the town's article only ... for now, but does not seem to have enough stores to meet WP:CORP--JForget 23:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote as I lack enough knowledge of the subject to cast an informed vote, but if deleted I suggest redirecting to Surrey Central Station. 23skidoo 00:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand This looks like an interesting example of first removing content from a page, and then immediately nominating it for speedy, and then when speedy is declined, nominating it for deletion. But it is a little more complicated. In the WP:MALLS Workgroup there has been consensus in recent months that lists of stores were not appropriate for shopping mall articles, served primarily the purpose of linkspam, and that they should be removed from articles--and that was indeed most of the content, and it was appropriately removed. There is no real agreement on "anchors", the main department stores and the like around which the mall is normally arranged; this too can be seen as linkspam, but it can also be seen as characterising the mall. The initial paragraph talking about the lead stores and the positioning of the center--both where it is, what stage in development it's at, and what is the socioeconomic positioning, was also removed. I've added it back, of course. It hasn't been sourced, however, though it almost certainly can be.

For most malls that come here, I've !voted to delete; I am generally rather skeptical about articles on malls, and I joined the workgroup with the intention of encouraging the deletion of articles on smaller and unimportant ones, and the development of stronger articles--and I'm glad to see this becoming accepted. But this appears to be a major mall, though it lacks information of square footage, and also on how long it has been there, and who the sponsor is, and any controversies about location, and so forth. All of this is needed. As the nom. said, the article has been added as part of a large group of articles about both notable and non-notable malls, power centers, and the like. It is reasonable to suspect COI, and to look at the articles skeptically. And indeed the power centers and the individual restaurant articles have been appropriately deleted by speedy. But at the same time, at least two notable malls, this one (probably notable at least), and the long established Augusta Mall, the major mall in the area, with a rich article and appropriate content were nominated for deletion also. It is wrong to add non-notable content to Wikipedia. It is equally wrong to remove notable content. Itis certainly wrong to try speedy deletion on an article that makes a plausible show of importance. DGG 16:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keeep per DGG. This does appear to be a major mall and the article needs to be expanded. --Oakshade 18:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as no context. King of Hearts 05:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T. Ryder_Smith[edit]

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

Non-notable actor/actress. east.718 04:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the article only has two links---that is it... no prose nothing but 2 links to two movies the actor was in...Balloonman 04:32, 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. Sr13 04:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Larson[edit]

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

Very little context given, seems non-notable. east.718 04:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Chaser - T 17:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rxart[edit]

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

Low-quality article on non-notable Linux distribution. Not clear if dead, since it seems there was a 3.0 release in 2006, but the website still talks about 2.0... Unreferenced, advertisement. Contains major misinformation ("Rxart was the best selling Spanish language GNU/Linux distribution in Latin America, having reached 350,000 units in 2005."). Chealer 02:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The nominator makes some very strong arguments. However, the article is interwiki-linked to four other languages. My personal opinion, quirky though it may be, is almost never to advise deletion of any article with valid interwiki links, especially if it's a foreign item and the interwiki article is in the native language for that item.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YechielMan (talk • contribs) 04:04, 10 June 2007
  • Delete - interwikilinks don't really trump an article with blatant misinformation, unverifiable claims, and stale content. /Blaxthos 16:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs improvement, but there are strong claims to notability on the article, and the distribution is definately not dead[34]; if I read this correctly, the distribution is being pre-installed on PC's. John Vandenberg 08:17, 11 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, DES (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while this may not be notable in the US, it does appear that this is fairly big news in latin america.Balloonman 04:42, 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. The arguments seem to be relatively split between keep and merge, so there certainly isn't a delete consensus. To those who still want some kind of merge solution, my recommendation is to try to start a discussion about a possible article structure different than the current one, get input, and see what you can actually build. Though many argued against merging, many argue that the games are notable enough for their own articles, but while that's a good argument against deleting or redirecting, it doesn't necessarily mean that the current structure is the best one. However, there is also some legitimate skepticism of a merge solution, so consensus may not develop in that direction. Mangojuicetalk 17:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Price is Right pricing games[edit]

(View AfD) Included in this nomination:

$uper $aver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1 Right Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1 Wrong Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2 for the Price of 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3 Strikes (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Add 'em Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Any Number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Balance Game (active pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Balance Game (retired pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Barker's Bargain Bar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Barker's Marker$ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bonkers (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bonus Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bullseye (active pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bullseye (retired pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bump (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Buy or Sell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Card Game (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Check Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Check-Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clearance Sale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cliff Hangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clock Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Coming or Going (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cover Up (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Credit Card (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Danger Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dice Game (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Double Bullseye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Double Digits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Double Prices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eazy az 1 2 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Finish Line (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Five Price Tags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Flip Flop (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fortune Hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Freeze Frame (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gallery Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Give or Keep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Golden Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grand Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grocery Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi Lo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hit Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hole in One (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hurdles (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It's Optional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It's in the Bag (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joker (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Let 'em Roll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Line em Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lucky $even (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Magic Number (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Make Your Move (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Master Key (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Money Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
More or Less (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Most Expensive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mystery Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now....or Then (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
On the Nose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
On the Spot (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
One Away (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pass the Buck (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pathfinder (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Penny Ante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pick-a-Number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pick-a-Pair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Plinko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pocket ¢hange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Poker Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Professor Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Punch a Bunch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Push Over (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Race Game (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Range Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Safe Crackers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Secret "X" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shell Game (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shopping Spree (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shower Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Side by Side (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spelling Bee (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Split Decision (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Squeeze Play (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Super Ball!! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stack the Deck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Step Up (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Swap Meet (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Switch? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Switcheroo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Take Two (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Telephone Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temptation (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ten Chances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
That's Too Much! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Phone Home Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Time Is Money (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Trader Bob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Triple Play (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Walk of Fame (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
½ Off (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I realize that this nomination will be upsetting to fans of The Price is Right, but none of these games appears to satisfy Wikipedia's policies on notability and reliable sources. There is no evidence that any of these games have been the subject of multiple, independent published works. Indeed, only three of the articles list any references at all, and in those cases the references are to either the official TPIR website or to a fan website.

Certainly the information contained in these articles is interesting to those familiar with the show (myself included); however, they go into far more detail than what is expected of or appropriate for a general-purpose encyclopedia. This level of detail for television programs is why there exist dedicated wikis such as Memory Alpha, Lostpedia, and the Muppet Wiki. —Psychonaut 02:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While it may be more detail than required for a g-p encyclopedia, I seem to recall that Wikipedia may include content which is appropriate to special encyclopedias. I think that principle might be found here. Do you have an idea as to which other Wiki it might be transwikied to, and if that wiki's license is compatible with GFDL? I'd suggest that Plinko might be notable on its own, but I'm neutral on the whole idea. (Mainly because, though, even though I think you make a compelling case, there's no way that more-articles-than-I-can-count-easily mass nominations deserve the effort.) LaughingVulcan 03:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plinko's the most popular of the lot, but even its article cites no independent sources. On the other hand, many of the other games, such as Bullseye (retired pricing game), were played only a handful of times. As for transwikiing, no, I'm not aware of any other GFDL-compatible wiki which would take these articles. Which isn't to say there isn't one out there. —Psychonaut 03:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is just too much to look through. Some of these probably should go, but others probably should stay. I for one am not going to read each one and decide this. Also, for sources look at List of Pricing Games from CBS. While I know you can't write the article and then find sources, its not like this stuff is made up or cannot be supported. Also, with Bob Barkers recent retirement and no new host named as of yet, who's to say these articles serve no purpose? Lets give it time, let people modify these articles and find new sources, and see the future of the show before we take any action. --CTwikipedier 03:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to The TV Wiki. I believe that these articles may be of interest to some people but it may be hard to find independent, reliable sources to verify their content and notability. --Metropolitan90 03:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Way too many articles here for me to be confident, though narrowly focused enough that it's only a minor concern, but my suggestion is that all of them be merged to a single page such as the already existing List of The Price Is Right pricing games. The Price is Right is a reasonable subject for an article. The pricing games are a reasonable section to include in that article. But that would be a fair bit of content, so a spin-off daughter article would be appropriate. Not this number though. Article on the games overall=good idea. Article on individual games=bad idea, like hopping to get the nickel when you're the first player at the big wheel with 95 cents on your first spin. Of course, reasonable sources for verification should be provided, but since notability isn't a problem, third-party isn't an issue. FrozenPurpleCube 04:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the ideal move is to merge in the list article mentioned above, and annotate the list. It's a really big job though. I'd work on it some if there's consensus. CitiCat 05:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • There are 101 of these articles. If they were simply combined into a single article, we'd end up with one massive article that's just as non-notable as the originals. If the articles are to be merged, then they will need to be significantly trimmed. —Psychonaut 10:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - sounds like a good plan to me. Charlie-talk to me-about what I've done 08:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - a single article or, if a single article would be too long, a couple of smaller articles (broken up alphabetically and/or by active/retired status) would be acceptable. Otto4711 12:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into one article with a short description of the games. If not possible, Otto4711's suggestion is good. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 14:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Looks like a perfect set of articles for consolidation. Tightly connected to a single theme, probably not notable by themselves, likely to be retrieved only by specific searches (i.e., for Price Is Right related material). ◄Zahakiel► 14:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I appreciate the comments posted above, honestly; But if these games are consolodated into one article, even just the rules of the games will be significantly longer than the standard "acceptable" wiki length for an article. I think a good number of the games are fairly notable Americana after 35 years of TPIR, and while I might agree that perhaps, Double Bullseye is not the most memorable and long-played game, if you're gonna have the other pages, completionism leads me to say that skipping an article for one game just because it's the least known of them all just leads to a hole in the encyclopedia. Perhaps a compromise is to merge "retired pricing games" into one article, while keeping the articles for active ones? I'm not sure. But I think the games are fairly notable in their own right. If every character on Lost who have appeared in 2 or 3 episodes deserves an article, I don't see why the pricing games which have appeared for years are less notable. TheHYPO 17:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to respond to part of this, no subject "deserves" an article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are not entitlements. As for articles on the characters of Lost, they fall under the purview of WP:FICT. If you find an article that doesn't conform to WP:FICT or other Wikipedia guidelines or policies, please feel free to take corrective action. However, the the existence of other articles doesn't justify the existence of these. Otto4711 17:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the articles are kept, we should probably do something like making a category to tie them together link-wise. ◄Zahakiel► 17:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I completely agree with HYPO above. These aren't just super-short stubs. Merging would only make one very long article. Reywas92TalkReview me 17:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I don't think think delete/merge is the way to cure the issue. These articles need sourcing which is available. They also need to be expanded to include their international counterparts, which will add substance to the article. I am not familiar with the independent, published works criteria; applied elsewhere in TV land will nuke most of the episodic articles of other television shows. This does not excuse the articles in their current state, as they tend to be magnets for junk, but they need an overhaul.—Twigboy 17:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, Same thing that Hypo said. Besides these articles are important. RuneWiki777 17:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for those who are saying that building list articles would be too long, I have started putting together a list for the retired games here. The list as of this moment encompasses about a quarter of the retired games. With redundant information removed and bearing in mind that with the merger of these articles the enormous navtemplate for them would be reduced to a single line item, I really don't think that a list of at least the retired games would be so overwhelmingly massive as to make a merger untenable. Otto4711 18:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - my retired list now includes all retired games. With all information from all the articles, and not edited to remove duplicate information, the article would be 64K long. That is not the excessive monster of an article I think people are envisioning, and with proper editing the thing can be brought well down in size. Otto4711 22:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With very basic editing it's now down to 60K, which includes some two dozen images. I'm hoping that those who're saying that merging the articles would make them too long are taking notice. Otto4711 22:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The articles contain useful information that is pertinent to a well known and notable television show. Combining all the games into one article would create a result that is far too long. -Quintin3265 18:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The show itself is a noted cultural landmark, and as a natural extension, so are the games played within it. Deleting them should not be an option. Merging is highly impractical; as others have said, even if the information for each pricing game was reduced to the absolute basics, combining it all would make for a ridiculously long and unwieldy article.Raymondluxuryacht 20:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these games within the game are apparently notable. Their current lack of sourcing is not a reason to delete: that would require that reliable sources could never be found. "Plinko" gets 285k ghits, including CBS (no surprise), Penn State University (taking on the mathematics of the game), and others; apparently there is a whole industry that makes or uses or supplies Plinko-type gizmos in the fund-raising world. Carlossuarez46 21:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but separate articles can be split out summary-style for games like Plinko that have a lot written about them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if this was an instance, but ever so often, a page listing many topics will become too long and will require a split. Having pages for some games but listing the others doesn't seem right to me sometimes, no matter what you say. Reywas92TalkReview me 23:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. This is a level of minutia and detail that is not appropriate to an encyclopedia. I would include examples of these pricing games in The Price is Right and could support short descriptions of each game (meaning 3 sentences or less) in List of The Price Is Right pricing games. In addition, I can support the keeping of Plinko or any other of these games with proven notability. However, the existance of one natable pricing game does not make all pricing games notable.. --EMS | Talk 23:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, how does this meet the NOT i.c.o.i.? It's not indiscriminate at all. Let's stay with notability issues. CitiCat 04:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge most, keep others the few with notability can be kept, merge the others into one article, and if it gets to big, split it up. Kwsn(Ni!) 23:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're saying to split it later, then what's the point of merging it? Reywas92TalkReview me 23:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mean like if one page is too long, make it "Pricing games (A-M)" and "Pricing games (N-Z)" or similar. Kwsn(Ni!) 23:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I don't think merging all of them into one will be good--JForget 00:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the inactive ones as in the magnificent work of Otto, which is a model for how this material should be handled. Reconsider the others after we all have some time to admire his way of doing things. There might be some important enough to be kept separately. DGG 01:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I forgot the inactive ones. If each of then can be reduced to 5-10 lines (providing that the list of inactive games is not too long, it can be merge into one for the defunct ones, but I don't change my opinion about the active ones.--JForget 18:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I think JForget is right - just merging them all eliminates reliable information. AppleMacReporter 18:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you merge all the inactive games into one list, I believe wikipolicy will dicatate that all the fair use screencaps will have to go (I'm pretty sure wikipolicy is that a "good article" ought to have no more than two fair use images). In a number of cases - particularly for the retired games - I think that that images is actually somewhat important in understanding how the game actually works. TheHYPO 18:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is only for "decorative" screen caps in "List of Episode" lists. In this case the caps would be providing a worthwhile visual aid and would be permissible.Sturmovik 21:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't looked myself, but I was told outright that for the Futurama article to be considerable as a "good article", it would have to have no more than 2 Fair Use images. While noone says this pricing game page would be a good article nominee, I assume that is the policy that we should be shooting to comply with. TheHYPO 05:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep allI personally have little interest in the subject but can see the problems clumping them all into one big article. Perhaps alpha-sorting them into larger articles (ex: a-e, f-k, etc.) might work. Benjiboi 19:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All per Raymondluxuryacht. --wpktsfs 19:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep with Some Merge For the past 35 years every kid home from school or adult taking a day off from work has become intimately familiar with TPiR Pricing Games. If you went around and asked people to name as many current world leaders as they could or as many TPiR games as they could, TPiR would win hands down. How some Wikisnobs could suggest that TPiR pricing games aren't notable enough is baffling to me. I will concede that the games with stub articles should be merged...either into the top level list or into a separate article along the lines of "Minor Pricing Games of The Price is Right", which would save having to add the descriptors for all the games in the top level list. Either way it is important that each has its own slot to attract expansion and new information. This includes not only how the game its played, its history, records, historical moments etc, but also probability analysis and optimal gameplay strategies. I find these articles highly relevant and useful and I respect the hard work that fellow Wikipedians have put into them. They should be kept and expended.Sturmovik 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "How some Wikisnobs could suggest that TPiR pricing games aren't notable enough" might not be so baffling to you if you were to refer to Wikipedia's definition of "notable". The reason world leaders are more notable than TPIR pricing games, even if the latter are better-known than the former, is because world leaders are the subject of multiple, independent published works. —Psychonaut 01:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Side comment. As a "keep" voter, I do not see the nom as a wikisnob. He (gender-neutral pronoun) brought up a point of notability and reliable sourcing. Correct on the reliable sourcing (which can be fixed), but I don't agree with the lack of notability. That's OK. Not everyone sees eye to eye, but the common thread is to improve Wikipedia. It is up to the community to decide, not solely by those intimately involved in the article. If the consensus goes against my vote, it is disappointing, especially given the depth of work involved. We pick up the pieces and edit accordingly. But it is not necessary to attack one's motives for suggesting an improvement to the encyclopedia.—Twigboy 04:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no problem with people who seek to make Wikipedia a better/more useful experience, but to propose a mass deletion of a significant amount of community work based on highly tenuous reasoning is grossly irresponsible and is not something I believe to be community spirited. I am sure that most people are familiar with "that guy" who comes down to the town meeting and proceeds to ruin things for the rest of us. I can't speak to this person's intentions, but I feel that his actions are out of line. I mean nobody is forcing anybody to visit these pages. If a page doesn't agree with you, just don't click. I feel that the notability standard is there to prevent everyone and their grandmother, and every street and its pizza parlor from getting a Wikipedia article. Aside from that it is a low bar, like the "modicum of creativity" for copyrights and "non-obviousness" for patents. Wikipedia is based on constructive improvement and enabling the long tail. Destructive improvements should be used VERY sparingly. I have a strong dislike for those who seem to get fulfillment by removing the hard work of others as opposed to putting in effort of their own to make something acceptable to all parties.Sturmovik 16:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I support most of your POV, I disagree about strategy and probability. While it is theoretically interesting, most strategy that were in the articles when I got to them were what I would consider "original research". Secondarily, The fact that there are 25,893 possible path combinations on the Pathfinder board is not particularly useful or interesting information. I've tried to cut out such OR/superfluously unimportant statistical information. (EG: A full statistical analysis of the odds of getting each dollar value winning punchboard with 1 punch, 2 punches, etc... is possible, but way too overboard to me... while calculating the odds even of just winning the 10,900 prize, which I THINK might have been listed at one point, is kinda original research, and somewhat trivial. TheHYPO 05:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All I agree completely with the comments made by TheHypo and Raymondluxuryacht. -ChinookUT 09:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC) — ChinookUT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Merge Most of these television games have the same plot! Put them in to one big article. Chiketychina 19:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does this even mean? There is no plot to a game.... TheHYPO 05:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely changing my answer. If you merge, you're going to lose information - how some have cheated over the past, how they've changed, pictures, etc. People will decide it's too long, cut it down... And I mean, it's been around for 35 years not even counting the '56 show - I think it might've earned its spot.-Babylon pride 14:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but the notion that editors might edit an article is not a reasonable argument. Editors now can decide to edit any one of these for length. Otto4711 22:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All I concur with many of the assessments above. Twigboy accurately cites that while the articles may individually require cleanup to meet Wikistandards, they are in no way lacking in notability as integral parts - indeed the "meat and potatoes" of a veritable television icon. Moreover, it seems to be one of the very cornerstone strengths of Wikipedia to afford the general public academic (or at the least, academically-leaning) information that other hardcopy-published encyclopedias might not. It would be a significant disappointment to see Wikipedia deprive itself of decent articles like many of these, particularly when there are articles on subjects far more obscure than these floating about the Wikisphere. Bhs itrt 15:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Uvaduck 23:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All or Merge into single article(and convert current articles to redirects)... Ranma9617 02:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep all or merge into several articles, either in alpahbetical order or by active/retired status. --Nyletak ♥ 05:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This has nothing to do with anything, but I feel bad for whoever will have to delete all those "delete" templates if it's decided to keep these things... I hope someone has AWB TheHYPO 05:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All The games are a major part of a game show! —Michael 15:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge seems best. Voice-of-All 18:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all but Plinko and Golden Road. The reason those two should stay as that they are the most notable and famous of the pricing games in TPiR history. Otherwise I agree with the above about merging them into one article.Mi tch 'azen 23:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least keep a decription of each game as a reference. The downside to deleting these pages is that some games have little known facts (such as in Check Game, that one wins cash in the amount of the check if one wins the game). A merge would work as well. Hallpriest9 (Talk | Archive) 03:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into two articles, one for the active and one for the retired, MAYBE with redirects if one game or another is more notable. I actually spent an evening as a fan going through these, and rather than bouncing from game to game, I would've preferred a chance to go through the list to find the one I was looking for, as I only had a description without a name for the game. It's relevant to a long-running game show, so game information I'd say is relevant, but an individual article for EACH pricing game (even the ones I thought were dinky little boring 'pick a price and hope it's right for a small prize' games--didn't even think they HAD names until that night I wandered through here!) is too much. Plinko would probably be worth redirecting to such a list. As for noting cheaters, that'd be either in the appropriate list's article as a separate section, as part of the TPIR article itself, or if enough is available, a spinoff article. And don't forget there's an article for game show cheaters out there somewhere, too. IL-Kuma 08:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And speedy close too. These games are very notable, and I question why they were even nominated in the first place. └Jared┘┌t┐  00:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jared. One 00:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all. I thought of this months ago, but didn't think anything of it. The games are not notable enough to all be separate. Furthermore, I doubt there will ever be enough sources or information to expand them significantly to become quality articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. per Jared Myself325 08:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP --Jnelson09 14:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With the advent of Wikis about this subject matter, I would suggest that somebody start making a Wiki about Price itself, which would cover every game, historic moments among others. I'm not sure if that would help, but... -TonicBH 17:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with exceptions Ones which are notable enough (with sources) can have their own article, merge the rest and redirect. GDonato (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A&P (story)[edit]

A&P (story) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is just a plot summery. Subject does not seem notable meshach 03:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article needs improvement and sourcing, more real-world analysis & context. But this is a notable story by a very notable author, and it shouldn't be hard to find sources to improve this. DES (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BK point 5 The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources. John Updike fits that criteria IMHOBalloonman 04:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's still appropriate to request third party sources and analysis, the page is still nothing but a plot summary. Updike is a notable author, but this isn't a good article. Yet. FrozenPurpleCube 05:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Won't dispute that... but that doesn't justify deletion.Balloonman 05:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to John Updike - Written by a notable author, but the short story is not notable itself. No reason for a seperate article to exist. Note that this is not even a full book, it's a short story, so WP:BK point 5 does not strictly apply. -- Kesh 05:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Changing my vote now that the article has been expanded and properly referenced. Good job! I think we can WP:SNOWball this one, now. -- Kesh 03:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure how notable this story is, but the author is certainly notable. With better sourcing and discussion of the siginificance of the story (assuming it has any) this article would be a definite keeper. Note that in the rather esoteric category "1961 short stories" (in which this article is included) there are several other short stories included, some by less notable authors. Also, if we can have an article on every episode of a stupid TV show, we can certainly have an article on every short story Updike every wrote.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete — Sure it's notable, but it has no sources. An article can't be kept if it's original research. If sources are found, I'd say keep, but as it stands, the article should be deleted. *Cremepuff222* 18:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, Yep, it looks fine now. Thanks for adding the sources! *Cremepuff222* 22:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now that the sources have been added--this is the sort of material needed to supplement a great many articles in WP that are now mainly or entirely plot descriptions. Weak deleteunless some sources discussing the story are added. They surely exist, since this is a staple in literature classes.DGG 01:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC) DGG 03:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it's silly for this story to get deleted just because it is not sourced, so I added a couple of citations which I found on JSTOR to the intro describing the reactions of two English professors to the story (actually I only found the first article, the cite from the book was contained in the article which is sort of cheating but I think allowable, if not all of the new material can be sourced to the first footnote and still gives two different scholarly perspectives). I know nothing about this story, so hopefully someone who does can add more. This is all I could find on JSTOR quickly, though it's obvious from a quick google search that this story is used in classes and discussed all of the time and I assume there is commentary on it in any number of anthologies of American fiction. There are several published articles which are pedagogical in nature (i.e. how to teach the story), though I don't think that would really add much in terms of sourcing.
Anyhow, the articles has sources now, so hopefully Cremepuff and DGG will consider changing their votes.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd encourage adding the others--they are likely to be the sort of things useful to students as well as to teachers. DGG 03:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a quick search on "John Updike" "A&P" returns 14,300; not bad for a short story. John Vandenberg 03:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep With the references added, clear notability of the author, and respectable google search numbers, notability is established.--JayJasper 20:33, 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 defaulting to keep. Tyrenius 02:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flying while Muslim[edit]

Flying while Muslim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Entirely superfluous. Even if it is not an out-and-out neologism there is nothing to merit a page on its own; should be redirected to Racial profiling or some such. We can't give an article to every turn of phrase. Pablosecca 02:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While it may be a neologistic phrase, it's still gotten wide-spread coverage as a subject on its own. See: [35]. That's certainly a lot of significant coverage. FrozenPurpleCube 03:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary or Delete - Per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms: To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term.. The cited sources are not about the term itself as much as the practice of profiling Muslims. -- Kesh 03:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, since the term is descriptive of the profiling of Muslims, I'm confused as to how you can say it's not about the term. Exactly what do you think would be a source about the term itself? FrozenPurpleCube 04:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NEO If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use. Reliable sources are not articles that use the term, but sources that define or explore the usage. That isn't the case here, DeleteBalloonman 04:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes, so? I'm familiar with that, and the articles I searched for above easily meet that criteria, so I'm wondering what you're reading into it that I'm not. Because it seems rather obvious to me that they are discussing the concept. See below for an example. FrozenPurpleCube 05:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Balloonman pointed out, articles that simply use the term do not constitute reliable sources for the neologism. We would need articles/papers that explore the neologism itself and its impact on society. Just like we can't use newspaper articles that only talk about a person in passing as a source for a Wikipedia article about the person: the person must be the subject of the article, not simply mentioned in the article. In the cited sources, the term is only used briefly to underscore the treatment of muslims. The subject is how the muslims were treated, not the phrase itself. -- Kesh 04:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what either of you are talking about. You seem to be focused on something, but I'm just not sure how you can claim that there aren't articles about this subject [36] is not a case where the term is merely used, it's clearly about the subject of the article. Did you not see "The catchphrase is intended to draw parallels to the American phenomenon known as "driving while black," which refers to the tendency of law enforcement in some areas to disproportionately pull over African-American drivers. But other, more-moderate Islamic groups say their activist counterparts are exaggerating the degree to which it's taking place. These dueling viewpoints are currently being waged on two Islamic websites." . If that's not completely on target, I have no idea what is. I'm honestly completely baffled here. FrozenPurpleCube 05:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that CBS link is not mentioned in the article we're talking about, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make. The References section of the article do not have anything to do with it: 1 I can't speak for, as it's behind a paid link, but the abstract never mentions the phrase. 2-4 are not about the phrase, but about the phenomenon of muslims being racially discriminated against. The difference is distinct. Your CBS article is the first link that actually talks about the phrase itself, rather than the phenomenon the phrase attempts to encompass. -- Kesh 05:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since I linked to the search where I found it, perhaps I was hoping you'd look at it, or look for something of the like yourself. Sometimes it does help to go beyond the article. But if it bothers you, I'll add the source. FrozenPurpleCube 05:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind, the burden of notability and verifiability is on those writing the article. Linking to a search doesn't help, unfortunately. The article itself must be sourced to be kept. On the plus side, there's still a few days to sort through the links and find sources that do discuss the phrase itself and try to build some references that will support the article. If you (and others) can manage that, I'd be willing to change my mind. -- Kesh 05:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, linking to a search does help on AFD. There's a reason why it's important to *look* at what other people have produced and are saying. If you're not going to do that, then I'm sorry, but that's not going to help. I understand there are people who just say "But it is notable" and provide nothing. Or when they expect you to look at some book that isn't readily available but may cover the content in some way (minor or major, no telling) That's not the case here. I gave a search, with the first result being a clearly relevant article. There are lots of others. Clearly this isn't a case of a minor flash-in-night neologism, but a concept that has lead to significant discussion on it. I am quite satisfied this merits coverage. So far, you haven't convinced me otherwise. FrozenPurpleCube 14:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Deindent)

I'm afraid you misunderstand. Linking to a search means nothing. It is your responsibility to look through those searches, find out which ones actually support the article, and then cite the article appropriately. The number of Google hits is not going to sway an AfD, especially on a neologism. We need you to cite which articles are actually about the term itself, not just causally used in the sources in passing while discussing the actual discrimination of muslims. -- Kesh 20:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're talking at cross purposes here. AFD does not have to result in a perfect article, or even immediate changes to an article. I'm swayed by the fact that there are readily available sources to be used. Did I mention the number of Google hits? No, I did not. I said "there is a lot of significant coverage" which is something different. It means "Hey, I have found a lot of sources" which is a prime criteria for any article. I could understand if it was hard to look at those sources, but all you have to do is click a link and see for yourself. It's not hard. Honestly, I just don't understand where you're coming from. Are you disagreeing with the results of my search, or where you just ignorant of them? FrozenPurpleCube 21:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral and Reply Comment I think the question above is, "Where are the sources that explore the usage of the neologism?" As opposed to, "Where are the sources of the neologism being used?" All of the articles cited all appear to be incidents of racial profiling of Muslims as they fly (or attempt to fly.) The articles all focus on the incidents which cause the phrase to be applied. They are not about the phrase itself, just the phrase being used in the context of the incident. But that's just my two cents. Don't really see where it matters one way or the other; the information (since it's a well-sourced stub) could just as easily be merged into Racial profiling as easily as the article could be kept (or deleted.) 69.19.14.40 22:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to me the articles are clearly about the subject of this phrase, so I'm not seeing the point in this objection. This isn't a question of mere usage in these sources, but an actual examination of the situation. Hence my initial question earlier, of "Exactly what do you think would be a source about the term itself?" FrozenPurpleCube 22:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're still confusing someone using the term, with a news clip/article/book about the phrase itself. That is the difference. You gave an example earlier in the thread that actually was about the expression itself. That's what you should be looking for in sources. -- Kesh 00:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think you're confused and applying the wrong standard. It seems to me you're looking for more of an etymological approach than is warranted. I think the important part is wide-spread coverage of the subject, not an analysis of it. FrozenPurpleCube 01:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well sourced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As pointed out above, the sources are invalid. Could you provide a better explanation for why the article should be kept? Or, barring that, better sources? -- Kesh 05:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to racial profiling. This is on the cusp, but I think the encyclopedia would be better served by having it at racial profiling instead. --Haemo 07:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Islam is not a race. Indonesian sucide bombers are not the same as Arab suicide bombers yet pose the the same danger. Prester John 05:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The phrase may be a neologism, but the concept of Flying while Muslim merits a page and should be expanded. It is distinct from the common perception of religious discrimination in that it represents a major religion being feared rather than simply being considered inferior. It shouldn't be merged into racial profiling because Islam isn't a race. The phrase isn't Flying while Arab. - Pharaonic 10:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My motivation is that the content of this article, and there's barely any content, is totally the property of perfectly good existing articles, as mentioned Racial profiling, Islamophobia, Racism, et cetera. Also the content of the article appears mainly to stem from the case of the imams. And most importantly the phrase itself has no real history beyond being a casual creation, an adhoc offshoot of Driving While Black, which is in turn a parody of DWI. Pablosecca 15:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps you might have suggested a merge. Me, I concur this is an offshoot of existing articles. This only means that it should link to them, not that it's not sufficiently notable to sustain its own article. There's certainly more than enough content to just describe the phrase, and it has certainly received significant attention as a concept. FrozenPurpleCube 15:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to explain what's trivial about being featured on CBS, CNN, NPR....FrozenPurpleCube 17:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't. You are conflating someone using the term in an off-hand manner with actual citable sources that investigate the term itself. -- Kesh 00:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a new term of art, "Flying While Muslim," being used by some Islamic activist groups to protest what they characterize as discrimination by U.S. airlines against Muslim passengers.The catchphrase is intended to draw parallels to the American phenomenon known as "driving while black," which refers to the tendency of law enforcement in some areas to disproportionately pull over African-American drivers. But other, more-moderate Islamic groups say their activist counterparts are exaggerating the degree to which it's taking place. These dueling viewpoints are currently being waged on two Islamic websites. That is a citable source (CBS, US News), it starts with a definition of the term, and then explains examples of incidences that fit that definition. This is as good a source as Wikipedia could possibly want. Quidproquid 18:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's the only source that's been shown so far to actually deal with the phrase. We need multiple ones to satisfy WP:RS. -- Kesh 21:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except they're not using the phrase in an offhand manner. Sorry, but these articles are quite clearly about the subject of the term itself. Discrimination against Muslims is meaning of the phrase, discrimination against Muslims is the focus of the articles. If you think something else is necessary, I still don't know what it is. FrozenPurpleCube 01:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of marginal socio-political catchphrases. There are no secondary sources establishing the significance or discussing the usage of this phrase, and cobbling these sources together approaches original research.Proabivouac 01:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • False. There are secondary sources (i.e., sources that explain usage, rather than simply use it) and mention the notability of the phrase. Mukadderat 05:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term is used often, and sources include definitions and usage. The phrase is known well enough to be worthy of an entry here. Quidproquid 18:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets the criteria for notability.Bakaman 23:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable phrase. Sufficiently referenced, not only with usage, but with explanation of the meaning. Mukadderat 05:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Neologism and POV fork. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any unique material to Islamophobia or Persecution of Muslims. --Eliyak T·C 02:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and Salt; as per precedent set with Muslims fear Backlash. Non notable Neogolism. Prester John 05:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not similar. "Muslims fear Backlash" is a plain sentence, a statement of fact (whether the fact is true or false is not an issue), not a catch phrase and surely not neologism, i.e., the article is basicaly wrong. Here we have a verifiably actively used policitical cliche as cliche, not as a stament of fact. `'юзырь:mikka 06:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The phrase is in active use for 6 years now, although mostly discussing the flying imams case. If more Muslim proviling cases will not be reported, then probably a redirect to "flying imams" will be a reasonable solution. `'юзырь:mikka 06:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. It is interesting to notice that an investigation of "flying imams case" was promised, but I can't find any report or hearing. `'юзырь:mikka 06:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. ITAQALLAH 14:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the main point here: even if it's sourced (i.e., someone said it,) it's still just a recentist catchphrase of political discourse. See Religion of Peace for another article which should definitely be deleted for the same reason. Such junk articles detract from our credibility.Proabivouac 09:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a rather obscure neologism that's already addressed in the Islamophobia article. Korny O'Near 16:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a compendiums of idioms, be they neologisms or not. I suggest transwiking this to wiktionary.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 23:49, 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 No consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. Tyrenius 02:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of banks of the United States of America[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of_banks of the United States of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Huge, unmaintainable list. Would be much handled via a category - actually, there already is a category. Videmus Omnia 02:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, wp is not a place for unsourced lists. Like the nom says there is a category. meshach 02:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category is not redundant to the list, and the list is sourced to the articles ... If they were all red linked then it would be an "unsourced list". The list is broken down by state which the category is not. How exactly is the category sourced? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A category only works if an article has been created, but a list will include banks that don't in and of themselves don't meet the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia. The article would do better to have individual citations, but then again, there was athe FDIC list of Banks at the end.Balloonman 05:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hopelessly broad list. WP:NOT a directory, nor an indiscriminate hosting of information. A category would suffice, as the notable banks get articles on Wikipedia. Also, you can't cite Wikipedia itself to satisfy WP:RS. -- Kesh 05:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- meets WP:LIST (information and navigation) Thunderwing 11:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under WP:NOT#DIR. Category works much better. I don't understand how WP:LIST supersedes WP:NOT. Kwsn(Ni!) 20:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing that can't be handled here by a category. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This could be a good list with some work and some clarity about which banks should be included. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Again WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. The list is unmaintainable. Much more extensive and accurate lists are available elsewhere, particularly at the FDIC website.--JKeene 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Violates WP:NOT#DIR. WP:NOT#DIR is policy; WP:LIST is only a style guideline and is therefore not a reason for keeping a list that violates policy. Masaruemoto 04:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Robert Norton. Information about the financial markets in the US is highly notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Masaruemoto & Kwsn Khukri 08:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This does not violate WP:NOT#DIR. It's a work in progress. Eventually, the goal would be to have an article for every notable bank on the list. At such a time, there is no doubt that the list would certainly be finite in scope and easily maintainable. If there is a problem with a particular unsourced portion of this page, you know what you can do ("edit this page"). --- RockMFR 22:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's the case, a category would be a better solution than a static list. -- Kesh 22:33, 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 merged. Johnleemk | Talk 13:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTHS Math_Team[edit]

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

The article is about a high school math team. Only notability is placing high in a New York City interscholastic league. Only sources are from the school's website and the league's website. Clamster 02:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More sources if that pleases you, my friend
national contest, not just in the city
http://www.unl.edu/amc/e-exams/e6-amc12/e6-1-12archive/2007-12a/07-4_01-1012SchMR.shtml
Please look at "From the Indicator"
http://65.104.11.121/Math1966.html
It's from another school
It is hard to explain to outsider(either math nor science) the notability of the top math teams in the nation.
Online sources are not abundant.
Offline sources--need time--not a few hours to fight for the case.
This topic SHOULD NOT be discriminated due to the low number of overall online secondary sources.
This is not the same as some small companies putting their insignificant title in wiki. You can find comparision in businesses :reports but no one has ever compared math teams all over the nation. The only reliable way is to look at the results from some :nation-wide contest like American Mathematics Competition.
Clamster5, under what circumstances do you think that a math team is remarkable, significant?
Bthsmathteam 03:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, just so you know, AFDs last 5 days, which is over 100 hours, and the standards for notability can be found at WP:N and WP:ORG. If there are indeed more offline sources, feel free to produce such as you can find. FrozenPurpleCube 03:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, the editor is a clear conflict of interest concern. See WP:COI Second, it's a high school team. If it merits mention, that would be on the High School's own page. There may be enough sources to cover that, but I just don't see it meeting the standards of WP:ORG very well. Especially since it's unlikely that the article will be truly historical. There's enough problems with covering high schools. Covering their various academic and athletic teams? I don't see that working out too well. FrozenPurpleCube 03:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You for the COL Note
Read the article carefully and it is assured that the article is unbiased.
The idea of "that would be on the High School's own page" has never been disregarded.
However, AfD is the wrong tag for that. It should be a {merge} tag instead.
Also, notability tag itself is not adequate for a topic like this. {expert-subject} should be used.
No one is blamed for not understanding the statistics behind the records.
Please be more specific about "it's unlikely that the article will be truly historical." Which part is not true?
"If the article is about a specialized field, use the {expert-subject} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online."--from Wikipedia:Notability
"Online sources are not abundant"--as expressed above
Bthsmathteam 03:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, first I'm going to request you stop using section headers in the discussion here. They mess up the formatting of this page and make it hard to read and reply to you. Please use : or * instead of ===, it will look a lot better. And while your edits may be neutral, conflict of interest concerns are quite valid. There have been a lot of problems with that sort of thing before, so the best thing to do is to not even come close to breaching it. If you want to place the information on the High school's article, that's a valid argument to make in AFD, but I can understand how the original nominator would prefer AFD instead. There's a lot more eyes here. And expert? For a High School math team? I'm sorry, but this is not something that I would expect to be obscure or difficult to fathom. If it's indeed notable, it should be covered in readily available sources. As for what I meant about "truly historical" what I'm saying is that it's unlikely that this article will cover the history of the team in any systematic way. Right now, for example, it focuses on a couple of years. That's not convincing of the comprehensiveness of the coverage. Instead, it feels like some member of the team has decided to discuss their immediate experiences with it. That's not a good thing. It's not a bad thing like vandalism, but it's less than ideal. FrozenPurpleCube 04:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I'm concerned about your username, since it is associated with a particular group. That may be a violation of existing policies, so I'm going to ask an admin to look at it. FrozenPurpleCube 04:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good Comments. Your help is indeed appreciated. The username part is a good insight. What needs to be done is to improved its the historical content, which is not impossible. More info can be added later but there is no need to delete the article before people, such as the high school students from decades ago, can provide the proper info. Bthsmathteam 04:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, having the high school students from years ago providing the "proper" info would actually be a problem in itself, as that be a primary, not a secondary source, and as such, not appropriate for Wikipedia unless published in a reliable form. And while I suppose that lack of historical coverage might not be a reason to delete, the lack of significant third-party sources right now is a valid concern. FrozenPurpleCube 04:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that they know where to find the old articles and prints. Bthsmathteam 05:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I misunderstood you then, but I'm honestly doubtful you would succeed in that endeavor anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 05:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 04:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Finally someone is more familiar with the topic. SIBL (Science, Industry & Business Library) in Manhattan is closed tomorrow. The database there can provide great help. Clamster5 tagged the topic less than 30 minutes after this article started. Please allow time for improvement.Bthsmathteam 05:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the article should be merged into Brooklyn Tech's. Truth be told, Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, and Hunter have historically had better math teams but their math teams don't have their own articles either. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 05:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RandomHumanoid, I am not against merging as I have said above in reply to FrozenPurpleCube. I am only against delete.
FYI, Bronx Sci's Math Team has been inactive for a few years.Bthsmathteam 05:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know about Bronx Science's math team; that's a shame. It was quite good when I was in high school, although I went to one of the other aforementioned schools. Anyway, you don't need anyone's permission to include math team info in the Brooklyn Tech article. You can simply add a section about it within the larger article and forget about this AfD.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 05:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's considered "not notable", wouldn't it still be subjected to delete from the larger article?Bthsmathteam 05:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. What is being questioned here is whether it merits its own article. It would certainly be a reasonable addition to Brooklyn Tech's article, as long as the mention isn't overly long. You'll find that you have much more leeway here adding content to articles than you do in creating new ones. By the way, you really do need to change your user name to avoid conflict of interest WP:COI accusations. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 05:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I delete this article? Bthsmathteam 05:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but you can request speedy deletion of the article, with the understanding that you're going to merge with its parent. I'm sure an admin will close this discussion early in that case. Post a message at the top under the nomination for deletion. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 06:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or DELTE this article is not Read the article carefully and it is assured that the article is unbiased The team doesn't meet notability requirements---and it isn't because it's a math team---it wouldn't meet them if it was a sports team. Sorry.Balloonman 05:07, 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. Sources have been found, but need to be added to the article.Tyrenius 02:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clutterers Anonymous[edit]

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

While a Google Scholar search on Clutterers Anonymous does produce four unique search results, I do not believe there is enough information in them to justify notability. Two of them are documents put together by local governments listing the group as a resource for those who have a lot of clutter in their homes. The first journal article only says "The USA has recently spawned an organization called Cultterers Anonymous, which offers a 12-step program as a way of beating the accumulation of possessions." While the second quotes an columnist who uses the term "Cultterers Anonymous" but in such a way that it appears he was not referencing the organization. — Craigtalbert 02:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — Craigtalbert 02:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless coverage in reliable third-party sources can be established. Significant coverage would be most appreciated. FrozenPurpleCube 03:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while Google might not have produced much in the way of hits, [Altavista.com websearch produced almost 3000 hits. Now the ones that I looked at were largely CA's sites. But the groups appears to be well established in a multiple number of cities/locations from around the country (San Antonia, Minneapolis, Portland, etc)Balloonman 05:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nice thing about Google Scholar is that it is intended only to search scholarly literature, therefore most of the results will be reliable sources. So, while a Google search on Cultterers Anonymous returns nearly 10,000 results, a Google Scholar search returns four unique results. Microsoft's answer to Google Scholar, Windows Live Search Academic finds zero results [37]. For organizations, Wikipedia guidelines require that there be reliable sources documenting them. Therefore, regardless of how popular the Clutterers Anonymous might be, the lack of reliable sources documenting it makes it non-notable. — Craigtalbert 08:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep counts from GS aren't akways reliable, because if someone makes a mere reference to an article, they add an additional hit, but in this case it has done a very nice job of finding sources. Looking at them, they are sufficient to demonstrate notability by themselves. & just need to be added. DGG 01:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google News archive searches are far more appropriate than Google Scholar searches for a topic like this; this group gets 307 GNews Archive hits. [38]. cab 06:13, 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. Wizardman 13:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stearns High School[edit]

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

This article has been up for almost six months and has not demonstrated notability as outlined by WP:NOTE. Barring a substantial rewrite, I am nominating this for deletion. Trusilver 02:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Cedars 02:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article doesn't even attempt to make any claims to notability, so it could just have been speedy'd under CSD:A7. -- simxp (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know, I considered that. However, seeing that the article has existed for as long as it has, I wanted to give it's author{s) the opportunity to improve it before it's deleted. Trusilver 03:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no it couldn't. A7 speedies are for a quite limited category of subjects, and it is generally agreed that schools are not among them. In part because speedy deletes are supposed to be for uncontroversial deletes, and it has been historically clear that school deletes on the grounds of notability are often enough challanged that they can never be safely assumed to be uncontroversial. DES (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies; on a closer reading of WP:CSD you're completely right. I've striked my comment. In my defense, most school articles make at least some claim to notability, however dubious (e.g. listing a few 'notable' alumni); this article lacks even that. -- simxp (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, although not aproper speedy delete, there is nothing in the article that indicates any particular notability. so Delete. DES (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteBalloonman 05:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N as notability is not even asserted and WP:V because none of the asserted facts are supported by citations to reliable sources. --Butseriouslyfolks 17:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. JJL 17:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- non notable school Thunderwing 19:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep High schools are inherently notable given their importance in a community and the wealth of information always found in the local media. Notability should not have to be asserted since it is not possible for a high school, given its nature, not to be notable. Noroton 14:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You may wish to compare your definition of notability wih the official Wikipedia definition at WP:NOTE -- simxp (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment or better yet, the proposed criteria as sponsored by the Wikipedia School project---which doesn't even make the claim that schools are by default notable.Balloonman 20:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have compared my position to WP:NOTE and mine's much, much better, thanks. Better than the defunct WP:SCHOOL too.Noroton 23:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me, just out of curiosity... How absolutely horrific does a school article have to be to not be notable by your "much, much better" criteria? Because this one has absolutely no positive qualities whatsoever other than saying "Yes, this school exists." Trusilver 02:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it has to be worse than the worst community article. We keep community articles (articles about the smallest towns and municipalities at least) because we find them inherently important enough for articles. I don't think there's a written rule about it anywhere, but it's been the practice ever since I've been on Wikipedia that we never seem to even propose them for deletion. If a school article keeps getting vandalized and no one fixes it, then I can be persuaded to include it in a school district article or a community article. Otherwise, we have things we call "stubs" in Wikipedia, and I'm content to have school-article stubs. If you find that position unreasonable, I'd like to know why. Noroton 17:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, you must be refering to the line in WP:NOTE that reads, "articles on schools may be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located" that clearly indicates that schools are by default notable???Balloonman 06:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the response just above, if vandalism keeps occuring and doesn't get fixed in a particular article, I think that's a good option. I suppose if stubs remain for a long, long time, I wouldn't object too strongly to a merge (allowing for someone to resurrect the article in better form later). I generally think most stubby middle school or elementary school articles can be folded into larger school district articles, unless there's a lot of good information in them. But high schools are too important to merge without good cause, such as being a vandalism magnet. Do you see anything unreasonable in this position? Noroton 17:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely do. To start with Wikipedia is not a directory. I very rarely nominate schools but I did this one because it is a meaningless article. I mean, let's take a look at the information provided in this article you think is notable: It's location, it's school colors, it's two principle administrators and a teeth-grating look into their school song. By that criteria minus the song, the gas station down the street from my house is notable.
It take a great deal for me to declare a school non-notable. I'm currently harassing the authors of Field High School to get to work on their page and make it acceptable to notability standards becuase I'd rather not get rid of it. I will yell "keep" at the slightest hint of notability but it just isn't here. I think it's a no-compromise "no schools are non-notable, period." approach that makes our jobs that much more difficult because it irritates the people that honestly want to make compromises. Trusilver 21:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability adheres to subjects, not articles. You're complaining about the article, not the subject. A Google Archives search of "Stearns High" and Millinocket shows more than 300 stories over the years, and I saw several specifically or substantially about the school (all costing money to access). Is WP:N unreasonable? Because your argument is with Wikipedia policy. In practical terms, I see nothing wrong with a stub that at least gives the lyrics of the school song. Not everybody remembers or knows those things. I think your definition of "reasonable" for positions that differ from yours may be a bit narrow. Noroton 23:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — This page fails to meet even the most basic criteria for notability. It doesn't even have a school summary link. So I can't support a keep. — RJH (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume that means you're supporting delete?Balloonman 20:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another non notable school. Eusebeus 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not establish notability or context and limited information given is not verified. Might be notable with some work on expanding and verifying but current version is not worth keeping. Camaron1 | Chris 18:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Millinocket, Maine#Stearns High School until some notability is established. I tried to find the year of establishment, and found that there was a former Stearns High School building that has been repurposed as a 32 unit facility.[39]


Here is one useful RS[40]. John Vandenberg 01:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge Millinocket, Maine. Bearian 02:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article failed to assert notability. This is particularly true since the school song is the only significant information. Besides, search engine results only consist of alumni activities and education office reports, hence there aren't really reliable sources.--Kylohk 15:42, 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 Speedy keep per nom withdrawn. Tyrenius 03:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fullerton[edit]

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

Non-notable artist per WP:BIO, no references or sources. Videmus Omnia 01:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Nom withdrawn in light of new sources. Videmus Omnia 03:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Keep. Non-notable. No references. Info in article not verifiable (e.g., Tate exhibition). Good at self-promotion, though. I take that back. The Tate exhibit wasn't on his bio. I should have done a separate search. Sunray 01:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you think he's good at self-promotion? Tyrenius 02:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per easily verifiable shows at the Tate.[41] These are "Art now", which is a solo show of the artist's work, and "Triennial" which is a survey of the most important work for the last three years. That took 30 seconds to find out. Tyrenius 02:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy keep Article demonstrated notability when nominated - more so now. Johnbod 02:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at 22:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC). (Non-admin close) cab 00:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshminarayanan[edit]

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

unsourced biographie, looks like self-promotion (only editor is User:Lakshminarayanan 1978) - Nabla 01:11, 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. Sr13 04:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biofarming approach[edit]

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

This article is original research and is incorrect in its use of terminology. Biofarming is defined by the European Union as follows: "Biofarming (also written biopharming) is the use of transgenic plants for the production of high value proteins, new non-food products such as oral vaccines, veterinary products or industrial enzymes...[42]. Obviously this definition is the opposite of that employed in the article. The term is thus confusing, as it sounds like something it is not. Therefore the article should be deleted. Sunray 00:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Yep, completely unsourced and no assertion of notability. I couldn't find any good sources, so this manifestation of OR should be deleted. *Cremepuff222* 01:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Hart[edit]

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

Likely speedy Wife of pro wrestler, wrote a book, but clearly notable.—Gaff ταλκ 00:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — (Gaff, did you mean "clearly non-notable"?) :) The article is not notable whatsoever. The wife of a pro-wrestler doesn't make her notable per WP:BIO. Plus, it has no sources which I couldn't find. *Cremepuff222* 00:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Un-notable and unreferenced. Escape Artist Swyer | Talk to me 00:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 01:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even notable in relation to the Alberta Children's Hospital, the "Alberta hospital" that she does charity work for. (I like how it's written as if there were only one hospital in Alberta. Some days it seems like it.) --Charlene 03:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs to be expanded, but Martha Hart is a notable figure, not only through creating a charity in the wake of Owen's death, but also for writing that book and also for her legal challenges against the WWE. The fact the article doesn't reflect any of this is a sign that the article needs to be improved, not deleted. 23skidoo 00:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of articles written about her in relation to Owen's death, her lawsuit against the WWE, the settlement, the controversial anti-wwe/wrestling book she wrote and more - like 23skidoo points out the state of the article is sad, it should be improved not deleted as the subject fullfils the notability requirement, a quick search will tell you that MPJ-DK 08:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep + Expand - I see an interesting article here, it certainly needs improvement. But yes... there is an interesting article here. You can gather lots of references too. There is certainly going to be notability and if done right. There is enough citation on the internet on various news websites. Not only that, I think I will add a few things on the article to help out. Govvy 14:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not only wife of Owen and sister in law to Dynamite Kid, British Bulldog and Bret Hart, her book is the only family source for the Owen accident, one of the major wrestling events of the last decade. The article just needs some expanding and sourcing. Darrenhusted 15:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above reasons...article just needs to meet WP:V in order to meet policy, I believe this is something that can easily be done. - T-75|talk|contribs 15:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm in agreement that this article's current form is pretty poor. However, like the previous couple of people said, this article can easily be cleaned up and sourced. If it survives, I'll make it one of my projects. Nikki311 16:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I went through the article just now, cleaning it up and adding very minor sourcing. Like I said, this will be one of my projects if it survives, and I plan to expand it. Nikki311 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I'm always willing to vote to keep an article that I firmly believe is savagable---especially if there is somebody committed to fixing the problems...Balloonman 20:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Current version of the article does not substantiate claims to notability. Burntsauce 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A few minor mentions of her in news articles fails to meet WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney303 05:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, even if the news article is about her? What about the three books? Nikki311 16:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What news article are you talking about? I've checked every link in the article, and none of them are about her, they are all about events subsequent to Owen Hart's death. Ditto for the books, none are about her. The entire article is based around one event, the death of Owen Hart. That is not sufficient for a standalone article about her. One Night In Hackney303 16:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment hmmmmm I'd say her lawsuit against the WWE makes it about her, I say articles about her settlement with the WWE and how she is using it is about her - why not fight a fight you can win? there are plenty of sources listed on the page now, go see if Chinese checkers is properly sourced or something? MPJ-DK 17:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not really, all the articles are about events. There's little biographical information about her still, the whole story is the events following Owen's death. One Night In Hackney303 17:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, which is why the article needs to be expanded, not deleted. Nikki311 22:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Main claim of notability is being the wife of a professional wrestler, which is not instantly notable. If anything of value is here, it can be merged to the Owen Hart page. Biggspowd 00:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable for suing the WWF and collecting money for it, also a published author. Being a wrestler's wife is the icing on the cake. Impeccably well-referenced to boot. —freak(talk) 00:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per freakofnurture, multiple and verifiable claims to notability in triplicate satisfy WP:BIO guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 04:18, 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 02:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firecast[edit]

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

Non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 17:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DES (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — A non-notable distribution. It isn't covered by significant media sources, and the few sources it has aren't independent. *Cremepuff222* 00:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanispamcruft. --Bren talk 07:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Calling this a Linux "distribution" implies that it's distributed as a product, which it isn't - it only exists as a component of the FireCast Media Appliance, which doesn't have an article. (Neither does the company that distributes it.) It might be worth mentioning in an article on this product if one existed; however, it's not noteworthy on its own. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, esp. Cremepuff's comments. Bearian 02:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not sufficiently notable. John Vandenberg 07:42, 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. Sr13 04:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMiLDA[edit]

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

Non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 17:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Router-SPECIFIC distribution, and better suited to merging to an article on the ADM5120 which it supports (developed for the Edimax BR6104K / Sweex LB000021 and a host of other routers that use a similar ADM5120 system board) Ace of Risk 21:04, 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, DES (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Non-notable. The references are not independent (one is the AMiLDA Linux home page, and the other is the midge home page). Articles need reliable and independant sources (not to mention notability). *Cremepuff222* 00:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanispamcruft. --Bren talk 07:11, 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. Sr13 04:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malden Medical Center[edit]

Malden Medical Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Borderline advertising & lack of demonstrable notability Eddie.willers 00:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — The first sentence, "Malden Medical Center is a rural health clinic in Malden, Missouri.", pretty much seals the deal. A rural hospital (at least in this case) fails WP:CORP. The article has no sources, and I couldn't find any. *Cremepuff222* 00:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I REALLY want to vote to keep this article... if for no other reasons the comic value of this article. This is one article that you have to read... I had quoted some of my favorite claims to notability, but you just have to read this one... it is fun when you think that it is serious! Guess with those claims to notability, that this has to be a STRONG DELETEBalloonman 05:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Advertisement, not notable. - Pharaonic 10:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:13, 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 all. Sr13 04:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Car clubs for deletion (see links below for AfD nominee)[edit]

Listed in bold are the amount of google search engine hits

These articles are being nominated for the reason that they are they are nothing but internet forums masquerading as car clubs, like several thousands of them all over the world and none of them listed above have indicated why they are notable and not even one single contributor has come forward to explain that despite its claim. Willirennen 23:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all, none of them have any notability. There isn't significant coverage by the media, and no independent and reliable sources. *Cremepuff222* 00:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absent any significant coverage in third-party sources. There are many many clubs. Few of them are notable in their own right. These don't seem to even come close. FrozenPurpleCube 00:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- fails WP:CORP Thunderwing 11:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - could probably have been speedied. EliminatorJR Talk 20:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - ItaliaAuto Club is very well recognized in Malaysia and Singapore. Even users from many other parts of the world participate in it. It's been published and noted in local magazines and national newspapers Stevomeano 01:53, 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. Tyrenius 02:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chacharoni[edit]

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

WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, such as recipies, and nutrition facts. Leuko 22:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the article has been edited and the non-encyclopedic recipies, etc have been removed, it still seems not notable per WP:CORP, no WP:RS. Leuko 23:47, 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. Sr13 03:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Kombat Apocalypse[edit]

Mortal Kombat Apocalypse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT a crystal ball. No WP:RS for WP:V. Leuko 22:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom -- violates WP:CRYSTAL along these lines as well. In the future, though, please move for a speedy deletion or a proposed deletion instead of bringing it to AfD. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would have loved to speedy, but I don't think there is a criterion to cover this. Leuko 22:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but I don't believe it is really qualifies for speedy.Balloonman 20:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks reliable sources, search results on the internet reveals many fan videos, with no mention of the film. Hence it violates WP:CRYSTAL.--Kylohk 16:53, 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. Just non-notable. Sr13 03:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facternet[edit]

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

A non-notable online service provider. Article has WP:NPOV and WP:COI problems as well, as indicated by the use of the first person. Realizing that NPOV/COI issues alone aren't a good reason to delete, I made a good-faith effort to find sources, doing various Lexis-Nexis sources for "Facternet" in the text of articles in "European News Sources", "Major Papers", "Business News", etc... all of which turned up zero hits. Similarly for Google searches restricting to cnn.com or bbc.co.uk. It does get 29,000 google hits, but searching the first few pages yielded no reliable third party sources. I initially tagged as db-spam, but tag removed without comment. Two prior speedy deletions, one A7, one G11. Delete - Aagtbdfoua 23:46, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_17&oldid=1116877941"