Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 18

< June 17	June 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy Delete (CSD A1). Peacent 03:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Return of The Glass Slipper[edit]

Empty article save for infobox asserting a "2007 School Play". Nominating The return of the glass slipper for the same reason.

The return of the glass slipper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— Music Maker 00:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems that this should be speediable per CSD A1 or A3. Deor 00:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - {{db-empty}} or {{db-nocontext}}. --Evb-wiki 00:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I always forget about CSD. They've been so nominated. — Music Maker 00:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -- Ssilvers 02:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook stalking[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Captain panda 23:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms & WP:NOT. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 23:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A1 and per above. Yechiel Man 04:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to avoid neologisms. Agree with Hdt83. --Bren ^talk 04:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. JJL 04:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above Stevecudmore 05:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. oysterguitarist~Talk 05:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; aside from being dicdef, Urban Dictionary is absolutely *not* a reliable source, and this could be any one of a multitude of possible "{popular website} {activity}" neologisms. Fourohfour 16:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopaedic. <K F> 21:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I Facebooked your mom last night. Guroadrunner 02:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in all seriousness, Delete Guroadrunner 02:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Stunt[edit]

non-notable person. Claims of notability can't be verified and appear more like speculation. The rest of it reads like a fan biography. Was WP:PRODed but the warning was removed by an IP address. Internet searches yield little to no results (most I could find was tabloid Daily Mail article calling him a "notorious man-about-town". -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 23:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be a hoax article. Father's page was speedily deleted under A7 [1]. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 23:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps I should say Speedy Delete No Google hits from both the father and son, so delete per false info.--JForget 23:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google searches done on the name and the companies he is supposed to be involved with bring up nothing. (And, yes, this article is just screaming "Hoax!") FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 00:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Comment And a search on his name and that of the the member of Girls Aloud he is supposed to have been linked with brings up nothing. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 00:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it on: To propose this article for deletion for lack of verifiable information is just outrageous and based on personal criteria (jealousy) rather than based on objective research. Most of the information on this article is based on two articles and a TV show:

Source: 31st May 2007 Daily Mail

Source: Tramp Magazine march 2007

Source: CNBC Squawk Box 29th of March 2006

If you read those two articles you will find out that the entire Personal Paragraph is based on those two articles and therefore backed up by a serious national English newspaper and Tramp Magazine a monthly magazine targeting the English upper class. As a matter of fact most of the information is copy and paste from the Daily Mail, from his Lamborghini to his romance’s with Known members of the English upper class.

Further to that his business Paragraph is backed up by companies such as IGH and United World, if you did your homework would have found through the “Company house” that both companies are registered in the UK, and both confirmed the existence of James Stunt and acknowledges his merits. Further more I have taken the Time and initiative to contact both Alvaro Llaryora and Count Indoo Sella Di Monteluce (Both backed up in the internet as you should know) and they have both confirmed their friendship and business relationship with James Stunt. Should you require more proof of such communication, I would be happy to provide you with the exchange of e-mails or you can contact them directly.

I Truly believe that your petition to delete this article is not based on any Wikipedia policy as most of the information is backed up by reliable sources, but based on your own individual opinion which should not be considered when deciding whether to leave this article or not. I would imagine the editorial of such sources should be taken into account above all personal views including mine and therefore yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.198.189 (talk • contribs)

Afa-press, Intercom Ltd and United World: My name is Donald Trelford and as you can see on wikipedia I am the ex editor of the “Observer Newspaper”, for the past few years I have been working as a consultant for the Afa-press group and as you can see from one of their web pages (http://www.intercom-ltd.com/interviewstv.htm) I have conducted a series of interviews on their behalf with notorious politicians around the world such as actual President of Pakistan General Pervez Musharraf. This morning I came across James Stunt’s biography and even though I can not confirm all of the information on it I would like to confirm James Stunt’s involvement on the production of special report on Saudi Arabia distributed on the USA Today and his personal relationship with Alvaro Llaryora. I would also like to point out that James’s involvement was crucial for the success of the report.

Donald Trelford -- the preceding was original left by 86.144.198.189 (talk · contribs) [2], then 86.141.59.36 (talk · contribs) [3], and finally Donald Trelford (talk · contribs).

Delete obvious hoax. A google search of ""James Stunt" billionaire -wikipedia" yields exactly one hit: myspace. Anybody with the claims this individual is making would be all over cyberspace, not just a couple of newspapers that, convienently, do not have on-line links. The attempt by the article creator to pass off a getty images photo (with the watermark all over it, no less) as being his own creation clinches it. Resolute 04:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete agree with Resolute. Stevecudmore 05:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete It looks like a hoax. The only thing on it was the myspace page and here. oysterguitarist~Talk 05:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the articles mentioned by the anon above are trivial mentions. The Squawk Box mention doesn't even appear to exist. I don't think it's a hoax, but he's definitely not notable - just some basically non-notable playboy. --Haemo 06:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave article on "Interactive Gaming Holdings, plc" My name is Thomas Taule Executive Chairman of IGH and I can confirm James Stunt's involvement in the development and creation of the highly successful VIP program and his subsequent purchase of the Company. signed Taule user name igh123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igh123 (talk • contribs) , then edited by User:81.154.180.91, neither of whom have many edits outside this AfD. Resolute 13:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not speedy delete. Very dubious article; in addition to the non-appearance of his name when "James Stunt" and "Sarah Harding" Googled together (see above), the searches "Alvaro Llaryora" and "James Stunt" together yield nothing, the quote "Stunt, is the only man I know who has ever reached the limit on a Centurion Card" only comes up on this article. Half the links are only to the thing they are describing, not actually factual references. In short, this article is at best mostly unverifiable, and at worst made-up nonsense. It would be better to start again if this guy is notable at all. Fourohfour 16:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even the one reference link that works and gives a result is anomalous. Yes, it is on the Daily Mail site, but why is it the only mention of this supposedly "notorious man about town"? If he had come to the attention of the tabloid press, he would be generating a lot more than this one story. But... he doesn't. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 18:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'In responce' Flowerpotman you clearly have not checked the link properly on tramp magazine, if you had you would see that if you enter the tramp magazine link and then click on the subscribe today option you will see that it shows the front cover of their magazine and the name JAMES STUNT is clearly mentioned as being LONDONS TOP JETSETTER. So, Daily Mail is not the only mention of him in public media. Article is not a hoax, it should be perhaps edited not deleted. — 81.154.180.91 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment There is an image with that text on it, which a search engine wouldn't have picked up, indeed. However I should also point out that a backwards Google search, checking what links to a particular site is interesting. Checking to see what links to the home page of the Tramp Magazine website, and you can try that at home by clicking this link, generates all of two links, and one of them is a MySpace profile. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 01:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but only because WP:HOAX is not a speedy criteria -- Whpq 17:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Obvious hoax. If it wasn't the people who showed up only for this Afd should have been able to provide reliable sources. Edward321 23:32, 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 as a hoax. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The illuminator[edit]

(warning: article is about a sex act.) I suspect that it is a hoax, or non-notable. No sources cited, and I could find nothing on Google to verify it. greenrd 23:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G1, patent nonsense. Yechiel Man 04:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, looks like something made up one day. Fails WP:V. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, possibly a gagVectorsap 23:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Lagomasino[edit]

Non notable musician, apparent vanity piece Michael Johnson 22:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real assertion of notability. The myspace link proves it. Yechiel Man 04:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only link is to myspace. Not notable artical. oysterguitarist~Talk 05:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete biography of non-nnotable. Since when was Myspace a reliable source? Ohconfucius 10:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Worthy of a save if there is some stuff that is notable that is not written. Looks poorly written as it is now.Vectorsap 23:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfterDawn Oy[edit]

Fails the criteria at WP:WEB and could possibly go via WP:CSD#A7. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — Fails WP:WEB and completely non-notable. *Cremepuff 222* 00:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Bren ^talk 04:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. Sr 13 07:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Hawkins[edit]

article on corporate model/spokeswoman fails to establish notability as per Wikipedia notability guidelines WP:Notability (people) Canuckle 22:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator. This article may be spam as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Henthorn just below. I'm willing to believe a company CEO could potentially be notable but the company spokesperson? Canuckle 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, and most likely spam or vanity piece. I have also nominated Jenn Hawkins. As both articles are about the same person, one should surely be speedy deleted? --Michael Johnson 02:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google News Archive comes up with nothing relevant for either spelling nor does Google News. Redirect to Jennifer Hawkins as most hits for either spelling are for her. Capitalistroadster 02:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted, support recreation as redirect to Jennifer Hawkins, per Capitalroadster. No stance on actual deletion. -- saberwyn 03:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 23:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John McGrady[edit]

Wikipedia should not have biographies of living people notable for only one event Will ^(talk) 15:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article is currently at WP:DRV due to the closure of the previous AFD. Will ^(talk) 16:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing particularly noteworthy about this man who committed one murder. Dismemberment isn't that unusual, and neither is a whole life tarriff. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, there is nothing here of notable encyclopedic interest. Burntsauce 22:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)'[reply]
Unfortunately not what happened in Chris Erskine debate... recommend you all vote for that next time... must remember to note this...JJJ999 03:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP≠WikiPoliceblotter. All criminals who get caught and convicted get some publicity and he no more than the norm. Carlossuarez46 16:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No basis for encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus 22:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a plain old ordinary murderer. Not notable outside his native country. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archer (band)[edit]

Actually, I feel this should be speedy (A7), but someone else removed the tag. No assertion of notability (invitation to a future event, even if sourced, doesn't really qualify per WP:BAND).

Not signed with a significant label, no tour, no album, no press coverage, no notability. Coren 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability established whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The upcoming performance in Germany for this U.S. band is June 23, 2007, not very far in the future, and will establish tour-based notability for the band. The festival's official site at http://www.bang-your-head.de/english/ebilling.php confirms that the band will be playing there. The band also performed at the 2006 Tokyo Guitar Show see http://www.modernguitars.com/archives/002025.html --Eastmain 22:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point. A performance in a festival isn't enough to establish notability. Coren 22:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Notability is not temporary. Maybe the article can be recreated if it recieves significant media coverage, but the band just isn't notable right now. *Cremepuff 222* 00:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Band does not meet notability criteria at this stage but please re-add later on if they do. --Bren ^talk 04:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't do articles on the basis of what bands might achieve in the future, that would be a violation of WP:Crystal. At this moment in time this band does not meet WP:Music and therefore should be deleted. A1octopus 22:53, 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. Sr 13 07:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher john hinkins[edit]

Delete. non-notable, no references, doesn't link in anywhere else, apparent vanity page Smerus 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Non-notable under WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. The only source it has isn't independent from the subject. *Cremepuff 222* 00:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy failure of WP:Vanity. A1octopus 22:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Bearian 02:10, 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. Sr 13 08:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamak Fabrication[edit]

No secondary sources cited and no assertion of notability for this organisation. Possible meets CSD#A7 but as article has been around since 2006, passing it to AfD. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, no sources, almost advertising. Mr.Z-mantalk¢
Delete. No GNewshits & as per Mr. Z-man. Canuckle 22:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence A weber[edit]

Contested prod. Article appears to be essentially a resume/CV, with no obvious claim of notability and no reference to any reliable sources. JavaTenor 21:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claims to have written articles on Lincoln and Stonewall Jackson. No Ghits for these. No other claim to notability. Canuckle 22:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. High School teacher, several apparently minor papers, now going for a doctorate. Probably his papers are not sufficient for academic notability--though there probably have been a ffew exceptions, especially in earlier centuries. A high school teacher could also be notable for professional prominence among high schools teachers, as shown by awards & positions in professional association, but there doesn't seem to be any of this here. DGG 23:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 01:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- actually pretty well-written for a short article that lays out the subject's bio, training, research interests, and honors. But none of them amount to nearly "Average Professor" at this point, so WP:PROF doesn't apply, and I don't see anything in the standard WP:BIO which would fit. Finding reliable sources seems like it would be impossible. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:NN, WP:BIO, and WP:PROF --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 03:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem particularly unusual for a secondary school educator; I see nothing here that would pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein 20:28, 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 WP:SNOW and WP:N. Newyorkbrad 00:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Jefferson[edit]

Notability. The fact that this individual played baseball in the major leagues in of itself does not make this individual notable. I request that this article be considered for deletion. Jerskine 21:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per WP:BIO "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league...". He was a first-round pick and played 6 seasons with 6 clubs prior to being profiled in the New York Daily News for post-9/11 health reasons. Canuckle 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - to short circuit any further waste of time, WP:BIO states that "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards.... Athletes: Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis." Alansohn 21:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. He was a major league baseball player, which means he's notable per WP:BIO. User:Canuckle's reasons are also solid enough for me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per all of the above. Eddie 22:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all of the above. What motivated this? Burntsauce 22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See Talk:Co-op City, Bronx. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he played in MLB, he's notable per WP:BIO.NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though he had a relatively short career, the simple fact that he was a Major League baseball player justifies keeping his article on wikipedia. Because he is notable as a baseball player, I believe that his article should be further refenced with statistics from his baseball career. I will try to accomplish this by seeing if I can find the relavent information. Citizen Dick 23:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:BIO like virtually all professional league players. Although some expansion is require for the article. JForget 23:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UCIP[edit]

This is probably a hoax -- no result on a google search, and no mention on this page where such an evnet would be mentioned, if it were real. Also this same editor has previously created and edited a page about "UCIP" with a different meaning, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UCIP for relevant history. If it is real, it is unsourced and there is no indication of notability. DES ^(talk) 21:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as per my nom. DES ^(talk) 21:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also include United Confederation of Interstellar Planets which is a near duplicate. Change my view to Delete all. DES ^(talk) 21:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google turns up a big zippo in terms of hits for this topic. Definitely looks like a hoax. Nearly a speedy candidate, too. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both under WP:V as likely hoaxes. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Confederation of Interstellar Planets. -- Satori Son 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nebraska has a UCIP that stands for Urban Community Improvement Program. This looks like a wry comment, possibly racist (wrycist perhaps?) about integration. The "Unified Convention of Interracial Persons" meets every year on April 1st? Nothing sadder than someone yelling "April Fool!" in June. Mandsford 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be, but I think it is largely pique that the internet gaming site "United Confederation of Interstellar Planets" was deleted. DES ^(talk) 13:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per reasons above. Also, although this isn't a reason for deletion, I live in Nebraska and have never heard of this. Barsportsunlimited 00:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Bren ^talk 04:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agnetha1234 08:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis 08:07, 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: Speedily deleted - vanity, nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 22:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humpy The Rapist Mallard[edit]

Obvious unsourced, unreferenced hoax article. Speedy removed numerous times by author, bringing to AfD at this point. Wildthing61476 20:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I was hoping for something for BJAODN, but this isn't even clever.... — Music Maker 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is NOT a hoax. The hoax-character of "Humpy" is a cult-celebrity in Denver, CO and has been for months. The wiki article was merely intended to describe him, and his cult-celebrity status! DO NOT DELETE, PLEASE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qtheinfamous (talk • contribs)
Speedy delete, the only "sources" are a forum and a MySpace, neither of which are WP:RS. I see no reliable sources about this guy, so speedy away. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Subject is WP:NN and article provides no WP:RS, so it fails WP:BIO. Two ghits to brief bs blog refs. --Evb-wiki 21:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as very clearly made up. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete ASAP as something obviously made up. ("Buttsecks" is a dead giveaway.) Even the creation of this article is disruption. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:10, 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hooligan tactical squad[edit]

Non-notable paintball group. 15 non-wiki ghits, none of which demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. No assertion of notability in article. Contested prod Kathy A. 20:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Delete. as per nom.--Edtropolis 20:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN gruop of people. --Tikiwont 13:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, vanity. Editor needs to Learn some Rules Of capitalization. --Rmasbury 18:38, 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

List of addresses in EastEnders[edit]

Wikipedia articles are not repositories of internal links. Everything here links to one of two other EastEnders lists, either for "residences" or "buildings." Otto4711 19:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A3. Clarityfiend 20:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Am I the only one who is surprised that every link is blue? Ought not those be deleted as well? Carlossuarez46 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links are to sections of one of two other articles, List of residences in EastEnders and List of buildings in EastEnders. There are not, thank God, individual articles for each address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs)
- And one link to a nightclub: 4 Turpin Road. Carlossuarez46 23:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Over-listing. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, every link is blue, mainly because they all link to an article called "Residences of EastEnders", as Otto has pointed out. EastEnders is apparently a very popular soap in Britain, but one article is enough, eh what?

Mandsford 23:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of residences in EastEnders, maybe List of buildings in EastEnders. Overlisting. --Bren ^talk 04:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of residences in EastEnders — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beau Mirchoff[edit]

subject does not seem to meet wikipedia's notability criteria (see Wikipedia:Notability (people). Article makes no appearant claim of notabilty and cites no secondary sources. Stevecudmore 19:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the history, it appears that a previous version that did have sources and some assertion of notability - his acting career - was in place until someone came in and edited the heck out of it, losing the mention of his acting. I reverted to that version, and it appears there's a little to work with there - but not a lot. Very weak keep on the basis of his acting credit, the Times-Colonist feature and claims of future work. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As his IMDb listing and his TV.com credits show, this actor has had only two roles, neither of which is very impressive. --Evb-wiki 20:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Under WP:BIO, a high school football star and a bully in Scary Movie 4 doesn't qualify as being notable. *Cremepuff 222* 00:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I agree with the above. I would take this opportunity to say that there are many show business articles of the same level of importance that are alive and well on these pages. We should strive to be even-handed in our approach. --Stormbay 14:52, 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 to Do It. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do it[edit]

This article is a stub on a song by Nelly Furtado. There is a far more expanded article on the same song under the name Do It with a capital 'I' and therefore Do it is obsolete. Acm2210 18:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Do It then. This didn't need to be brought to AfD, when a redirect would work just fine. Wildthing61476 19:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to erotic humiliation --Tony Sidaway 15:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humiliatrix[edit]

Apparent original research, devoid of supporting cites. Delete. Karada 18:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Erotic humiliation. Per nom, article is WP:OR, and no adequate citations have been found despite several previous deletion initiatives (merge (2006), prod (2007)). Sources found so far tend to be commercial sex sites. Term means female humiliator — "Keep" proponents tend to insist this is a distinct subject, but such distinctions are usually gender role variations that fit entirely within range of Erotic humiliation. / edgarde 19:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC) edgarde 19:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and for that matter a sexual behavior can be see as a set of variations (smile) The questions is whether there is enough content for a separate article. In this case almost all the content is nonspecific. I suspect there is certainly enough for a good article, even in conventional sources, but loss of the material here is no handicap to anyone who might want to write one. DGG 23:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Edgarde. -- Schneelocke 08:15, 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 per A7. Sr 13 08:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TYC[edit]

No evidence for notability according to Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles or otherwise. No independent sources. High on a tree 18:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete-per CSD A7-non-notable biography.--Rossheth | Talk to me 19:49, 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. Sr 13 08:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Svarney[edit]

I am doubting the notability of this person. Google only finds two pages, one a "letters to the editor" page, the other a local church members birthday list. As for the references given: The first two only seems to concern a teacher he had at university, not himself (and being "in a direct student-teacher line back" to J. S. Bach doesn't establish notability, I think I could claim that too). The 2006 publication is marked as "under review"; for the 1995 book there is no ISBN and it can't be found at Amazon.com. The 1990 article in the New York Times quoted to support the statement "Svarney developed the field of behavioral facilitation..." is really just a letter to the editor - the abstract on the NYT web site starts To the Editor: As a student of psychology in a world of lawyers, I am sometimes puzzled by a legal mind's description of reality. I do not understand why Robert H. Bork thinks that George Bush, in nominating Judge David H. Souter .... Also the claims that Svarney's work had a significant impact on president Clinton's trial and impeachment and on the aftermath of September 11th need to be substantiated by reliable third-party sources. High on a tree 17:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. Fails criteria in WP:BIO.--Edtropolis 17:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the aspects are notable, and adding up 3 unnotable aspects (or any number or unnotable aspects) doesn't equal notability. DGG 18:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 20:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and more egregiously, self-promoting.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 03:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Behavioral Facilitation by the same author and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behavioral Facilitation. Regards, High on a tree 08:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per DGG. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:09, 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 userfy to Oldspammer's userspace. Observing the current consensus, it is most likely that the community will decide to delete. However, reliable sources may be found, but not with the given five days of an AfD discussion. At the bottom of the discussion, the nominator suggested a userfication, in which three users agreed. Sr 13 08:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Beck[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF notability guidelines. Lacks independent, reliable secondary sources documenting notability. Article is poorly sourced (mostly to Google Video), speculative original research and opinion - this could be fixed if independent reliable sources exist, but given their lack, the article should be deleted as one can't build a neutral encyclopedic article without such sources. MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up.--Edtropolis 17:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Using what sources? MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How much time is available for curing the deficiencies? Are you giving a day's notice? A week's? Two weeks'? Hertz1888 18:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD will close in 5 days. If the article is deleted, and subsequently reliable sources turn up, it can be recreated using those sources (in other words, deletion is not necessarily permanent). But there has to be some indication of notability, via independent, reliable secondary sources. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long set of comments by Oldspammer[edit]

The article's subject person is famous among alternative medicine circles. Many Internet sources cite the work of this Dr. Robert (Bob) C. Beck person as having gathered together the research efforts of other valid scientific medical researchers, and publicized non-patented versions of working medical treatment devices. "The Beck Protocol" is a topic of substantial interest to AIDS patients (among others). A Google search of combinations of the words of "Robert C. Beck" OR "The Beck Protocol" OR "Dr. Bob Beck" OR "Bob Beck D.Sc." OR "blood electrification" will turn up tens of thousands of hits.

The link for WP:BIO says that it is not strictly WP policy.

Many persons already treated by main stream medicine may have had it fail them. To me, in my researching alternatives to main stream medicine, several individuals strike me as fact-based, and seekers of true science, rather than suppressors thereof.

That the article initially used links via Google is no reason to have it deleted. Unless you are from another planet, you would realize that web links go stale in a relatively short period of time. By linking articles via Google search for keywords, the web articles or quotations thereof can be easily be located, sometimes along with any disputed information.

Videos of the man telling his story are good enough to substantiate claims that he was a researcher, that he quoted scientific literature, and experimental results of others. The videos show that he preferred alternative medicine and was a vocal spokesperson for it. That many persons searching for AIDS treatments view the same Google videos and lead them to this man's "The Beck Protocol" publication, and devices following his designs.

No amount of references would qualify to satisfy someone who wants the information suppressed.

The quality of references given would always never be good enough for someone who wants the information suppressed.

Many people who want to suppress such information are serving what purposes?--You would certainly not be serving my purposes of investigating alternative medicine treatments if you successfully had this article deleted!

If you feel that you could better format and research this person, then feel free to do so without completely destroying the article.

Did you try to improve the article at all?

Did you try to find references suitable to your standards in order to keep the article and information within WP?

If not, then why not? And why elect to have the article deleted?

Excuse me please. I am old. My CRT screen is set for low resolution so that I can see the bigger print. If you guys indent the content too much, the text re-flow on my browser will make the text less and less readable by ultimately putting only a couple of words per line, so please don't indent too many levels. Thanks. Oldspammer 01:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I ignore the personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and WP:ILIKEIT arguments in your above post, it seems your argument is that WP:BIO should be ignored in this particular case, that Google videos distributed by the subject of the article are reliable sources which establish notability, and that it's my responsibility to adequately source the article. I disagree on all three counts. MastCell ^Talk 20:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did you establish that he himself ("by the subject") distributed the given video(s)? The video shows the subject person, himself, but the video was submitted to "Google videos" by a third party, possibly years after Robert C. Beck died. Certainly Beck died prior to Google Videos being established. One of the videos is of a Granada Forum lecture that he gave to a school sized auditorium of people, and a second video is from a different lecture given at a College lecture hall. Oldspammer 07:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Return to normal one-comment-per-bullet discussion[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no attempt at "suppressing" information here. If there are sources available regarding Dr. Beck that meet the reliable sources guidelines and can verify the article's content, then please bring them forward. Google videos of a person speaking specifically about his own activities aren't reliable sources under the guidelines here, that I'm aware of; we need independent, non-trivial secondary sources. If you can find them, then please present them, and other editors will be happy to evaluate the article based on those sources. As it is, I'm maintaining a neutral stance at present - I suspect there's enough available that isn't sourced through Google Video to produce an article, but haven't the time right now to hunt for them myself. Those editors who would like the article kept should provide the necessary sources within the AFD period; at that time, I'd be happy to re-evaluate my opinion. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Beck Protocol" is a document. It has been amended slightly (to include mention of Bob Beck's death) by those selling it. However, a reference was made to a copy circulating the Internet on a particular peer-to-peer network of a pdf file of about 10.4 Mbytes. The name of the peer-to-peer network was ed2k. A name of a p2p networking client of eMule was given (possibly via Google Search-link).

Two means of viewing "The Beck Protocol" are at your disposal: (a) You could purchase a nice, bound color copy from some Internet site "alternative medicine store," or (b) Download a freely available grayscale pdf file via p2p networking. Some Internet sites have excerpts from the full document as pages on their sites. The schematic to one device was linked in the article. Oldspammer 01:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without proper sources this is not worth keeping. --John 20:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from what was already mentioned, article seems to advocate his position as well as attempting to give a biography. Not suitable. Nyttend 20:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not out right dismiss claims of people without investigating a bit. A "person's position" sounds like he was a political person. Political people adopt positions not necessarily based on reason or on facts presented. This person's approach seems to have been methodical and based on testing theories. Mention in the article was made that he investigated a list of other machines and found they did not satisfactorily work when he tried them. Oldspammer 02:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not interested in "suppressing" this information but I do want to read an article that has reliable sources, a neutral point of view and is not self-promotion. Quality over volume is also important. If he is recognized for his contributions to research, make those the focuse of the rewritten article. Finding mainstream or near-mainstream sources is more difficult for alternative subjects, but it is not impossible. Canuckle 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources presented so far. Redecke 23:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability and reliable sources. -Chunky Rice 23:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because there apparently are no accessible sources. The person's own works, even if accessible, are not enough to demonstrate notability in this field unless there is evidence that it has been noticed & written about by other people in RSs. I am personally willing to interpret RSs rather flexibly for alternative medicine practitioners, but there needs to be something solid; if he has done extensive work and is considered important, people will have said so. If you can find anything, the article can be kept, but the long description of his methods needs to be shortened, as well as the part of the article which provides a show of links--but to other people's methods. DGG 00:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable sources and promotional format. -- Fyslee/talk 08:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the references that I have in the article are still Google Search links. If you have a firewall that blocks access to Google, then your accessibility would be blocked.

If I was to select individual Google search result links as sources for the information, would that be suitable as providing sources for my references?

How could I determine if these sources would meet with the satisfaction of the most critical people on wikipedia? Oldspammer 02:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second set of comments by Oldspammer[edit]

The link for WP:BIO says that it is not strictly WP policy.

"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." "The Beck Protocol" is famous in the alternative medicine field.
"Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products" As notice of his "The Beck Protocol" spreads, more and more of the interested public want to know what products he endorsed that qualify for use in his Protocol. Referenced pages indicate that Sota instruments of B.C. Canada produced a line of treatment devices that he endorsed. Unless you were ill with an incurable disease, you would probably not have known this, or tried to determine this information.
"Creative professionals: scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals." Robert C. Beck lectured about, and handed out literature that he wrote about Blood electrification treatments and associated information. This is contained in "The Beck Protocol" document that is about 90 pages long.
"The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Whereas other scientists patented work related to their findings on blood electrification, Dr. Bob Beck openly published his findings, schematics, and protocols to enable members of the interested public to examine the merits of the treatment methods. This represents a greater contribution in my mind than a scientist who patents a well kept secret idea that will rarely see the light of day in every day life.
"The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries." In the conventional medical field, he is probably hated. But to members of the public having many forms of incurable diseases, his work should become more well known and possibly beneficial to the masses. Oldspammer 02:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clear to anyone that some source who is reliable to one group of people is quite the opposite to another.

For example, Quackwatch is an internet site that quotes cancer journal articles where "an expert" studies descriptions of a concept, but does not do a scientific experiment to prove or disprove the concept involved, nor do the article authors cite any scientifically proven principles to indicate why their conclusions were accurate. Some wiki articles have cited Quackwatch as a source. I think that Quackwatch has some reliable information, but it also has its fill of unreliable information as well. It is usually up to the judgement of the reader as to how to believe one way or the other. Oldspammer 02:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second return to bulleted comments[edit]

Delete. There appear to be no reliable sources that cover this person's life and work. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No Reliable sources presented. --Fredrick day 08:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Utter rubbish and pseudoscientific nonsense. This is for the National Enquirer, not an encyclopedia. Does not meet any measure of mainstream notability; he might as well have taught at Hogwarts.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 03:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are absolutely correct that it is "utter rubbish and pseudoscientific nonsense." In fact it is dangerous nonsense that can cost lives, but we have articles on equally nonsensical subjects like homeopathy here, and the promotion of homeopathy also costs lives. That is not a Wikipedia-legitimate reason to keep information out of Wikipedia. His lack of notability is a good reason. If the article gets saved, then it can also be a place to provide the documentation against this nonsense, in keeping with NPOV. -- Fyslee/talk 07:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete yet[edit]

I'm planning to re-write the article so please don't delete it quite yet. I'll see if I can bring it up to the level.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me if it meets the quality qualifications yet.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not, ref 9 & 11 are searches--you need to reference the individual relevant documents found in the search. Ref 6 is a copy of WP and is useless for any purpose. Refs 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12, &15 are not acceptable to establish notability as they are not 3rd party sources, though some might be usable for biographic details. . Refs 13 14 & 16 are general refs. about this type of therapy and are acceptable sources for discussing that, but do not establish his individual notability. DGG 18:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since both User:Wikidudeman and User:Oldspammer have expressed an interest on further improving this article, I'd propose that if the consensus is to delete, that we userfy the page and move it to Oldspammer's userspace. Then, Wikidudeman and Oldspammer can continue to work on it without a deadline. If at some point it rises to meet the bars of WP:BIO and/or WP:PROF, then the revised article could be taken to deletion review. Thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 19:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very reasonable. -- Fyslee/talk 19:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. It looks like the sources are challenging to dig up, and may take longer than the AFD period. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.DGG 00:12, 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 all but Weddle. Sr 13 08:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Novik[edit]

Contested prods. This, and the related articles which follow are resumes of four executives at a prominent, but not world-shaking, company. Wikipedia is not a collection of resumes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This also includes

Ken Dude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bradley S. Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
James D. Weddle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete as nom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since Wikipedia is not the place to publish your resume; and also since no sources whatsoever are given (not to speak of independent coverage). --B. Wolterding 17:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very obvious fluff pages. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe the above articles should be deleted. They inform people of the executives who run a company. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for? So that someone who would like to know more about a person or thing they can search for it here and read more about the person or thing? For those of you complaining, please see the CEO of Goldman Sach's page, as its more "fluff" than these.
Delete. To the creator, the encyclopedia is for articles on notable people judged by secondary, reliable sources to have wide recognition, influence or impact. Simply being a company executive isn't enough. Someday I hope that my company's CEO and Board Chair are notable enough for their own article. Until I'm certain they pass the guideline WP:Notability (people), I'll wait to post and I'll flag the conflict of interest, too. Canuckle 22:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wedell or list separately. The CEO of a large company is normally notable. (The company claims a revenue of $3 billion or so, whch counts as large. ) He's "managing partner" , which is the equivalent; the others are heads of Accounting, HR, & Recruiting. There will need to be some outside reference, but there should be one in the trade press. I do not like the practice of a joint nomination of people with possibly different degrees of notability--the one likely one may get swept away (or vice versa), DGG 00:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Novik, Dude and Scott. No vote on Weddle. Agree with DGG, the 3 are executives in the company and are unlikely to be notable per their positions. Indeed, the articles fail to assert how they would pass WP:BIO. A search for Weddle yields 87 unique Ghits], some of which may indicate he may be notable, so should be examined separately. Ohconfucius 01:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wedell Being head of one the largest financial institutions in the US has pretty strong claim to notability. There should be a complete revision of his article of course.- thank you Astuishin (talk) 08:25, 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 Redirect. « ANIMUM » 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StarTrek.com[edit]

Official website of Star Trek television series but other than that completely not notable and should not be listed in an encyclopedia. This article clearly falls under WP:SPEEDY's criteria for deletion of websites: "Web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." Refer to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 and WP:WEB, as it relates to this type of article. -- Wikipedical 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh... Correct me if I'm wrong, but Star Trek is pretty damn notable. With that being said, the official website is notable as well. All this article needs is some improvement --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is notable about it? What is the "impact or historical significance" of this site? Should every official website get a Wikipedia page? That's what WP:WEB is for. -- Wikipedical 17:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well....per your own link WP:WEB Criteria #1 is The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. . I've love love LOVE for you to argue how Star Trek is not notable. The content of the website has to do with the TV show/movies/franchise. There is no way in the world this would not pass notability standards. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The content itself..." is referring to the SITE itself. Of course there are published works about Star Trek but not StarTrek.com! I'm not saying Star Trek is not notable, I am saying that StarTrek.com isn't. -- Wikipedical 17:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content itself..." is talking about the CONTENT. IE: What's INSIDE the website, ie: The Star Trek Franchise. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek is the subject of the content, but the content would mean the actual, literal articles or other offerings on the site. By your interpretation, any fan site about a notable topic could satisfy WB:WEB. Propaniac 18:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Star Trek#External links, and merge whatever of this content is worth keeping. I don't see where WP:WEB says anything about official sites. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Septentrionalis.--Edtropolis 17:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Star Trek. Doesn't require a standalone article and not much scope for expansion. Clarityfiend 17:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a section of Star Trek as while this is certainly reasonably content to cover, it's still highly connected to the series itself. FrozenPurpleCube 18:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above, website isn't particularly notable except as the official website of a very notable franchise - really nothing to say about it independently. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Otherwise, if Important person has a website, then ImportantPersonWebsite.com is automatically notable enough to have a Wikipedia article as well? Similarly, Important Company and ImportantCompanyWebsite.com? Ridiculous. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Alexa rank of 21,179 does not demonstrate notability. Carlossuarez46 21:24, 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 merge and redirect to Nickelodeon (TV channel) --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick.com[edit]

Official website of Nickelodeon television network but other than that completely not notable and should not be listed in an encyclopedia. This article clearly falls under WP:SPEEDY's criteria for deletion of websites: "Web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." Refer to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 and WP:WEB, as it relates to this type of article. -- Wikipedical 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whole-heartedly disagree with nominator - First of all, you believe this falls under SPEEDY because of this statement: "Web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". I believe you must be mistaken, as the first sentence of the article established important. It's the official website to the TV station. Sure, it could use some improvement, but to delete this article would be absurd...I don't see any policy is breaks. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is notable about it? What is the "impact or historical significance" of this site? Should every official website get a Wikipedia page? That's what WP:WEB is for. -- Wikipedical 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well....per your own link WP:WEB Criteria #1 is The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. . I've love love LOVE for you to argue how Nickelodeon is not notable. The content of the website has to do with the TV show. There is no way in the world this would not pass notability standards --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "The content itself..." is referring to the SITE itself. Of course there are published works about Nickelodeon but not Nick.com! I'm not saying Nickelodeon is not notable, I am saying that Nick.com isn't. -- Wikipedical 17:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The content itself..." is talking about the CONTENT. IE: What's INSIDE the website, ie: Nickelodeon, not Nick.com --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's talking about the subject of the article, which in this case is a web site, not a television channel. You have yet to demonstrate that there are multiple non-trivial published works about this web site. Your best, and only, argument is to cite some. Continue to chop logic instead of citing sources, and you'll fail to make a case for keeping this article. Please cite sources. Uncle G 18:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nickelodeon#Official sites as above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to section of Nickelodeon article. Nickelodeon is certainly notable. Therefore the actions it takes are reasonable to cover. But I don't see why it should be covered on its own at this point. FrozenPurpleCube 18:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nickelodeon (TV channel), which already has a section about Nick.com that currently directs users to this article. Propaniac 18:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. Arkyan ^(talk) 19:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Nickelodeon article as mentioned above. -Matt 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Nickelodeon (TV channel). Does not justify separate article. --Bren ^talk 05:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. Not enough to base an article on, but a reasonable subject to cover in the channel's article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely positively whole-heartedly keep. or a merge would do fine. You might as well delete MSN as it isn't truly notable... it's just a search engine! Jonjonbt on a wikibreak but yet protecting Nick.com from being deleted
Merge; not yet ready for an articleVectorsap 23:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is an information and feeder website for the station. Unless the website has a totally separate identity, which this one does not, it should be redirected to the main article. Imagine if each company/business/person will get a separate article for its/his/her website!!! Ohconfucius 01:50, 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. « ANIMUM » 01:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cibao Airport Flight Schedule[edit]

WP is not a directory, an updated schedule of flights is not needed, the article's relevant information (airlines, destinations,...) seems to be all at Cibao International Airport. This was speedy deleted during the previous nomination and promptly recreated, so I think we better let this nomination run its nornal course. - Nabla 16:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy and salt Was already speedied, and recreated promptly after. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment speedy deletion criteria for recreation of content only applies to AfD deletions, not to previous speedies. Let this AfD proceed. - Nabla 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cibao International Airport.--Edtropolis 17:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate as a protected redirect to Cibao International Airport. Wikipedia is not a travel guide - or a flight guide for that matter. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 17:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete recreation of deleted material. Resolute 18:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and protect, recreated material, blatant violation of WP:NOT. No reason to hang on to this article, no reason to force it through AfD. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. Useight 20:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an airline timetable or a computer reservations system. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt- per all of the above. Eddie 22:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — Already deleted before. Recreation of material violating WP:NOT. WP:SNOW it already! *Cremepuff 222* 00:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs which refer to other songs[edit]

Delete - another sprawling (72K and counting) unsourced, indiscriminate list, a directory of loosely associated topics. The list brings together songs with no commonality in style, theme or content beyond happening to supposedly refer to another song in a line or two of the lyrics. This list tells us nothing about the listed songs, the songs that they supposedly reference or music in general. Otto4711 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nomintor, additionally it's listcruft --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:LC.--Edtropolis 17:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, defintely a loose association. So what if Blake Shelton mentions "Margaritaville" in the opening line to "Some Beach"? The rest of the song has nothing to do with Buffett or Margaritaville (except maybe for some marginal stylistic similarities). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Blake must have met Jimmy Buffett before.--Edtropolis 17:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is this listcruft; it's largely WP:OR as well. Geoffrey Spear 17:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many "Lists of songs about..." articles. I'm tempted to create List of Wikipedia articles about lists of songs about a topic, expect that it would be ultimately pointless. OK, how about List of Wikipedia articles about lists of songs that should be deleted (the lists, not the songs)? Never mind. As a kindness to the closing administrator, I'll just say delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 19:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add to the ever growing "List of lists of songs with arbitrary inclusion criteria that were deleted". Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BALEETED!!!. I'm getting real tired of List of songs that contain the letter E in the title. Useight 20:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Save your list somewhere, for it will be deleted; but consider bringing it back in a shorter form. It's not that the idea is bad, but it's too long, and after you get to the K's, it gets boring. However, within the list are some interesting ideas, such as songs that respond to other songs. As Joel Whitburn and other persons with a sense of popular culture know, some songs are replies to others (such as "Sweet Home Alabama" to "Southern Man"). If you were to "chainsaw" the thing, get rid of (1) parodies, especially Weird Al; (2) a singer or band referring to a previous song in a more recent song, such as with any of the Beatles; (3) songs from the same album that link to each other, such as with Queen; (4) an obscure song that tries to ride the coattails of a hit. Hope to see this again in a much abridged form. Mandsford 23:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The trivia or general info of the songs should be enough, not in a long list like that.--JForget 00:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see a common theme for the songs in this list. -MrFizyx 04:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft. Maybe if enough songs that have their own articles should be grouped like this, consider a category for those. --Bren ^talk 05:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., and all. Consider bringing back in an abridged form, per Mandsford.--JayJasper 17:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate, unsourced list with no corresponding article on the subject matter. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Keep, but with sources and/or moving to another Wikimedia site, e.g. Wikiquote. Agree mostly with Mandsford. Pædia 00:11, 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Robert Wooten[edit]

This is a non-notable individual. He is the head of a small heraldic organization and the article currently reads as though it is a self-produced biography. In fact, the only editor of this page is Davidwu10, who appears to be the subject. The only main space page that links here is that for the American College of Heraldry. I think that this is fairly clearly a vanity page of a NN person. Eva ^bd 16:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not MySpace.--Edtropolis 16:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page but move some of the content to American College of Heraldry. JJL 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can do that.--Eva ^bd 22:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 17:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7th Heaven multimedia[edit]

Delete - I have restored the DVD releases to the main article because there is no reason for it to be split out from the main article for length or style. The remaining information should be deleted, as it has been for many other similar standalone articles including Desperate Housewives, Smallville, The Simpsons and others, because Wikipedia is not a TV Guide or a guide to television syndication. Otto4711 16:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as per nom.--Edtropolis 17:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Note. IP198 19:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I was originally going to vote to delete, because I figured that it was an advertisement for this week's DVD collection at Wal-Mart. I still think that you should get rid of that part. However, I vote to keep because you've gone to great pains to show that this show does have a following all over the world, including the networks and the title. I liked the Turkish title--"Crowded, But Happy". Far better than individual Wikipedia articles about each character on the show (and I'm sure someone has written a Simon Camden article, so I'm betting on a blue-link, without looking). We need more TV articles like this, fewer about individual episodes and characters. Mandsford 23:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nobody cares its not on in any New York stations!!! XNYTV 23:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom. Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Mandsford, your !vote sounds like WP:ILIKEIT to me. Plus, XNYTV has 2 edits as of this !vote time. *Cremepuff 222* 00:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Wikipedia is not a TV guide." LOL! Yes, I guess I do like intelligently written articles about the culture of television... better than I like 400 articles about the fascinating world of "Smallville". Wikpedia principles are like the Bible-- often quoted, never consistently applied. Mandsford 01:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Bren ^talk 05:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 17:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Designs in Creative Entertainment[edit]

No evidence of notability per WP:ORG. Google shows no reliable secondary sources. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 16:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No reliable sources. In fact, no secondary sources other than Wiki/Wiki mirrors, period.--Ispy1981 20:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wondering if their only game 18C2C would also make notability. --Bren ^talk 05:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did consider that but decided not to as it seems to be part of a wider series of games (18XX) which is a bigger task to take on. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 08:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment good point just saw 18XX now. Thanks. --Bren ^talk 13:05, 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. Also author requests deletion. —Centrx→talk • 20:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay S. Thomas[edit]

Non-notable minister; article on him was already speedily deleted twice today under the name Jay Smith Thomas Nyttend 16:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<personal attack deleted - Corvus cornix 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)>[reply]

I think that I have found the source of this dispute and the reason that this article was deleted. Though it tends to be colored in terms of "wiki guidelines" which is an ironic term in and of itself, I truly believe that this is a case of both religious persecution and racial discrimination. With regard to religion, it is obvious that the existence of reformed evangelical Christian content would be shunned by the comprehensively secular bias of such a place such a wikipedia, thus making you all just as controversial and fifth column as the creator/editors of conserapedia. Thusly, considering the blatant refusal to allow cited and relevant information concerning legitimate Christian leaders and legitimate Christian content, these actions could potentially be grounds for a religious descrimination suit against the providers and editors of this site.

Also, when one considers that Jay Smith Thomas is one of the few persons in this country with triple citizenship (being born in India to an American citizen who happened to be a full blooded member of the Chippewa Indian tribe) Jay is an America/Indian/Native American with full rights to all three and a mixed heritage that has made the progression and of his life and subsequent success much more difficult than the average man. This dispute is simply another example of the racial discrimination and oppression that he has endured throughout the entirety of his life. Once he is made aware of your blatant and repeated violations of his secured and endowed rights to life and equity as an American citizen, much less a human being, you, and wikipedia in general would do well to think twice before deleting such a post in the future.

The lack of cogency is astounding and characteristic of very, very poor form. Legal counsel is being sought.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cstanfie (talk • contribs) Corvus cornix 17:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. Corvus cornix 16:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-The only sources are those close to the subject of the article, and there is no asserion of notability other than 'he works for a church that a magazine said was quite important'.--Rossheth | Talk to me 16:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification- does not meet the `The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject' clause of WP:BIO. The opinion piece quoted is insufficient, since it doesn't deal exclusively with the subject, and is in any case an opinion piece.--Rossheth | Talk to me 17:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Absolutely nothing suggests that this article fulfills the qualifications outlined under WP:N. Plus I just love the whole "I'm going to get a lawyer because you don't think my guy is notable" thing. It's added a bit of levity to a stressful morning, thanks. Trusilver 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding my reason for deletion to include the request of the author. Trusilver 02:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Cstanfie wants to get a lawyer in case of a libel suit, having falsely accused someone of racism on a popular website. As far as I can see, this user is the only one here to have done smething potentially legally actionable. Lurker 18:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources of notability. Though the IP addresses that keep vandalizing the article, the AfD and the AfD's Talk page do resolve to a large law firm. I wonder if it's "Bring your college age kid to work day". Corvus cornix 17:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pastorcruft, doesn't meet notability criteria. And it's a repost of a deleted article. Lurker 18:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has gotten out of hand and should be deleted. I am seriously disappointed with the immaturity of those editors involved in the deletion of this page. The breach of privacy in tracking IP addresses and contacting Jay Thomas directly were uncalled for and very unprofessional. Apologies for everyone's wasted time. Dhaut 18:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no breach of privacy. All IP addresses have WHOIS links at the bottom of the page. One click goes to the appropriate address owner. Corvus cornix 18:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the page please so that we all can move on to more productive things. Dhaut 18:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been deleted at least twice (maybe three times) already. The user persists in recreating it. delete and salt. Exploding Boy 19:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that, although this minister may be remarkably influential and noteworthy given the circumstances he has overcome in life, he has yet to be given sufficient press coverage to merit a page at this time.Radioalarm 19:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'A Statement from the Original Creators' Consistent with the wishes of Jay Thomas and College Church, we hereby request that this page be considered for Speedy Deletion. We regret that what started as a lighthearted issue has escalated to the current level. We would like to publicly acknowledge that any "legal threats", expressed or implied, were shallow, baseless, and inactionable and were intended to be sarcastic. This sarcasm was lost on many readers. We also retract any personal attacks, express or implied, against any of those who requested deletion of the article. We also apologize for any other people or entities, expressed or implied, who were offended by any remarks made in these posts. We have reason to believe that many Wikipedia users, including Nyttend and Rossheth, were acting with the best of intentions and regret our comments with respect to those individuals. We apologize for the colossal waste of time and energy that this has cost all involved, and we ask that out of respect for Jay Thomas and all of those associatd with these discussions that the page and all of its associated discussions be summarily deleted. Thank you. Cstanfie2 22:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record before we go, his notability would be that he is college pastor of the College Church at Wheaton, a very notable liberal religiously-oriented college. Thee may be sources, but the article did not provide them. Perhaps some time a proper article can be written without this fuss, preferably by someone who know about Wheaton but with less COI. This round, COI, as it often does, hindered the writing of an acceptable article and conducting a good discussion. DGG 00:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. I can only imagine the hastily convened meetings and sheepish discussions that precipitated this. Just delete the damn thing already. Exploding Boy 00:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per author's request. Most of the sources do not clearly refer to the subject. The fact that he is one of the pastors at one of the "50 Most Influential Churches" should not qualify him under WP:BIO because he is not the head pastor at that church. I would also point out that the issues of his citizenship or Native American heritage were completely irrelevant to this AfD since they were not even mentioned in the article. --Metropolitan90 02:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Let's move on. --Bren ^talk 05:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete.--Wafulz 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World s Most Hated[edit]

Delete: The content of this article is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a blog, etc. Absurdist 16:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete-no assertion of notability-CSD A7--Rossheth | Talk to me 16:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Wildthing61476 16:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is nonsense, in fact a snowball.--Edtropolis 16:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete vanity page. JJL 17:11, 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

The arguments to delete here are particularly strong.

Firstly Wikipedia is neither a newspaper archive nor a memorial. This is a statement of Wikipedia policy. The life of this man, which is of great import to his immediate family, his colleagues and friends, is however of little or no encyclopedic significance.

Secondly this is a recent enough death that the biographies of living persons policy does apply, as argued by B. Wolterding amongst others. This is a person known only for one event. All encyclopedic aspects of the event should be covered with due weight in the relevant articles (and nearly six years after the event, they already are).

This young man did not live a life that should be recorded in an encyclopedia. The manner of his death, and those other many others that day, has been covered adequately in this encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Regenhard[edit]

Notability. This person, who was a New York City Firefighter who died in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, lacks notability as defined in WP:Notability. He is simply one of the 343 New York City Firefighters who died on that day, and outside of the New York City area, he is virtually unknown. The only reason that he has any name recognition at all is because of the post-9/11 actions of his mother, Sally Regenhard, who is an activist for change in skyscraper safety. In addition to the notability issues, the article contains unsourced and unreferenced material, irrelavant external links, as well as photos from questionable sources. 68.174.26.32 12:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any minor notability this person has is purely happenstance or borrowed. This article was probably submitted by an adherent of the nonsensical "the world changed forever on 9/11" concept. As a two-time Iraq vet, I say, get a life people. --Nonstopdrivel 12:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The subject's unfortunate death has caused a national movement and organization that will shape the future of Ground Zero and the future of skyscrapers built in the USA. Personal attack removed. Uncle G 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC). The deceased subject has brought Hillary Rodham Clinton to the spotlight and she memorialized him in a new center for fire safety studies at John Jay College. Everything has been sourced and referenced in the article. Personal attack removed. Uncle G 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, the article contains hyperlinks to major newspapers such as the San Francisco Chronicle and the St. Petersburg Times. If he wasn notable, these newspapers which are located far away from NYC will not even discuss him. Therefore points taken:[reply]
- His death launched a movement and organization that now has a say in the development of Ground Zero.
- He is memorialized with a center at a NYC college, same way Medgar Evers was memorialized in NYC with a college in his name even though he never lived in NYC.
- Hillary Rodham Clinton and other senators have stepped up to bat to memorialize his legacy.
- He is covered by notable newspapers in articles
- This is a biography stub for the moment. It will eventually grow with the contributions of other editors.
- His name was mentioned in the 9/11 Commission.
- There are many victims of 9/11 (Mark Bingham, Todd Beamer, Tom Burnett, Andrew Garcia, etc.) who all have articles on this site and no one has a complain. They were memorialized in film and books. Christian is being memorialized by politicians and social activists.

If I find an other point to validate entry I will return and post.--XLR8TION 13:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is still not a memorial. More than half the information and links in this relatively short article are, in fact, about his mother. RGTraynor 13:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know the difference between Wikipedia and legacy.com; This is an article not a memorial with virtual flowers and flags.--XLR8TION 13:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the comments of "XLR8TION" (who is the author of the article) defending the notability of Christian Regenhard, this individual has no real notability outside of the New York City Fire Department and related nomenclature. Is this person notable simply for having the misfortune of being one of the almost 3,000 individuals who died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks? If that were the case, then articles about each one of the thousands of people who died on 9/11 would appear on Wikipedia. I think that this article probably should be deleted or at least merged into the article about the September 11, 2001 attacks. Issue brought up here dealt with by removing all personal attacks. Uncle G 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Jerskine 13:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think annonomous users (I.E IP) should nominate articles for deletion. Should they?--Edtropolis 13:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no policy that discourages this, for all I know. --B. Wolterding 14:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Editors without accounts are not prohibited from nominating articles for deletion. Please read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Uncle G 15:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think there's a technical problem here - the comments appear in the wrong article's AfD, could some administrator correct that? --B. Wolterding 14:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)~~ Resolved by now. --B. Wolterding 16:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm on the fence about this fellow, but there's other articles in the 9/11 victims category that probably need to be looked at. FrozenPurpleCube 15:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For me, this is precisely the case described in WP:BLP1E. Sad as this man's fate has been, he is notable only for one event (namely the 9/11 attacks). Thus Wikipedia should cover the event (which it does), but not the person. --B. Wolterding 16:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-While it seems callous to say this, his only `claim to fame' is the fact that he died in a famous event. So have many others, and it doesn't make them notable either.--Rossheth | Talk to me 16:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to pass WP:N with notable people Hillary Clinton making him newsworthy. Carlossuarez46 21:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Merge and Redirect to Sally Regenhard. These can be tough calls. But their articles should be merged and this is not a comment on him or his accomplishments. Canuckle 23:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though I have had my differences with XLR8TION, who is the author of this article, I believe that Christian Regenhard is in fact notable for the above reasons elaborated by the author. If Todd Beamer deserves an article on wikipedia, then so does Mr. Regenhard. In a contentious exchange on the Co-op City talk page, I challenged XLR8TION to create articles with references and sources about Christian and Sally Regenhard. He created articles for these two individuals, and I feel both of them are notable. Citizen Dick 00:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Citizen, that was a very honorable thing to say about Christian. I want to point out that I wrote an article on Waleska Martinez, who was aboard United 93. Ms. Martinez had notoriety in the fact about the brave actions of pasengers and crew prevented that flight from crashing into the Capitol. Furthermore, she has been portrayed in motion pictures. There are many notable victims of paramilitary groups such as Al-Qaeda on this site whose deaths were notable such as Leon Klinghoffer, Mark Bingham, Daniel Pearl, etc.. Third, in you look into history, some will want to inquire why Christian has a building named in his honor (see John Jay College blurb) and others will want to what effect his death had on this world. As mother who became the accidential activist just like Cindy Sheehan became when her son died. Pain is one thing, but Christian stands out among other firefighter not in a selfish manner, but because simply his family did not want his death to go in vain. When Hatshepshut was overthrown, there was a movement to destroy any lingering effect of her reign, thuse wiping her out of history. If it wasn't for some brave souls in Egypt she would not even have any notoriety as being the only female pharoah of Egypt. Yet, a select few decided to write about her and inform future generations that she did exist. Ms. Regenhard is a brave soul who has gone to Capitol Hill, CNN Studios, met with beauracrats, technocrats, etc.. to make a difference. Christian made a difference on 9/11 and his unfortunate death launched something. Maybe its me only, but I feel that some on this site, especially those who edit using an anonymous ISP address simply have a vendetta against this individual. Why not instead of attacking and denigrating him, doesn't some one write more and make his bio stub more detailed. It not only takes time, but takes passion to illustrate and educate and if he is notable for Hillary Clinton (possibly the next president of the USA) to dedicate a wing of a college in his honor, why not for others. Open your minds and use it for a greater purpose in life. A purpose to bring the dead back to life in the minds and memories of children and students who will inherit our world and will have to find ways to resolve the numerous problems that plague it. I write because I care. I only write articles for notable individuals that I feel mean something in this world and to me as a person and as a citizen. What makes someone notable on this site? That can vary from person, but actions speak louder than words and there is a cause and effect to everything in this world. Hence, his death caused a new front in the war against terrorism to be born as it will help prevent furture tragedies like those on 9/11. I can provide a list of murder victims on this site who probably many of you never heard of , yet they have articles that no one else has contested. If you look at it, Christian's death was a homicide by a paramilitary group. Just like Marianne Pearl's drive to honor her late husband Daniel, Christian's family works to do the same. Daniel has an article. His death is notable. Christian's name was mentioned in the 9/11 Comission. Capitol Hill has heard his name and so have many in NYC and the world.--XLR8TION 02:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BLP is obviously irrelevant. Those disliking news coverage in WP have been saying that there needs to be, first, national attention, and second, continuing attention. OK:Newspapers from SF to Florida, over a span of 3 years. Meets the requirements here, interpreted at their strictest (though I disagree that either is necessary--I personally continue to accept regional coverage -- not just local coverage, and as for continuing, longer than the initial coverage right after the event). DGG 01:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP is not "obviously irrelevant" here; while C.R. is obviously no longer living, the arguments given in WP:BLP1E are routinely applied to the deceased as well, by the same reasoning. To quote: If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. (No reference included here as to whether this coverage spreads over a longer time.) We have precisely that case here. --B. Wolterding 16:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that general guideline , certainly, applies to everyone living or dead; but the specific concerns in BLP about the wishes of the subject, about greater than normal sourcing for any possible negative material, and so forth apply to the living only.DGG 00:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability guidelines don't cover how widespread notablity needs to be, either geographically or how generally notable a person is. We have entries for people who are quite notable within the realm of, say, particle physics, that aren't notable to the rest of us. This man appears to be notable as a firefighter and notable as a New Yorker, and saying that he needs to be notable nationwide appears to me to be making up new rules, unless I missed a guidelne somewhere. Capmango 15:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as per all the other Keeps above. Tony the Marine 19:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline Keep. Sally Regenhard is definitely notable, but the call on this article is tougher. But the same can be said for many of the articles in Category:Victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks. I for one would not want to start a purge of these. Wasted Time R 19:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Can anyone here point to something that he was notable for prior to 9/11? Because if no-one can, then WP:BLP1E is clearly applicable. And since it's about notability, the fact that he is dead doesn't make this policy inapplicable.--Rossheth | Talk to me 19:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rossheth: Using your rationale, Christian Regenhard's brother firefighters Angel Juarbe, Jr., Michael Cammarata and Ronald Bucca, as well as Port Authority Police Officer Dominick Pezzulo, United Flight 93 passengers Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham and Jeremy Glick, Aon Corporation Vice President Kevin Cosgrove and the DOZENS of other 9/11 victims who were not notable prior to the terrorist attacks should have their articles on Wikipedia removed. Do you really want to go there? Citizen Dick 21:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As always, the argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should be avoided in deletion discussions. --B. Wolterding 07:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Citizen, thank you bringing up the names of those firefighters as well. Juarbe had extra notoriety for his winning of a reality show and Keith A. Glascoe, another NY firefighter had a notable role in a modern day film classic ("The Professional" aka "Leon""; directed by Luc Besson). He too perished in the aftermath of the WTC. While both Juarbe and Glascoe had notable exposure in Hollywood, their deaths while unfortunate did not launch a movement like Regenhard did. We will be seeing Ms. Regenhard more on television as Rudy Giuliani becomes the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president, Christian's name will eventually be heard more in the media. The article can be lengthen by anyone and it eventually will, but to delete him just because his life was not notable to some will only lead to a domino effect of nominations for deletion of other 9/11 victims. --XLR8TION 00:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge→Sally Regenhard. The notability of Christian Regenhard is directly related to and dependent upon the notability of Sally Regenhard as inspiration for the work that has led to her notability; being one of the many 9/11 victims does not alone establish the notability of this or any other person. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:38, 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.--Wafulz 21:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Engelmann[edit]

Non-notable musician. One of his bands is notable because it is a side project of notable Jake Cinninger, but he has not released anything significant to warrant his own personal page. In other words, Mother Vinegar is a bar band. RunLikeAnAntelope 15:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails criteria in WP:MUSIC.--Edtropolis 17:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Passes WP:MUSIC because he was a member of a notable band --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. subject appears to be a figure of questionable notability. The article is unsourced, and there are few reliable sources to support the assertions in the article. The most prominent hit is a myspace page, and the vast majority of Ghits for "Karl Englemann" clearly do not relate to the subject. 109 unique Ghits in English. There are references which indicate the subject wrote some songs for Umphrey's McGee, but all mentions are trivial. Ohconfucius 02:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would change my vote if reliable sources were added to document the performance of his songs by Umphrey's McGee, which is a notable band. WP:MUSIC includes a criterion for lyricists: Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above, a notable theatre, or has been taken up by a musician or ensemble that qualifies above. EdJohnston 16:45, 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. Sr 13 17:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Whitehead[edit]

Delete - This person appears to be a non-notable entertainer. His only appearance in any medium has been as a minor voice actor in a Wallace and Grommit movie. A Google search turns up little additional information on this Ben Whitehead (although several other apparently unrelated people by the same name do appear in the search). The article may also have been written partly to promote Do Me ... London, which is also nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do Me ... London). Dr. Submillimeter 15:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Non-notable voice actor whose only credit is the W&G movie.--Ispy1981 15:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and add the name to Gag name, which it appears to be.--Edtropolis 17:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only credit is a small role as a voice actor, non-notable. Rossrs 22:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Kbthompson 10:05, 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 close, issue has been solved. Sr 13 18:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norbottenspets[edit]

This page is very close to being speedy. It lacks context (I seriously have no idea what the page is about), it appears to be essay like (possibly OR), and has no sources. Bachrach44 15:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Thanks to Uncle G for figuring out what this page is supposed to be. Per a few people below I think a redirect is in order - I can see other English speakers making this typo. --Bachrach44 15:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep, but for God's sake, clean up~~ Merge, per below. I didn't notice the spelling variation before.--Ispy1981 15:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just merge it to Norrbottenspets. Uncle G 16:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Norrbottenspets, an existing article on the same topic. (appears to be a spelling variation)-- MisterHand 16:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Uncle G. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect clearly. Capmango 00:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and no redirect). This article is pure nonsense. As already pointed out, a good article already exists on this breed under its proper name. As a native Swedish speaker, I can guarantee that this is not a spelling variation. The breed, hailing from Norrbotten is named after that region, and neither the region nor the dog is ever spelled with only one r. I see no reason to have a page redirected to the proper name, then there would have to be loads of redirect-pages for every single article on Wikipedia. (Norbotenspets, Norrbottespetts, Norrbottennspets etc. - Norbottespets is no more correct or in use than any of those spellings). Just delete this page. JdeJ 04:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, I'm okay with delete. But it wouldn't be the only redirect from a common misspelling. Capmango 05:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only delete don't redirect. xC | ☎ 04:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close merged per above. Sorry to the Swedish speakers, but I feel this is a plausible spelling error for the average English speaker. Ohconfucius 03:04, 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. I used AWB to add [[Category:Lists of films with disabled protagonists]] to each of the films listed on this article. — Ocatecir ^T 00:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with disabled protagonists[edit]

Previously nominated a few months ago and ended in no consensus, but I feel that there has been enough precedent to nominate it again. As stated in the previous afd, Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely-associated topics. When the X-men series is being listed, as well as films where the disability is nothing but a passing element or a set up for a joke (Dr.Strangelove), it becomes apparent this list serves no purpose but to display POVed trivia. Bulldog123 15:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom Bulldog123 15:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, list of trivia. Per nom. Lankiveil 15:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for a few reaons. It's an indiscriminate list, serves no purpose, and it's listcruft --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. IP198 19:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-adds nothing in particular to the encyclopaedia. Issues of disability of protagonists should be dealt with on specific article pages.--Rossheth | Talk to me 19:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and because disability is ill-defined and subjective. Carlossuarez46 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- In that handicapped and disabled persons aren't usually characters in films, let alone the protagonists, KEEP it. The disabled are underrepresented in popular culture. A person in a wheelchair, or with Down's syndrome, or cerebral palsy... not very often in Tinsel Town. About the only thing I like about the Farrelly Brothers (sp?) is that their films, though tasteless, recognize that the world is not limited to fully abled people. A movie that deals with disability in a non-patronizing way is a rarity. Suggestion-- mention the protagonist and the disability. Mandsford 23:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-Certainly not all the films in that list treat with respect. For example, in Dr Strangelove, it's just an extra comedic element.--Rossheth | Talk to me 08:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to Category since it is just a list with no other info. If there were additional content as Mandsford suggests, I'd vote to keep. Capmango 00:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Listcruft. As each film has it's own article and there are enough to justify it, create a category instead. --Bren ^talk 05:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep if mandsford's last suggestion (add protagonist & disability) is followed, thus making it more informative than a category ⇒ bsnowball 10:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this artical is not worth keeping XNYTV 11:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on condition that the protagonist and the disability are mentioned (Mandsford's suggestion, see above). <K F> 21:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ditto to keeping if mandsford's suggestion is followed, otherwise, delete it. BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 14:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as WP:INTERESTING. Ohconfucius 03:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list and create a category The concept here is notable. There is a website with an index of 2500 feature films compiled (http://www.disabilityfilms.co.uk/ note: yes, they have included the x-men). And this subject is significantly covered in reliable sources ( here is an aricle, here is an entire list of books, etc.). Since every item listed has an article, however, it would be much better to use a category. I might be persuaded to change to "keep" if Mansford (or others) state plans to (1) add the additional information suggested above, and (2) write a well-sourced introduction breifly presenting some historical and cultural backgound (to show that this is really not indiscriminate/trivial). -MrFizyx 16:47, 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 11:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paraverse[edit]

Neologism. After a few Google searches, the only person who appears to use "Paraverse" in the context that it appears here (ie: not as a band name or in bad fanfic) is one "Peder Burgaard", who started and has been the only significant contributor to this article. As the idea of a "Paraverse" in this context is not more widespread, I think this falls under WP:NEO. In addition, there are some WP:OR issues with this article as well, as indicated by the phrase "The term was coined and put on Wikipedia by Mads Thimmer" Lankiveil 15:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR, WP:NEO, no reliable sources and a touch of vanity. In short, as per above.--Ispy1981 16:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JJL 17:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parallel Universe.--Edtropolis 17:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, that's a disambig page, is that kosher? Lankiveil 11:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. If redirection is appropriate I'd lean more toward Virtual reality or Virtual world. --Bren ^talk 05:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 18:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H8000[edit]

Delete - Original research, Unsourced by reliable secondary sources, very little information, most of article is a list of bands, this just seems to be a local name for Metalcore. Prod was removed with this comment: deleted warning, H8000 Is very well know in Western Europe, US and Japan. It is of great Cultural Value! which is completely unverifiable. Something 'of great cultural value' should have plenty sources available, you'd have thought. DarkSaber2k 15:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable MySpace group with absolutely no reliable sources--Ispy1981 15:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most likely a hate group.--Edtropolis 18:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dutch version of this page has been up for years without controversy, but web search in Dutch or English doesn't turn up much (most hits are for a piece of music equipment, not the music style. I couldn't find anything in English that amounts to a reliable source, but there could conceivably be something in Dutch (Dutch wikipage also lacks sources though). But no evidence to accuse them of being a hate group, which seems to me to be a pretty strong accusation. Capmango 00:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not seeing anything that would make it a hate group. The H (or Hate) in this case seems to refer to the criticisms against their particular style of music. If hatred of critics makes one a hate group, I guess I would be a hate group, too.--Ispy1981 15:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hate group? Doubtful. Not notable? Certainly. Realkyhick 20:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, CSD A7. Article about a group with no assertion of notability. Also the lists are just redlinks. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 05:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really about a group, it's about a so-called genre (which basically appears to a local Belgian name for Metalcore, rather than anything notably different.) DarkSaber2k 09:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I did think about that, but the etymology of the name makes it seem like a sort of cabal more than a genre. For an example of a genre name based on a certain place from which it originated, take Chicago house, which wasn't being used as a label until it had had an influence on people, and could be used to classify anyone making a certain kind of music regardless of where they were from, with the "Chicago" part of the name based on the cultural origins. This, on the other hand, merely states "H8000 is the name for all hardcore scenes in West Flanders." There's no indication on whether this is a genre, or any different from metalcore, it just seems to be these bands classifying themselves based on where they're from (what postal district). So by that def, my rationale is that it's an organised group of bands with a name, and therefore a group of people. I totally applaud the decision to take this to AfD rather than speedy it, as it's not blatant, but after consideration, it does seem to meet A7. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 13:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that though, if "H8000 Is very well known in Western Europe, US and Japan." can be verified, then this would probably be keepable. It just doesn't seem to be verifiable. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 13:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since closure of this AfD it has been established that Sir Kindle is a sockpuppet of ProfMozart. Hesperian 02:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. The discussion indicates that the title corresponds to a valid subject, so POV problems and sourcing issues can be solved through normal editorial processes. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romano-German culture[edit]

This is a fourth attempt by the same author to create an article that advances a dubious, poorly sourced, and confusingly expressed theory about the nature of the Holy Roman Empire. Its assertions of fact contradict existing articles, which the author has not attempted to contribute to. Other editors have tried to improve the article, but there seems to be no more room for improvement. See Talk:Romano-German culture and User talk:ProfMozart. Rob C (Alarob) 15:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The phrase Romano-German appears to be widely used (e.g.: "The legal systems of Europe originated in the impact on the vital Romano-German societies in the early Middle Ages..." [4]). This may or may not be a good article, but the subject seems worthy of an article separate from H.R.E. JJL 17:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But that's not what it's about; this is a POV fork of the initial paragraphs of Holy Roman Empire. It doesn't even mention Theodoric or the Merovingians. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment concur about the content, but the article title represents something that should be here, so I'm hoping the POV battles can be ironed out. JJL 18:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If we delete this, we can reuse the title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Or, just edit what's there? JJL 18:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Unlikely to succeed with a revertwarrior who wants this to be a tendentious article about something else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would suggest that the existing article Germania is a good place for ~~the content~~ info on "Romano-German culture", by analogy with Gaul and Roman Britain. -- Rob C (Alarob) 18:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Looking at ghits for Romano-German, a redirect would certainly be called for in that case, but I see a distinction to be drawn here between Germania and Romano-Germany. However, I am not expert in this area. I stick with my Keep. JJL 18:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, Germania is too early, and too far north, for Theodoric; and much too early for the content here on Charlemagne (which is in any case redundant). Septentrionalis

PMAnderson 18:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely a POV article. The author has been given several chances to improve the article and has failed to do this or provide any reason for this article being notable. As mentioned this article conflicts with others and the article is generally written poorly by Wikipedia standards. Maybe some of the content can be merged into a relevant article but for now the article needs to be deleted and hopefully for the final time. Xtreme racer 20:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by nom:
- I'm not an expert, but do notice that many Ghits on "Romano-German" are to Romanian pages, where "Romano-German" means "Romanian-German," while some are to Italian pages, where both "Romano" and "German" can be proper names.
- Looking in German Wikipedia, I find that matches describe "römisch-germanisch" conflict rather than a merging of cultures.
- In fact, the article on Germanen in German Wikipedia contradicts the major thesis of our Romano-German culture, stating that the Germanic peoples "preserved their distinctiveness, notwithstanding the intensive exchange between Germans and Romans." (Sie bewahrten ihre Eigenständigkeit, obwohl es auch zwischen Römern und Germanen einen intensiven Austausch gab.)
- Please note as well that other English Wikipedia articles (e.g. Irene (empress), Translatio imperii, King of the Romans, etc.) contradict assertions made in this one. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More or less OR. The term Romano-German does exist, but a Romano-German culture as described in this article? No. All relevant content can be found in many other articles, such as Holy Roman Empire or Germania. JdeJ 04:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is no article on this subject in wikipedia. Its ludacris to not have it. I am the author of this article, and i will be the first to admit my english, and grammer are not up to par. But either the the article/subject does deserve a place in wikipedia.--ProfMozart 05:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Part of the problem is that the article is simply your own ideas and that the factual accuracy is low. You come up with things like And like all the other countries that were once under Roman rule, they used the Roman alphabet . That's nonsense, the countries that were once under Rome have used over ten different alphabets when/after under Rome. So unfortunately, the spelling and grammar in the article is not the problem, the accuracy of the whole article is dubious at best. JdeJ 13:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is a shallow article most of whose content is covered in Germania and Holy Romasn Empire. If the article has anything worthwhile that is in neither then it should be merged. But that applies to very little of it. Most of it should be deleted. I assume that Romano-German is the equivalent of Romano-British, which refers to Britain in the period when it (or rather most of it) was part of the Roman empire. If so, any thing Romano-German will be covered in the Germania article and subarticles on its constituent provinces. Peterkingiron 23:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - But the article should be at least rewriten. No offense to anyone, but its as if a 9 year old wrote it. Secondly most of the article comes from other wikipedia articles, it looks like paragraphs were just cut from Germania and Holy Roman Empire, and pasted in Romano-German culture. Although the subject is notable and does belong on wiki, the article itself needs vast improvement. --Sir Kindle 07:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Sir Kindle the article was written by an editor who wasn't exactly the most fluent in English which explains why it is written badly and you are probably correct as it does seem that parts were just cut out of other articles but for now unless someone can figure out how to rewrite this properly we need to delete this article and then in the future rebuild this article but right now it just isn't in a state to be left on Wikipedia. Xtreme racer 23:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well that explains the way the article sounds, I'm sure I could rewrite this article, and have it up to standard in a few days. I have a pretty good understanding of the subject, in college we studied something that resembled this subject. I would need a few days to do some research, but I dont see a problem. How much longer is the current article going to be posted? --Sir Kindle 23:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment AFD debates last 5 days and since the article was nominated on June 18 the article will still be here till at least the 23rd of June and maybe longer depending on how the debate goes. I know it may not seem like much time but if you really do have a good understanding I can't see why you wouldn't be able to get the article up to standard. But as mentioned a lot of facts either need to be verified or removed if they were the personal opinion of the original author of the article. Xtreme racer 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Kindle, if you're serious about working on the article, you might have a look at Gallo-Roman culture for guidance. A good factual article. As you're a brand-new editor, let us know if we can answer questions about how things work. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ya know, I may have spoken too soon. The thing is I'm not too familiar with editing articles, and I wouldnt want my first wiki article to be anything less then suitable. I do however have some resources that might help. I have some books, and refrences that touch the subject, and I have done an extensive google search on it. I just wouldnt be able to make an article out of it, not quite yet anyways, not in 3 days. Its not that simple of a subject, and not so black and white, as if I was writing an article on something more tangable, say the moon for instance (no disrespect to the editor) :). I looked at Gallo-Romano, and as far as im concerned, its very close to the subject at hand,(since Franks are Germans per se) and I wonder if why the author didnt "cut and paste" from that article as well. --Sir Kindle 05:53, 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Tweedie[edit]

Seems to be a very clever chap indeed, but is he of encyclopedic notability? The references provided are all to papers written by him, not independent reliable sources. kingboyk 15:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. He does have some notability in WP:PROF. He was working on ext2 and ext3.--Edtropolis 17:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of resumes. If someone wants to write a real article about him, they can. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per Pmanderson and nom. I'm working on Wikipedia, but I'm certainly not notable. Someguy1221 05:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep new version. Someguy1221 23:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs rewriting. Suggest AFD in 2 months.Vectorsap 23:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or move to Vectorsap's userspace). No sources indicating notability. Per Edtropolis, I don't see how this passes WP:PROF, and deliberately avoided adding it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators because I didn't think it was a good fit for that list. If Vectorsap wants to rewrite it to better demonstrate notability but can't get it done for two months, I suggest that moving the article to his or her userspace would be a more constructive path than leaving it in its current state as an article. —David Eppstein 20:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- Groggy Dice T | C 21:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, with one paper having 42 cites, he is certainly an academic, though I am not sure he would pass PROF based just on that. However, it is not uncommon for software produced by comp.sci. academics to be included in research output metrics. In this case, Tweedie has contributed to some very high impact software. John Vandenberg 23:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, his ext3 work has had significant, as John says, "impact". .--soum ^talk 10:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the area in which he works he is notable. I've re-written the article a wee bit and added more references which I think cover the "independent" and "reliable" bases. AlistairMcMillan 11:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think that the delete side fully appreciates how important ext3 was. At the time, the lack of a journalling filesystem on Linux was cited as a key reason why Linux couldn't penetrate the enterprise market, and reiserfs was building up a lot of momentum to replace ext2. Ext3 changed that. If there aren't gushers of articles about him, I think it's plain that it's not because the Linux magazines and sites wouldn't love to interview him, but because for whatever reason he's just not interested. We shouldn't value self-promotion more than the respect of his peers. (For example, in this interview,[5] Andrew Morton describes his journalling work as "easily the most complex part of the kernel with which I have had experience.") --Groggy Dice T | C 12:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was (for me at least) not about doubting the significance of ext3, but the article providing utterly no information on his contributions to it, and no independent sources for it. This has been cleared up now. Someguy1221 23:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 18:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hot demolition[edit]

Not notable. Source describes only one instance of use, without a description of how widely spread the practice is, and source does not seem to be much corroborated. Adds little or nothing to wikipedia. Deltopia 14:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a dictionary term.--Edtropolis 14:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a hoax. Capmango 15:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought it was a hoax, too, but didn't want to base the nomination solely on that. Outside of the cited harper's article and wikimirrors, I've found no evidence that any such thing exists. But even if it does, needs deletion. Deltopia 16:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dont think it qualifies as a hoax. However, I believe it does fall to be deleted as a neologism. Ohconfucius 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a hoax. I guarantee you that if you douse a rat with kerosene and set him on fire, he will NOT go running from shack to shack setting them on fire for you. He will take two steps and fall over. Not that I have tried this, mind you. Capmango 16:54, 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 speedily deleted as copyvio'd spam (CSD G11, G12). Creator has been blocked for an inappropriate username; other articles have been similarly zapped. -- Merope 15:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights[edit]

Based on a number of factors, this article appears to be spam of a nonnotable organization by a COI author. I am also nominating the author's userpage, which contains identical content.

User:Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Yechiel Man 14:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He may have an inappropriate username or he may be a spammer.--Edtropolis 14:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Same user has now created articles Human right to work and Human right to education, both of which seem to be bordering on personal essays with some linkdumpage at the bottom. I merged and redirected the first to Labor rights for the time being, and I'm making note of this activity here. ~Matticus ^T_C 15:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manavaseva[edit]

Blatant conflict of interest. The organization is not notable, having fewer than 100 google hits. Please delete the image also. Yechiel Man 14:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not for lack of Google hits, but for lack of secondary coverage. Fails WP:CORP. --B. Wolterding 15:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article written by SPA Manavaseva. Fails WP:ORG & WP:COI. Caknuck 21:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G12 - It's a copyvio of various pages from [6] and although the inital editor probably represents the organisation, there is no indication that the text has been released. CIreland 05:21, 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 Speedy delete by Jimfbleak (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 08:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IGavel[edit]

Notability to come; this article looks like an advertorial. --Gavin Collins 14:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 14:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails criteria in WP:CORP.--Edtropolis 16:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam per G11, and so tagged. Ohconfucius 03:22, 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 delete. Sr 13 06:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Tzyy Yu[edit]

At minimum, most of this ridiculous article is obviously a hoax. On the talk page, someone says they found some evidence that some of it may be true, but I can't find anything to indicate such, although some of the claims are mundane enough that it's theoretically possible. No references are included, of course. 25 Google hits for "Tzyy Yu -wikipedia". Prod was removed. Propaniac 14:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable author. Fails criteria in WP:BIO.--Edtropolis 15:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax, but even if not, this chap fails WP:BIO. Lankiveil 15:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - NN author, true. However, if not a hoax, his victimization of having music/backing beats stolen by Green Day is notable. Guroadrunner 08:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but there's zero reason to think it isn't a hoax. Propaniac 13:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Sounds fair. Delete under WP:HOAX. Guroadrunner 04:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G1 as WP:NONSENSE, and sp tagged. Ohconfucius 03:26, 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Crossing[edit]

Conflict of interest: author of article seems to be the author of the book. The book doesn't seem notable enough to have earned neutral coverage. Yechiel Man 14:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Appears to have notability in book reviews.--Edtropolis 15:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonably notable author; published by TOR, a professional publishers; book reviews, even if quoted from Landis' website, are from neutral sources, like Locus. Three blows from a wet noodle for WP:AUTO violation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Locus awards are decidedly non-trivial in the field. Although book reviews and any other references should link to the original source. The wet noodle suggestion also has merit... FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 20:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominee for a Nebula, winner of a Locus? Uh, yeah. Keep and clean up. The author should be warned about COI, though, if not done already. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm-- didn't realize Wikipedia had such a policy; I saw that a non-existent article was referenced, and thought it would be easy enough to write it. While I can see that a COI policy makes a lot of sense, I have to point out that it's nontrivial to detect from the top level that such a "COI" policy exists; I checked the "editing wikipedia" article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria ); and the "list of policies" article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies ) neither of which mention any such policy. Geoffrey.landis 03:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article by the author isn't necessarily a breach of COI if article maintains NPOV, and COI is not reason to delete an article. Capmango 15:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Looks like crap right now, but if someone can write better, they may repost. Sr 13 19:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Peace[edit]

Non notable singer. ~ Wiki hermit 14:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The singer has a few reviews from different online sources as well as stating that the CD's will be released "in WalMart's Everywhere". If this is true, it will meet WP:MUSIC for notability. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. He's got so many albums on his web site. He appears to be notable.--Edtropolis 15:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - released a self-financed single with a pressing of 2,000 sold at shows, released one single that "did nothing nationally," released another single that also "did nothing nationally with only minor local success," now performing as a solo entertainer using self-produced backing tracks. No way does this guy pass WP:MUSIC. Otto4711 15:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey, and the article was created and heavily edited by User:MichaelPeace. WP:COI anyone? Otto4711 15:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. JJL 17:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnotable, apparently unsigned musician. Korny O'Near 15:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete may be notable, but this article is WP:POV, a pile of crap, part of which was C&P from another site. We will look at it again if someone wants to write it properly and repost. Ohconfucius 03:38, 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eidon[edit]

The Greek verb εἶδον is not a notable encyclopedic topic and is being used as the vehicle for original research (e.g. "Plato's philosophy is that 'eidon' is the immutable genuine nature of a thing"; connection to Morpheus; etc. etc.). At best, it is an attempt to open a new-article backdoor for the unsound ideas the same editor has pursued at Good sense (deleted), Nous, Divine Nous, Idea, Eidos, Theory of forms, etc. The author's ideas, if they were not original research, would belong at Theory of forms. Wareh 14:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A good article on this Greek word would be nothing more than a dictionary definition, and thus unsuitable for Wikipedia. The article we've got is stuffed full of original research, and is a POV fork of Theory of forms. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. Wareh 14:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Akhilleus. (In addition to which, it treats a verb as a noun; but that's trivial compared to the rest of it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm not completely opposed to an article on a Greek word (mimesis comes to mind, and paideia). But eidon doesn't make the cut. semper fictilis 17:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Linguistically and philosophically, a complete mess. Calling it original research is too kind, since clearly very little research went into it. Deor 00:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Since there is no specifics as to what parts or sentences are being objected to I believe the article should be kept for the following reasons. The main source of the information (80% +/-) for this article was obtained from Professor Joseph Novak's essay on the meaning of "Eidos", available online to a PDF file from the Department of Philosophy, University of Waterloo. It is number 14 in Notes. I also used Google to get additional references to back up this references and provided these as inline citations on the majority of the sentences throughout the article. If any source of these definitions are in dispute, there has not been any editor that has said such specifically. These definitions are the same for "eidon" and "edos" with many other sources.

If there was a specific phrase or sentence objected to in the article, let me know and I will provide additional sources besides those already provided.
Then if these are still objections by a consenses then that part could be taken out. Most sentences however have inline citations for references.
There is so much information in various philosophy books and online on this subject that it warrants an article by itself or its associated term "eidos."
Professor Novak's essay on the first page says, "anyone familiar with the history of philosophy, the term \eidos" is one of great significance. Along with its associated linguistic derivatives, the term \eidos" contains a nexus of concepts that are probably the most important to philosophizing as such."
Novak's essay also says, "For Plato himself it serves to designate any of those primary realities which have come to be known as the Forms." He then points out that the term Idea" and eidos" share the same root.
According to this source it is a verb and of the definitions I provided. Novak's essay says, "The term \eidos" (plural: \eide") is of Greek origin, \eidos" and it basically means \something that is seen." The term is a noun that is derived from the verb "eido" which means "to see."
In footnote 5 the source says: "In the philosophy of Plato, the eidos is the immutable genuine nature of a thing, one of the eternal, transcendent Forms apprehended by human reason {Gk. nouV [nous]}. Aristotle rejected the notion of independently existing Forms and understood them instead as abstract universals."
Since the main reference source is Professor Novak's essay, I believe those that think any parts are original research and not attributable should read this essay first (7 pages); since most of the article is from this essay. It is then backed up with no less that a dozen more references, all easily obtainable (or online). Most are in large public libraries or university libraries or through ILL.
There are a dozen sources that Professor Novak used for his essay written specifically on the subjects "eidos", "eidon', and "eidolon". --Doug ^talk 15:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Doug, your points relate to the noun εἶδος, not the verb εἶδον. In fact, most of the content of eidon is about the noun, as is Novak's essay. Now, I notice that you made an attempt to include some material in eidos (philosophy) ([7]) that's related to the material in eidon; your changes were reverted by Wareh ([8]), and rather than try to work something out on that article, you've created this article instead. That's a textbook example of a POV fork, and we haven't even examined your contributions to idea, Theory of forms, Nous, Noesis, and other philosophy articles where you're contributing very similar material.
- As for why we're not objecting to specific sentences of the article, it's because it's an unsalvageable mess. Well, no, the direct quotes are ok, but the rest of the article makes it clear that you have no understanding of classical Greek (the missing/incorrect breathing marks and accents are just the most obvious indicator of this) and a tenuous grasp, at best, of the history of ancient philosophy. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this article is just crap. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be a bit more specific, there is no Greek verb (in dictionary-entry form) είδον. That spelling—with a lenis and circumflex, not an acute, over the initial diphthong—could be the first-person singular second aorist form of the verb meaning "to see," or it could be the accusative singular form of the noun ειδος—again with lenis and circumflex, which WP doesn't provide for, apparently)—so the very first sentence of the article is hopelessly bollixed up, to begin with. And matters don't improve from there. (If anyone can tell me what the heck "Since eidos (ειδος), eide (ειδε), and idea (ιδεα) are similar in English, one can use them in their Cyrillic form" is supposed to mean, I'd be grateful.) You simply don't understand what you're writing about, and that's a poor basis for creating an article. Deor 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP allows for the circumflex (at least in the font I'm using): εἶδον. This could also be 3rd person plural aorist indicative ("they saw"), but εἶδος is neuter, so its accusative singular is also εἶδος. Sorry to be nitpicky, but I don't want to give Doug any erroneous information--you'll notice that he frequently asks language questions on the Reference Desk, and the answers often form the kernel of some odd idea that he slips into an article. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was relying on my aged memory for the gender of εἶδος. I should have looked it up. And I'm just getting a little empty box in place of the iota-with-circumflex on my screen. Deor 18:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deor, don't apologize--I'm sort of embarrassed that I brought it up, actually. As for the empty box, I think it's a font issue--some fonts have the appropriate polytonic characters, others don't. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: It so happens that this article of Eidon was found in "Good" articles proposed by bot for June 15 to be considered for the Main Page of Wikipedia in the section Did You Know. Another article that I wrote lately is Francesco Dionigi which shows up for "Good" articles on June 18. Here are some other articles I wrote lately.

Good Will.
Liber sine nomine - Book Without a Name.
Self-guided tour, verses escorted tours.
Laura de Noves, referring to Platonic love.
Automatic Scorers, helped develop this in the 1970's.
Street light interference - don't know why, but it happens to me!
Petrarch's testamentum, about Petrarch's Last Will and Testament.
Petrarch's library, the core material that started Biblioteca Marciana. (notice how many edits to this article since I started it)
Palazzo Molina, Petrarch's home in Venice 1362 - 1367 where he lived with his daughter and son-in-law Francescuolo da Brossano (another new article).
Aemilia Tertia, wife of the famous Italian general Scipio Africanus who beat Hannibal.
Factory tours, an interesting one I went to lately was Fenton Art Glass Company.--Doug ^talk 20:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just showing up in the bot list is not much of an achievement. It mostly checks for length, the existence of references and a few other things, so I could write a completely nonsense topic formatted properly and it would still get picked up by the bot. howcheng {chat} 23:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep judging the article in its own right, it seems adequately sourced, and a reasonably distinct subject. DGG 00:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, I don't mean to be bothersome, but I must point out that the ostensible subject of the article is the verb eidon, but the actual subject of the text is the noun eidos and its use in ancient Greek philosophy. The difference between verb and noun may seem trivial if you're not familiar with ancient Greek, but the verb has no significance as a technical term and doesn't merit an encyclopedia article, whereas eidos (philosophy) has one. The confusion between noun and verb is merely the most obvious sign of an unfamiliarity with ancient Greek that runs throughout an article that (badly) discusses words that share an etymological root with eidon.
- Note further that Doug apparently created this article to expound ideas that he has been unsuccessfully trying to put in eidos (philosophy), idea, Theory of forms, Nous, and Divine Nous, making it a POV fork.
- Lastly, the sourcing for this article includes a treatise hosted by the Unification Church--(Eidon#_note-9), hardly an authority on ancient Greek philosophy. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author of the article I didn't realize that a "verb" could not be an article. So apparently then only "nouns" can be an article? I see many articles in Wikipedia that have been around for years with similar themes; i.e. noosphere, noetic, noesis. I am not sure which ones are nouns or which ones are verbs (as they didn't say). However these three have as a common theme the word nous, meaning "mind", "intellect", "logos", or "reasoning." These three present very similar themes and they all exist and have been around for years.

If there was a POV fork on my part, it was unintentional - as the fork policy points out what happens in many cases. It further points out "A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." I also didn't realize that my article presented a "point of view" that was either negative or positive. The article is about a theme being the definition of the term "eidon" and/or "eidos" - no positive or negative viewpoint. Its just straight definitions by several sources and references (besides Professor Novak's essay on Eidos). If there is another viewpoint to this, then please feel free to present it - I have no objection.

If it should go under eidos (philosophy), then lets put this article here - since it is well sourced and referenced as DGG points out. All it would take is a little rewording in the lead, like this:

Eidos (noun, Greek: είδος) means that which is seen. Eidon (verb, Greek είδον) means "to see" or "to recognize" or "to know." It is like the Latin word video for "I see" (first person singular present, indicative of videre, "to see"). Eidos is derived from eido (root rid) which in Greek and Latin is the original terms for form, figure, shape, and genus. Eidos is the images of the sensible world, the poor, inexact copies of the perfect eid[1]. From eidos ("see") comes the word idea (Greek: ίδέα).

Any other minor items that may be left could then just be edited out and corrected by any other Wikipedian, just like all articles are done. When a Wikipedian sees something that should be expanded or corrected they just go ahead and edit it accordingly. That's what would happen then on this "new" article as [Eidos (philosophy)], There, the problem is now solved.--Doug ^talk 12:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, you seem to have missed the point, which is not that verbs can't have Wikipedia articles; the point is that this particular verb (εἶδον) is not a significant term in ancient Greek philosophy (or any other field of study), and therefore doesn't merit an article.

As for whether eidos (philosophy) should be expanded, I'll say once more that you've already given that a shot ([9]), and your changes were reverted by another editor ([10]). Rather than try to work something out on that article, you created eidon. That's a WP:POVFORK--as that policy says, "POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus."

At any rate, it's good to see that you've acknowledged that you "unintentionally" created a POV fork, and you can cut this AfD short by requesting the speedy deletion of eidon--just place {{db-author}} at the top of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move/Merge. By "Eidon" then becoming "Eidos" (since Eidos merits an article, especially since it is now a stub) then this solves everyone's problem from any and all points of view. I think its best to use the suggested lead above and just merge "Eidon" to "Eidos". "Eidos" has been a stub for 2 years now, so this would be a good chance to expand it into a full article. Keep in mind that these definitions are not my personal views, but referenced sources of these terms (attributable). Someday a Wikipedian will write up a full article on this subject and come up with basically the same material (from these references as well as additional sources). Why wait for another 2 years before an article is fully written on this subject, especially since it is already here ready to go. There is plenty of information available on "eidos" for a very large article on the subject; so this heads start would be a springboad to start from that other Wikipedians can expand upon. It then becomes a normal real article (not stub), like any other article. Suggestion: Merge and let the community work on the article. I would even agree with a 6 month ban not to edit the article, if you all's would agree with that too. I believe that is more than fair. What do you say? Let's make it a real article! The community of Wikipedians can then modify, change, expand, and edit accordingly to their heart's content. Even Professor Novak from the University of Waterloo says (as is now in the article itself),

along with its associated linguistic derivatives, the term 'eidos' contains a nexus of concepts that are probably the most important to philosophising as such.

This then is a very easy solution to the problem. I can do these simple steps (change lead) or others can do this (i.e. administrators resolving the dispute).--Doug ^talk 15:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In short, this is a rewrite of Novak's essay, which is a carelessly written ad for his magazine: it has two typos in the initial Greek quote, and his treatment of the digamma is confusing - perhaps confused. Most of it is an inflation of this entry from LSJ and the corresponding entry for species from Lewis and Short, or possibly OLD. If he had consulted the middle LSJ or Autenreith, he would have understood that Homer also uses eidos for "image".

This article has the same flaws, and the same fundamental weakness: we don't do articles on words. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Merge and let the community genuinely work on the article in Good Faith. Let's make it a real article under the title "Eidos"". The community of Wikipedians can then modify, change, expand, and edit accordingly to their heart's content improving on any weaknesses. Does that sound fair to you? --Doug ^talk 18:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No one seems to have hit on this point yet but Doug Coldwell says he based this article largely on an essay "A Sense of Eidos" by Joseph Novack. First of all, that's not a good idea - articles should not be "based" on a source but rather be written by the author, after learning what they can learn through various sources. Second, though, this particular essay by Joseph Novack is not peer-reviewed, but rather is like a foreword to a journal called Eidos, partly to give information, and partly to explain to the audience why Eidos is a good name for a journal of philosophy. I oppose merging because this is so heavily based on a single, self-published source: this is OR (or perhaps "unoriginal research"?). As for covering the topic, I'm not quite sure. A mere etymology is not worth an article, but would be worthwhile at Wiktionary. An article on the philosophical concept is better, but I'd rather see us improve the Eidos (philosophy) article rather than starting with this. Not wholly convinced we need an article separate from Theory of forms. Mango juice^talk 17:37, 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Special (film)[edit]

No reliable sources indicating that this film is notable (not even an IMDB page). I prodded on 5/21; prod was removed without comment or improvement. I forgot about the earlier prod and prodded it again on 6/15, which was removed since it should be taken here. Propaniac 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per WP:CRYSTAL.--Edtropolis 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propraniac's comments are incorrect. The IMDB page has not yet been posted, therefore it cannot be listed yet...however, it is pending and it takes time for IMDB's staff to approve a page. It is worth noting that the film's musician and actors have IMDB pages from previous projects, which is one of IMDB's criteria for approval. IMDB takes time...it isn't as efficient as Wikipedia. Significant improvements have been made, including distribution and festival information. This film's IMDB page was put on hold until it had won a "best of" award at a film festival, which the film did 3 weeks ago. The Wikipedia page has been completely redesigned, conforms to Wikipedia layout guidelines, includes approximately 50% more information, includes distribution information and includes a theatrical poster. It is incorrect to define such changes as "without improvement."

In addition, this isn't a "Crystal Ball" situation. This film has already won a major festival and will begin a limited theatrical release in August, which is only 6 weeks away. Lastly, there is the implication that the accidental removal of a deletion notification was deliberate. In this case, I'd appreciate it if the assumption was user error and unfamiliarity with Wikipedia. SuperDuper 1001

Delete because a case needs to be made for its notability before an article should be created. None of this "Let's wait for it to get popular" business. As further evidence, I searched the keywords "saturday night special" "justin evans" in Google, and got 22 results. No prejudice against recreation if objective, secondary sources indicate this film's notability. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:26, 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. Sr 13 19:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 250 Most Important Albums of Latin Alternative[edit]

This article is about a list that once appeared in a music magazine. Although the musicians are notable, the list is not notable. Yechiel Man 14:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, inherently subjective, other people or sources may disagree. Furthermore, if this article is meant to represent a particular list at a particular time, then I don't see how much further the article could be developed. --Kyoko 15:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also probably WP:COPYVIO. Clarityfiend 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Kyoko, and we still are waiting for the Wiki legal gurus to tell us when a top X list is or isn't a copyvio. Carlossuarez46 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We had a big copyvio "debate" about the American Film Institute lists, which was finally settled by getting permission from them. Clarityfiend 01:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Delete, i really think this article must be kept it because of difficulty to get some info about lists or any kind media coverage about Latin Alternative genre. I know lists are subjective, but i think if it's developed the criteria what was used to be elaborated it it's possible to consider it as any list of Rolling Stone magazine that appears on Wikipedia. --JICAMARCA 21:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Maybe, it's better to change the title as Al Borde's The most important album of Latin Alternative. Please be fair with this article :/ --190.40.175.2 21:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The notability of Al Borde magazine has yet to be determined. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. Ohconfucius 03:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's notable for California's Latino community--190.40.175.2 21:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There are a number of lists regarding best songs or best films on [Wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI%27s_100_Years..._100_Movies], [11], Of course any such list is subjective, but those lists (just as this one) makes it clear that the list represents the opinion of an identified source. The copyright issue would need to be sorted, and the top ten might have to be removed, but I see no consistency in deleting this article when a number of more or less identical lists abound. Would anyone of the contributors voting for deletion care to explain why this list is different from, say, The_500_Greatest_Albums_of_All_Time. JdeJ 18:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sr 13 19:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abbeville Opera House[edit]

This article has problems with notability and possible conflict of interest. It may need cleanup or deletion - I'm not sure. Yechiel Man 14:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.--Edtropolis 16:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup - the opera house is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The city's web site talks about the history of the opera house, so that should provide sufficient context on the opera house's history. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So far I think we have consistently kept buildings with individual listings on the National Register--certainly if they are significant public buildings like this one. DGG 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, NRHP listings are vetted by professionals at the state and federal levels for their architectural, cultural, or historical significance. I don't think the tourism award is that significant but in a context of downtown revitalization might be (there seem to be some news sources on that behind paywalls). --Dhartung | Talk 03:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This building is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, this in itself makes it notable. The article needs a cleanup, that's all.Einbierbitte 17:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An individual listing on the National Register of Historic Places should merit keeping this article. Particularly since it was added to the Register in 1970, making it one of the older listings (the program started in the late '60s). -Ebyabe 17:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The NRHP listing is enough to keep this article. IvoShandor 17:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up The particular facet about the tourism award may or may not be made notable with context. But certainly the historic values of the site, as established through its NRHP listing, make it of encyclopedic value. (Conflict of interest disclosure: My folks used to perform there several years ago.) -Ipoellet 18:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did a bit of clean up, the awards I left in because they are likely notable in context of the building's overall cultural significance. I cut a few things that I thought could reasonably be construed as POV or as trivial information. I removed the NPOV tag and autobiography tags (not sure why that was there). IvoShandor 18:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has problems but does have notability. Vectorsap 23:48, 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

The event is encyclopedic, and is handled in an encyclopedic manner in Big Day Out. The person is not encyclopedic and since there are living relatives there are biographies of living persons (BLP) issues. In short, the policy tells us the biographies of people known only for one event needn't be written about in their own right.

Uncle G's suggestion of a redirect to Big Day Out is well taken. This may be created. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Michalik[edit]

Non-notable person. Someone who is only notable for their death can be notable (see famous murder victims, for example Matthew Shepard) - however, someone who died by accident is not notable. This individual is not herself notable - information on her death should be merged with moshing. Chardish 00:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable but needs more sources. ExtraDry 09:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 09:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to Big Day Out, or create a new article something like Big Day Out 2001 Sydney incident. The person is not notable, but the incident is. (per WP:BLP1E - thanks Uncle G :) Orderinchaos 10:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge per Orderinchaos (Who edit conflicted me just as I was posting thanks very much). Subject does not qualify for an article in it's own right in accordance with WP:MEMORIAL and ~~WP:BLP~~WP:BIO. The subject of the article is only notable for a single event, being her unfortunate death. The references are not cited inline, therefore each of the facts as written cannot be checked, failing WP:CITE. Subject also does not receive notability by association as a result of a notable band playing at her funeral. Thewinchester ^(talk) 10:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't prevent the facts from being checked at all. You have made a common error. Lack of spoon-feeding does not make an article unverifiable. See User:Uncle G/On sources and content#The requirement is only that the sources be cited somehow. Uncle G 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject of the article does not meet WP:BIO (not sure how WP:BLP applies) and I am not convinced the incident is notable enough for the information to be merged to any of Limp Bizkit, Big Day Out or Moshing. I certainly do not think that her death, as unfortunate as it was, merits an article in its own right. Wikipedia is not a memorial. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 10:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bloody good point there Mattinbgn, shows just how long a day it had been for me when I made those comments. Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The part of the policy that you are both looking for is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about living people notable only for one event, which in turn is based upon the principle that not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. Uncle G 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, my point was that a policy that specifically applies to living people surely can't be applied to a person who is dead. That said, I agree the general principle should apply. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Big Day Out as her death led to changes in procedures and was one of the most significant in the event's history. [12] Also worth a mention in the Limp Bizkit article as they were criticised by the coroner. Capitalistroadster 10:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- and redirect to the Big Day Out article. A passing mention in the Limp Bizkit article is worthy of note also. - Longhair\^talk 11:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Big Day Out article, although the BDO article is getting awfully long. Recurring dreams 12:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto Merge. The BDO article is surprisingly huge. But this person's death seems much more notable than incidents of hoax press releases. I say merge it into BDO's History section and if something has to go, it should be some of the existing BDO content. Canuckle 23:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is not just what a person does, but can also be what happens to a person, as here. (but the BDO article could possibly be divided by year to accomodate this) DGG 16:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- What happened to this person was that she was killed. The criticism of a rock performer by a coroner doesn't form part of a biography of her life and works. Uncle G 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the principle that I outlined in the pretty coloured box at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23, redirect to Big Day Out, where this person's death is already covered in its proper context and without the pretense of being a biographical article. Uncle G 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please identify which pretty coloured box on the linked page you are referring to ? -- Mattinbgn/^talk 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's the one with the green background. Uncle G 19:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Day Out per Uncle G. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and not everything that appears in the newspapers needs to have an encyclopedia article dedicated to it. Edison 16:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect the verifiable information to a section in the Big Day Out article, then use this section as an anchor for brief entries in other related articles, i.e. Limp Bizkit and moshing. Significant event in the history of the concert, but does not pass notability criteria as a biography. -- saberwyn 23:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, per WP:NOT tabloid journalism. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are 351 articles about her in Factiva. It was heavily publicised at the time, and still gets cited years later. This isn't even a marginal case, and it's one where it really mightn't have hurt to have a) done some research, or b) asked some Australians about its notability, before racing off to delete it. Rebecca 10:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that you actually do some of that research that you are talking about. Those of us who have done the research, which involves not counting search engine hits but actually reading the articles, have seen that the articles are not "about her". They are about the festival, the coroner's report, the changes to safety measures, the arguments between the promoters and the performers, the insurance liabilities, and the civil suits, all of which belong in, and many of which can already be found in, Big Day Out. Presenting any of this as if it were a biography of a person's life and works is a pretense. Once again, and in boldface: Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. Uncle G 19:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jessica Michalik was not just 'some trampling victim'. Her death brought into attention a lot of issues, including poor crowd control at concerts; it resulted in legal action against Australia's biggest music festival, and against Fred Durst, the lead singer of Limp Bizkit. It was very heavily publicised at the time; it still gets mentioned whenever something goes awry at a concert. This is honestly like proposing to delete Matthew Shephard or Rodney King - this was a precedent-setting death. In a less-populated country like Australia, things like this receive a lot of attention. It thus may be hard for the primarily American Wikipedia contributors to put Michalik into perspective. However, she is (I use 'is' to describe the incidents and ramifications of her death, not the person) definitely notable - her death, while unfortunate, helped to bring about a lot of changes. It was newsworthy at the time. It is certainly article-worthy now. Riana ⁂ 10:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are aware that many of the editors who have suggested deletion or merging are Australian. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 11:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for assuming I have not fully read this discussion. I made that comment for future voters. Riana ⁂ 11:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just making the point that not all Australians feel the subject is notable. Your comment, whether it was meant to or not, could imply that was not case. Also, I am not a big fan of assuming that those non-Australians who have voted on the subject have not been able to do their own research on the notability of the subject and come to a fair conclusion. Once again, whether you meant to or not, your comment could be read to imply this.-- Mattinbgn/^talk 11:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - My comment was directed purely as a response to commenters above who clearly had not done that research. If you think that the reason this article exists is because "a notable band played at her funeral", you've very clearly not done even basic research into the actual case; it exists for the reasons Riana outlined above. Rebecca 13:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK. Matt, I apologise for my tone - I'm just a little surprised that someone's suggested this article should be deleted. How do you suggest I modify my comment? I am certainly not suggesting all non-Aussies have not done their research - I am merely trying to point out that something like 'some kid got trampled at a rock concert' might happen all the time in countries with many more kids, many more rock concerts, many more opportunities for such events to occur. In Australia, something like this is rare - I'm sure we agree on that point.
        I also particularly dislike the idea of a merge into the general Big Day Out article. Certainly it merits a mention in the article. But I believe that Michalik's death was more than sufficiently noteworthy to merit a standalone article. This is not BLP we're dealing with. This is how one girl's death changed a lot of the things we do at concerts. `Riana ⁂ 14:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No. It merits discussion in the article, because the ramifications were nothing to do with this person and everything to do with the festival, its promoters, and the artists who were performing there. Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. A discussion of the aftermath of a death at a rock concert is by no stretch of the imagintion a biographical article on a person's life and works. Uncle G 19:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As Riana pointed out, we already have numerous articles on people who are notable, not for their lives, but their deaths. Riana named some of them above, but I can think of quite a few more. These articles aren't "a biography of their life and work"; much of those articles, necessarily, cover the notable ramifications of their deaths. Michalik's death wasn't just notable to the extent of one concert; it fundamentally changed the way concerts are operated across the country. The ramifications of her death were very significant - and crucially, not just to the Big Day Out. It deserves a standalone article, and articles have been kept with far, far, far less evidence of notability. I can't help but much of this just comes down to "I haven't heard of her." Rebecca 23:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that this has to be a keep as under WP:BIO Jessica "has demonstrable wide name recognition". Anytime Big Day Out, mosh pits, big rock concerts are mentioned in a newspaper, her name always comes up. Her death raised issues about crowd safety, organ donation, the naming of a park, and the creation of a memorial trust by Australian record companies. I agree that in over 350 articles, all bar two only mention Jessica in passing, but she has name recognition. I have added a reference to that article by Anna Cock about her in the Daily Tele (hard copy only, no weblinks). The topic of her tragic death is definitely notable enough to have its own page anyway, and it would also qualify under the splitting rule for long pages anyway. Anyway way you look at it, the topic is deserving of a separate page. Anyway, there is enough controversy for it to be kept for failure of consensus, so can we move on and discuss deleting something else. Assize 04:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        We have articles on deaths and murders. We don't name them after the people who died and we don't pretend that they are biographies of those people's lives and works. The ramifications of this person's death should not be covered in an article that pretends to be a biography of a person. Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. Uncle G 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rule of thumb regarding notability is this: If topic "Foo" is not notable independently of topic "Bar" (in other words, you can't name a reason why "Foo" is notable that doesn't involve "Bar" or anything related to "Bar"), then information on "Foo" should be merged into the article on "Bar" unless there is so much information about "Foo" that it warrants its own article. Michalik is clearly not notable independently of Big Day Out, and there's not enough information on her to warrant her own article. - Chardish 04:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that this patently isn't true. The ramifications of this went significantly beyond the Big Day Out. Rebecca 04:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes, and those issues can be discussed in an appropriate section within the BDO article. And quite frankly, the ramifications wern't as big as you're making them out to be. The person fails the required standard for notability, and the article should be merged and redirected, like every other common sense editor here has suggested. Thewinchester ^(talk) 08:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apologies in advance for not being a common sense editor, but can we just address WP:BIO, as that is what makes a person worthy of taking note. A person is notable if they meet any of the 10 criteria listed in that guideline. One of those is name recognition, and that is something that Jessica has. The association with BDO has no relevance to her notability. That argument would only apply to the security guard who rescued her or her friend who was stuck up the back of the event who are mentioned many times in the articles. Assize 09:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That the person's name is recognized doesn't mean that the information that editors want to present should be presented in a form that pretends to be a biographical article of a person's life and works. The insurance liability court cases, for example, are not part of the life and works of this person. They are, however, part of the history of Big Day Out. And that is where the death of Jessica Michalik, and all of the other things that came afterwards, should be covered, presenting them in their proper context, and without the pretence that they in any way form a biography. Uncle G 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps the article could do with a lot of work, but then 99% of wikipedia could do with that as well. Badly written articles are not grounds for deletion. Perhaps I am being too Sydney-Australia-centric in this discussion, but every twenty something knows who she was, and that in my opinion meets WP:BIO and the ability to have a separate page. If you carry this to its natural extreme, John Howard should be merged into an article about prime ministers of Australia as he wouldn't be independently notable outside of being PMAssize 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Assize has pointed out, this subject does meet BIO, esp. with a yearly Jessica Michalik Contemporary Music Endowment in her name. It may never be a normal biography, but this article should remain as a central point for the event. A rename to reduce the attempt to be a BIO would be good. John Vandenberg 12:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't need a rename. This ground is already covered in Big Day Out#History, and there is plenty of room in that article for further expansion on the events. All that we need is a redirect. Uncle G 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A redirect works for me, as the endowment is also linked to the BDO, but I would prefer to see this as a separate article as I am not a fan of being sent to a long article in order to figure out who someone is, and I think it is sufficiently notable event to have its own article. John Vandenberg 13:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Orderinchaos. We shouldn't be the establishers of fame. Bulldog123 18:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Establishers of fame? I think it's already pretty established, due to the very high media attention . Rebecca 00:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources say notable. Everyking 08:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Rename with redirect to Big Day Out, Sydney 2001 as Jessica is only notable due to this event, every thing that has happened is as a result. Besides Jessica the article can cover the changes to barriers for such events, the various court cases that occured. This is then not lost/hidden/unfindable in the Big Day Out article and can offer a broader range of information for those interested. note for closing admin alternative position is delete/redirect as the subject isnt independently notable. Gnan garra 11:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.--Wafulz 22:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Briel[edit]

Delete Article was derived from Institute of Puerto Rican Culture website; notability is weak. Subject mainly won a talent show and simply due to that he is considered important by the article's author.--XLR8TION 20:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has no year of birth. Possibly fails criteria in WP:BIO.--Edtropolis 15:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm from Puerto Rico and the subject is well known here and in some Latin American countries. He is a singer, composer, has had a TV show for more than a decade I guess, etc. The article definitely needs work because somebody poured lots of data that is not NPOV, but I do think it must be kept. Thief12 03:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Googleing "Lou Briel Puerto Rico" returns close to 1,000 results. Yahoo! returns close to 200. For whatever is worth. Thief12 03:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm also from Puerto Rico, I didn't write the original article but I've added some contributions. I don't know his year of birth, but I'll try to find out and include it, if it's necessary. The information in the article is quite correct, and it's not derivated from the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture website, www.icp.gobierno.pr,{Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña). Lou Briel's biography is not listed there, and it's not a biography website. I do think it must be kept, also.--Entre-Nos 05:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I already found Lou Briel's birthdate and included it. I've cleaned the article, added some information, and eliminated the unnecessary wikilinks, [[ ]], and some triple quotes, . Check it, it's worth it. Best regards. --Entre-Nos 09:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I would vote a "Keep" if the article is re-written within within Wikipeida's formatting style. The article needs sections, it should start with an introduction and so on. As it is, it is not up Wikipedia Standards. If it is worked on properly then I will reconsider. Tony the Marine 04:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I tried to clean and organize the article as best as I could. However, I didn't check for sources. I basically worked with the data that was there. I also added an infobox. Any comments, feel free to leave them here. Thief12 15:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Thief12. I was just about to edit when I saw your changes. Excellent job. There was just an error in his birthdate and I corrected it. Congratulations. Best regards:--Entre-Nos 17:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if the article is correct, he's a notable TV personality. The fact that the article is somewhat badly written is grounds for improving it, not deleting it. Korny O'Near 15:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article has greatly improved since the last time I saw it. Tony the Marine 01:23, 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 merge into Miniature figure (gaming). I know nothing about the subject, but this AFD is past deadline and someone has to execute the decision. If I mess it up, please be bold and edit the relevant articles. Yechiel Man 10:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miniatures (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

What's the reasoning? Pawsplay 17:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - merge into Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 14:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - D&D miniatures is not really about the same topic as Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game, despite the similar title and cross-reference; the former is about the use of miniatures in D&D (a fantasy role playing game), whereas the latter is about a skirmish wargame based on D&D character types. Role players will tell you there's a big difference between these types of gaming, even if they both use miniatures. Agnostic as to whether deletion is warranted. I'm not sure if D&D miniatures really qualify as notable, separate from existing articles on Miniature figure (gaming) and Dungeons & Dragons. But if this is going to be merged, the unique content might fit better into one of those other two articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenauberon (talk • contribs)
Merge with Miniature figure (gaming). Zenauberon just beat me to this point. --Bren ^talk 05:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Miniature figure (gaming), per Zenauberon, which is what this article is about. The D&D Miniatures game is a different topic and a separate game. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Miniature figure (gaming) per above. Capmango 15:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ditto on the merge with Miniature figure (gaming). BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 14:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game, bit redundant. GreaterWikiholic 21:57, 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 Merge all to Punjab State Carrom Association and Delete. The history of the articles has been merged to take care of GFDL issues. utcursch | talk 04:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab State Carrom Association[edit]

Merge Guru Tegh Bahadur Sports Club, Amritsar District Carrom Association and Tarn Taran District Carrom Association into Punjab State Carrom Association. All of them are subdivisions of that larger organization (which itself may need to be merged into All India Carrom Federation, but let's leave that for another discussion). None of them have enough material, much less sources, to stand alone as individual articles, are unlikely to ever be anything but stubs, have engendered a useless Category:Punjab State Carrom Association, and (I contend) are not notable enough to sustain separate articles, any more so than, say, the New Mexico regional division of the Billiard Congress of America. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I bring this to AfD because there is not enough editorial interest in these articles to have a meaningful merge discussion at Talk:Punjab State Carrom Association. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all. These should be merged, and then the category can be deleted.--Mike Selinker 20:43, 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Granet[edit]

Vanity page, self-inserted by User:Jbederman, a User with no other edits Wetman 00:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in here qualifies as a valid assertion of notability. Someguy1221 21:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 05:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- each of his books has independent reviews, and several have multiple. To be notable, "self-help" authors need to have a higher level of outside interest in their books than more specialized authors, but the books I searched for definitely make this mark. (Needs definite cleanup) -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above (agree about cleanup too). JJL 17:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Mscuthbert Taprobanus 17:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and let's all be a little more careful with the "v" word, I'm seeing it tossed around a lot. Capmango 16:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps there is a good reason that the "v" word is tossed around too frequently. IMHO, WP:Auto needs to be made far more stringent. Anyway, this article certainly sounds autobiographical to me. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 20:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with calling things COI or AUTO (though why we keep doing that in AfD when it's not relevant to deletion I dunno), but using the word Vanity is a direct attack on the author's character and strikes me as completely inappropriate. We should not assume the worst about people. Capmango 16:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am familiar with the world he moves in and his credentials are quite typical. I see nothing that makes him stand out. Contrast him with someone such as Otto_Kernberg or (the poorly written article about) Roy_Schafer. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:AUTO not sufficient grounds to nominate. Subject looks reasonably notable and sources were provided. John Vandenberg 06:30, 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 feeding the school merge fetish on here, merge/redirect.--Wizardman 14:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steves Elementary_School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Steves Elementary School

non notable elementary school ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only the cited facts to School District 38 Richmond per WP:V. Article fails WP:N on its own. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, noticed that all already the info of one school is in the school board article.--JForget 00:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to School District 38 Richmond. Alansohn 17:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to School District 38 Richmond Noroton 17:49, 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 feeding the school merge fetish on here, merge/redirect.--Wizardman 14:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tait Elementary_School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tait Elementary School

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to School District 38 Richmond and expand that article to receive it. Dhaluza 16:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as article fails WP:N on its own but facts are supported. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into SD 38 Richmond to allow for the possibility of a better, resurrected article on this school in the future. Noroton 17:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to School District 38 Richmond. Alansohn 17:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to School District 38 Richmond Noroton 17:48, 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 feeding the school merge fetish on here, merge/redirect.--Wizardman 14:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson Elementary_School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Thompson Elementary School

non notable elementary school ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't believe that this article should be deleted. Please explain how you have concluded that this is not a notable school. More importantly, what would you consider a notable elementary school? --theorb 10:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some here would not consider any elementary school that did not have some national or international fame or importance attached to it to be notable, I think (but you might ask them). I tend to be inclusionist: If there were plenty of good information in this or any other elementary school article, especially if you can get two reliable, independent sources for information on the school, I would prefer to keep the article, and you'd get at least some support from others (although I don't know if it would be enough to avoid a consensus decision to delete). As it is now, the article is essentially a stub and there's little reason to believe it will grow (elementary school stubs often don't grow). The best argument for taking out even the best stubs is that they disappoint readers. All the information here, along with that of other schools in the same district, could fit into a section of one larger article on the district. All the information could then be saved for readers, who would be just as well served. Noroton 17:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you listing it at AfD, rather than just merging it, as you say is appropriate in your reply above? Dhaluza 10:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to School District 38 Richmond. Dhaluza 16:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only the cited facts per WP:V. Article fails WP:N on its own. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge cited material to School District 38 Richmond and hard redirect (protect the redirect). Burntsauce 22:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Burntsauce. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to School District 38 Richmond. Alansohn 17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to SD 38 Richmond Noroton 18:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to school district article as suggested. Yamaguchi先生 04:16, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Luciferi[edit]

This article lacks any reliable sources. I was unable to locate any coverage in reliable sources that were independent of the subject (here, Tommy Luciferi). The prod placed on the article was removed without any reliable sources being added to the article. The article initially included the statement The purpose of this article is to alert people that although Tommy Luciferi has developed somewhat of an online fan base, his true intentions and motives should serve to be a warning beacon of the shifting tides of thought streams in North America. Without reliable sources, the article cannot meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and should be deleted. Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: A7. Leuko 19:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy or snowball delete per nom and Leuko.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 14:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - as per WP:SNOW.--Edtropolis 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sheesh. JJL 17:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as CSD A7, the sole source is a blogspot website ffs. Burntsauce 22:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - The only source cited is a blog. Considering that no clear claims of notability are made, it appears the subject matter is not only unsourced, but unsourceable. ◄Zahakiel ► 13:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom, snowballs for Luciferi. RFerreira 06:04, 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. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu Home Server[edit]

Completely incorrect information:
- Not developed or even support by Canonical
Literal copy & paste of the home page's wiki
- [13]
Ubuntu Home Server is still in discussion, not even in development
No useful information
- What is this article even trying to state?

Altonbr 14:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jc98250 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC) - I think the page has value:[reply]

http://ubuntuhomeserver.org does not show when googling 'ubuntu home server', but the wikipedia page does (and references the site)
Canonical is hosting a session on the Home Server[14] at the upcoming Ubuntu Live in Portland, OR, in July 2007
Keep - And cleanup. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jossi. Bucketsofg 19:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This material is of a very early and nebulous nature. We might overlook WP:CRYSTAL if reliable sources had commented on this plan, but there are none cited. Some of this might find a home under 'future directions' in the main article Ubuntu (Linux distribution). EdJohnston 17:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This edition is in actual development and here is its page at launchpad : https://launchpad.net/uhs/

Don't delete this article.--62.149.114.19 16:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Walter Lee_Elementary_School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Walter Lee Elementary School

non notable elementary school ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only the cited facts to School District 38 Richmond per WP:V. Article fails WP:N on its own. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Butseriouslyfolks. Notability not demonstrated, but a paragraph in School District 38 Richmond that contains verifiable facts would be the right place for school information. --B. Wolterding 14:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to School District 38 Richmond. Alansohn 17:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to School District 38 Richmond Noroton 17:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to School District 38 Richmond.xC | ☎ 04:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nice cleanup.--Wafulz 22:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zona Norte[edit]

This article is a translation from the Spanish Wikipedia. However some users removed most of the content.

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article at esWiki that this was "translated" from is a rather detailed piece on prostitution and adult entertainment in Tijuana. It has no sources and reads like original research, so it's not suitable for translating in its entirety to enWiki. No prejudice against re-creation with sources and with a less ambiguous name, but I'm uncertain there is enough in the way of sources out there for it. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Objectionable content was removed. --Rivus 21:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are valid sources, like this article from the San Diego Youth and Community Services: http://www.sdycs.org/site/DocServer/TIC_-_2.doc?docID=641 or the article from Cimac: http://www.cimacnoticias.com/noticias/06abr/s06041101.html

Prostitution in Tijuana is a big problem, so there are sources to verify the content that is written in the article.

If you check the information in the Spanish site, that now has the reference, it says mostly the same as this article.

There is also the blog, however, the author has not talked about his methodology (poll and interviews) and has not been peer reviewed enough, but there are many sites that can be cross referenced to find the validity of all the information.

how about you find them and re-write the article.

I will do that. It's already started in Spanish...

Keep and expand - These Red-light districts are notable, similar to Combat Zone (Boston) or Storyville. Given the proximity to San Diego, this area is very frequented by sex tourists and is certainly well known. The article is a mess though and doesn't even mention it's located in Tijuana. --Oakshade 18:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd be willing to translate/rewrite this article from the esWiki version if it were sufficiently sourced, but the problem is that even the "new" sources presented there are, with one exception, culled from a blog. If the district is notable then sources will exist, but we cannot assume notability prima facie simply because other red-light districts have been shown to be notable. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a very brief search (I do have a life outside of WP), so far I've found a CNN article and a San Diego Union-Tribune one that both have a lot of detail on the Zona Norte.--Oakshade 22:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's good for a start. I'll work on translating the article tomorrow and using those for starting sources, and will withdraw the delete !vote from before. Arkyan  ^(talk) 22:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was going to translate the esWiki version of this article, which was rather exhaustive in terms of information, however that article has been deleted from esWiki [15] for their version of WP:NOT. I've no objections to a sourced article on this topic being written here but I am no longer able to translate it as the spanish version is gone. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already started the article using information only form the San Diego Youth and Community Service. The information from the article from the Spanish Wikipedia is here, and it concurs with the information from other sources.

I checked this document, and it has the same information about the states of procedence for the Paraditas.

http://www.oas.org/atip/country%20specific/AZAOLA%20Mexico%20Child%20Sex%20Exploitation.pdf

Besides prostitution, there are also drugs in the Zona Norte, here is the article: http://experienciastj.blogspot.com/2007/06/drogas-en-la-zona-norte.html

Here is the translated article from spanish:

Comment - I moved the text onto the talk page to keep it from clogging this up. I'd rather have had the Spanish text to translate from - but this will do fine. However, someone has copy-pasted copyrighted text directly into the article and this is plainly unacceptable. I am going to mark that for speedy deletion, and once it's deleted I will re-write the article based on the translated text as well as the links that Oakshade dug up previously - thanks for the help guys. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The copyrighted text is from [16]. Putting a link to it here so I have it as a reference and don't lose it when that gets deleted. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just plain keep - I've gone ahead and completely rewritten the article with the provided sources as well as a couple of others that I dug up. It should be well within inclusion criteria now. Enjoy. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note : I am moving the commentary about the article itself onto the article's talk page, it's a better venue for such discussion. Try to keep the conversation here focused on whether or not the article should be deleted. Thanks! Arkyan  ^(talk) 22:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to Arkyan's rewrite of 22 June, this is now a solid and well-referenced article! I left a message for User:Stealthrabbit127, the nominator of the AfD, to see if he will withdraw his nomination due to the rewrite. EdJohnston 17:16, 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 keep. Sr 13 20:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IBM WebSphere[edit]

Another software neologism, but unless they really have invented crystal ball, I suspect this may be non-notable product release. IBM is well known of course, but this list of a product components & their attributes should be deleted because it appears to be a double helping of Spam. --Gavin Collins 13:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 13:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - a product catalog does not qualify as encyclopedic information. The existence of this brand would be worth a sentence in the IBM article or one of its subarticles, but not more. --B. Wolterding 14:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I am changing to Keep as a product family, but the article definitely needs improvement: a) Non-trivial independent sources need to be added in order to establish notability (separate from the application server); b) the product catalog, i.e. the mere listing of (usually non-notable) products on this page, should be replaced with encyclopedic content. --B. Wolterding 08:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep, this is a notable software product with 1.7 millions ghits, 4.5 thousand scholar hits, 186 news hits and 643 book hits. If every word of this article cant be verified somewhere amoungst those sources, I'll eat my hat. John Vandenberg 14:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is a misunderstanding. The product you're referring to is IBM WebSphere Application Server, and it is notable for sure (and has its own article). --B. Wolterding 14:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the article being proposed for deletion is a "platform", and the application server is no longer a major reason for its notability. On each of my searches you can add -"application server" and still receive a large number of results. This would be comparable to deleting Windows Vista simply because its technology components such as WinFS and WinFX have articles (bear in mind that people do not buy "Vista", they buy and "edition" which contains a set of features). Or deleting Oracle E-Business Suite or Oracle Fusion Middleware because they are made up of other components. "WebSphere" is not a catalog; it is an IBM brand and the name of a division of IBM that develops and maintains that platform (similar to the Lotus and Rational divisions) which contains a long list of products that are kept in step with each other and are integrated into each other. A disambig page is not appropriate as it would not mention any of the brand/division aspect of WebSphere. John Vandenberg 22:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig Obviously, some of the articles linked there are of note, but otherwise that's er... ibmcrufty for lack of better terms. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The IBM WebSphere is a very notable product family, like Oracle Fusion Middleware or Microsoft Windows Kmorozov 07:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as an IT expert I can assure that this article is relevant, encyclopedic and accurate. David 12:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a major, major player in J2EE platforms and is the backbone of thousands of websites and enterprise applications. It's also been around for many years now; it's not new. Capmango 18:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this just anti-IBM backlash or something? This is a very relevant product family, whether you think it's current or not is not relevant. Historical or modern, many people are interested from a technical and lay perspective in the platform.Randomjohn 13:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is: Notability should not be established by just stating "it's notable", but by citing independent sources. These are missing, so the article can easily generate the impression that the subject is not notable. --B. Wolterding 14:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not having sources is a problem, but that doesnt make this article bad. We are all busy fixing things, and deleting articles oft makes more work than it solves. Going back to Randomjohn's comment, there is an anti-enterprise backlash on Wikipedia; notable software that many people havent heard of is often sent to Afd. This isnt a critism of the nominator either; I have recently sent one to Afd and was surprised that it got a second hearing and resulted in a keep. John Vandenberg 23:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capmango. --Karnesky 13:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This middleware is of relevance to enterprise software integration. It is notable and of interest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.96.9 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 22 June 2007

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Textbook case of a WP:CRYSTAL violation, and the sort of conditions that WP:SNOW was written about. We've all got better things to spend our time on. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates of the Caribbean: 4[edit]

Wildly premature article full of speculation. No confirmation that this movie will be made. Prod tag removed with a rewrite, but still doesn't pass WP:CRYSTAL. Resolute 13:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL; I might consider an IAR speedy here because this really has no chance of becoming a legitimate article. Yechiel Man 13:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This film may not get made, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts, not a fan's hyperbole. Alientraveller 14:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The very writing itself reflects the uncertainty of a fourth film. In addition, the well-cited Pirates of the Caribbean films#Future covers potential development in a proper location that does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Maybe," "possibly," and "probably" -- sheesh! Definitive and properly sourced information, once it becomes available, can be listed at the parent article, as Erik stated above. María (críticame) 15:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. May I reccomend the creator reading WP:CRYSTAL??? Jonjonbt on a wikibreak
Delete per above, violates WP:CRYSTAL. Speaking of speculation, my own crystal ball reveals a lot of snow in this article's future .. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:43, 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 presented for notability.--Wafulz 22:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Society in Shadow[edit]

NN live Role playing game. Fredrick day 13:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. Yechiel Man 13:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will you please explain how this has no notability if that is so I will start fixing the wiki page for it and enter the notable facts just say what they need to be.--Serge222 22:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 20:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vikrant Massey[edit]

I'm sure that Mr Massey is a great guy, but I'm not sure whether he is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Possibly non-notable. I don't think he's a supporting actor in a Disney Channel original series.--Edtropolis 13:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not assert the notability of the subject, does not conform to basic English standards, and is not referenced. Chrisch^Talk 14:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 19:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect.-Wafulz 22:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Niddhi Tikoo[edit]

I'm sure she's a lovely person, but I ave some notability concerns with this subject. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Possibly non-notable.--Edtropolis 13:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dhoom Machaao Dhoom. Low Ghits, even considering how unwired India is (and possibly non-Latin scripts), but the target audience may be too young to be making fansites and penning "reliable sources." But redirect will allow recreation if her career progresses. --Groggy Dice T | C 21:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Groggy Dice T | C 21:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Groggy Dice.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Mage[edit]

The article is original research and the subject appears to lack notability. Bonadea 13:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note that the author of the article is a WP:NOOB, and he uploaded two related images which will be useless if the article is deleted. Yechiel Man 13:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to have any media coverage. Addhoc 16:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 19:56, 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, with no prejudice toward recreation. Sr 13 20:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starport: Galactic Empires[edit]

Delete - No assertions of notability, no reliable secondary sources to allow any verification and the article is 99% game guide material. DarkSaber2k 13:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. DarkSaber2k 13:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; regardless of outcome everything from the 'Gameplay' section downwards should be scrapped per WP:NOT indiscriminate information. As for sources, best I can come up with is [17], which appears to be a a fairly-written but user-submitted review. The usual bevy of download sites. Marasmusine 13:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looking round that review and the site it's on, I'm 100% confident in saying it is a blog review, not a reliable source. I agree that, for once, it's a well-written user review, but I'd say it's a user review none-the-less. It does actualy look to be a proper review, but on it's own it's just not a big enough something. DarkSaber2k 17:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if it does meet the notability requirements, this is still not a proper Wikipedia article, it's more like an infodump with traces of a game guide. Also, a few recent patches upset a whole lot of people who have now taken to trolling the game forums, so its future is (IMO) at best, uncertain. I'm a former SGE player, by the way. Cctoide 14:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of sources to establish its notability, and if it does remain, I agree the gameplay guide stuff needs to go. — brighterorange (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My Position: keep whatever parts of this article that references can be found for, delete anything else.Repaxan 23:04, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Behroozed[edit]

Delete - Unsourced, entirely non-notable neologism. DLand ^TALK 13:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If notable, this is not sourced and can at best only pertain to a small online community. No assertion that the term has spread outside hardcore 24 fans. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established for this neologism. Acalamari 18:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. IP198 19:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Non-notable neologism, no sources. *Cremepuff 222* 00:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like original research to me. Certainly no evidence to suggest that this term is in wide enough usage to be notable. A1octopus 12:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced dictionary definition, no assertions of notability. Also, you don't start a dicdef about a verb with its past participle. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 19:58, 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. --Core desat 04:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dolchstosslegende in popular culture[edit]

Delete - a mass of original research. Article appears to assert that any instance of internal betrayal is an example of the particular myth. Otto4711 12:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm averse to 'in popular culture' articles at the best of times, but this doesn't even seem to be what it says. The examples given do NOT refer to the Dolchstosslegende with the exception of a Harper's magazine article which is cited three times. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep. What this article seems to want to be about is not its nominal subject, but rather a collection of the several conspiracy theories that have sprung up to explain military defeats. This strikes me as a common enough subset of conspiracy theories, but much broader than the title suggests; the Dolchstosslegende is but one of them. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split decision. While tempted by Smerdis' solution, two of the four instances have no real content. Divide out the first section, on Britain, and merge into Noel Pemberton Billing (much of it is there already, and I'm not convinced that The Imperialist has any notability independent of its creator.) Similarly, merge the last section into Kevin Baker and offer it to the Iraq War pages, which do not now link here. Delete the rest Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this COULD be written about. I know, that beyond the Harper's article, NPR did a piece on the same topic. However, this article is unsalvageable. --Haemo 07:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a WP:COATRACK article, with sourcing far too thin to justify its text. And let me point out that absolutely nothing in the article is at all about "popular culture." Not worth keeping in any form. Mango juice^talk 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree 100% per Mangojuice, I don't see any 'popular culture' here. - 71.232.31.43 02:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 redirect necessary. Sr 13 20:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing in popular culture[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a collection of loosely-associated items. List seeks to capture any appearance of a boxer in any film, book or TV show. The assertions about the entry of boxing terms into the lexicon is completely unsupported by any sourcing and possibly constitutes original research. Otto4711 12:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boxing.--Edtropolis 15:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - the boxing article adequately deals with this subject. Carlossuarez46 21:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — to Boxing. The article alone isn't worthy to stay on Wikipedia, but I thik everything is covered in the "boxing" article. *Cremepuff 222* 00:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no redirect necessary. —Psychonaut 15:51, 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. If you want to redirect it, you can do so editorially. Daniel 10:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rowany Festival[edit]

Procedural nomination. Article comes across with a massive case of wikipedia being used for webhosting and does not seem to meet WP:N, and sources cited are majority self-published and do not meet WP:RS. May be worth merging into an article on the Society for Creative Anachronism in a section titled regional activities, but that's stretching it. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to SCA; Google News Archive shows only one result. John Vandenberg 13:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Delete and Redirect is not an option.--Edtropolis 15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure what you mean - did you mean that the vote should have been "merge and redirect"? Orderinchaos 15:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:NOT and probable WP:RS identification issues. Orderinchaos 15:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reads as though simply copied from the Cunnan recreationist wiki -- can W~pedia support cross-wiki links ? Ifso, then redirect there; otherwise chnage article into external link and lock, to prevent re-editing. -- SockpuppetSamuelson
Delete. It's a fun event, been around for a long time, and there is nothing like wearing armor and shooting people with a serious hangover.... but outside the SCA the world doesn't care. No news articles - even about the hosting group Kingdom of Lochac - and nothing that can ever support an article. Clearly cannot have reliable sources as the media is not interested (outside of small press releases) - Peripitus (Talk) 11:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Delete. As none of the references cited meet WP:RS this article does not meet WP:V. While I have seen mention over the years in the press, I think it was always about SCA-type groups and I doubt it was about this particular festival.Garrie 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is the USA based Pennsic War article any better?Ga rr ie 23:48, 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. "Keep" arguments asserting that the article is properly sourced to meet WP:N were never successfully countered by those voting "Delete". — Ocatecir ^T 01:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bride Has Massive Hair Wig Out[edit]

Seriously, seriously non notable topic. G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 09:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previously nominated for deletion, kept: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bride Has Massive Hair Wig Out

Keep. This article is sourced, including several reputable newspapers. It's not the most important of topics, but I'm not convinced that it fails our notability criteria. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 09:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, assuming this survives the AFD, I think the title should certainly be changed. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 09:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definitely appears to be notable; it needs a bit of a trim, if you'll pardon the pun, but I think it's a good example, and is well-sourced. --Haemo 09:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Trivial subject, and I'm averse to further publicising what was actually a clever piece of viral marketing. But unfortunately too many reputable sources have commented on it to leave any doubt about notability. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 12:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet phenomena. Nn video-ad. Eusebeus 12:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple, independent reliable and verifiable sources demonstrate notability. Alansohn 14:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced to the Toronto Star, the CBC, CTV and Canada's Paper of Record, the Mop and Pail - in most (all?) cases, this exact video and the public reaction is the focus of the article. Wily D 15:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — Inasmuch as the video was proven to be a hoax in the first place, it's only real notability remains as an internet meme. Concur with User:Esebeus that it should point to List of Internet phenomena which already includes this. JodyB_talk 15:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The references to newspapers and mainstream news sources indicate that it is a notable topic that has warranted coverage by the press. Consequently, it appears to be notable enough to deserve its own Wikipedia article. Dr. Submillimeter 15:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet phenomena. per Eusebeus. Not every viral marketing advertisement needs an encyclopedia article. Not everything mentioned for a short while on TV or in newspapers needs an encyclopedia article, since Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Edison 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not every internet phenomena needs an encyclopaedia article - to be sure. But are you suggesting that ones that are the main topic of coverage in many independant, mainstream sources are inappropriate for coverage? Is there some secret standard that we hold internet phenomena to that we don't require of any other subject? Wily D 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the issue here is that this was a "flash-in-the-pan" item that got news coverage briefly. It's just another example of a widely viewed YouTube vidclip that birefly was the day's filler in papers. It's better covered as one of many than on its own. JJL 18:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. May also be suitable for a redirect to the company/product page (seeing as how it exists). Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, before WP becomes just a list of YouTube favorites. JJL 17:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this doesn't seem like a likely danger - there are a lot of other categories, and maybe a dozen youtube videos of this notoriety. ~10 Internet Phenomena Articles/~1 million articles total doesn't seem likely to overwhelm the place. Or am I crazy? Wily D 21:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Sourced from reliable sources, but per the concern above me, I dunno. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has been through one AFD before, and time has passed since it. Honestly, not much has been changed at all in the article. It has a lot of information that is cited, but this is just a one-time deal video, that got some press in Toronto and the gals hit the talk show circuit. Overall, I don't think it deserves an article. If there is an article this could redirect to, such as that of the gal who stared in the video, that could be an option, but if no option exists, then lets delete. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall, I don't think it deserves an article. IOW, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Daniel Case 03:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; doesn't pass the ten-day test, let alone the ten-year one. Tizio 14:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid criterion for deletion. But I grant it does make you sound downright clever. Daniel Case 03:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, that is a valid one. I'll quote from the notability guidelines: "In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." While it may not mention except numbers of days, the notability guidelines do validate that vote quite nicely. Bushytails 06:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did you mean "exact" numbers of days? But I digress ... This was more than a short burst. This was two weeks worth of coverage. It is still being referenced in news stories:[18], and [19] (that last from outside Canada). In fact, those last two links make it pretty clear that within the world of viral Internet marketing it has achieved considerable notability. Daniel Case 19:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as bad faith nom. I am getting very tired of these efforts to delete things that a cabal of users wants to memory-hole from the culture. It was a notable viral marketing effort that I researched thoroughly when I created it precisely because I knew it would be irresistible bait for today's punk deletionists otherwise. Apparently they get even more pissed off when you actually produce something up to WP standards.
So little will be added to it? How can you say that for sure? And if that's the case, we have no business having articles on individual episodes of TV shows ... and I think as much creative effort went into this as into any episode of The Sopranos. At least that I was able to document. If I hadn't created this article the way I did when I did it, someone else would have and we would have had a crappy subpar article to clean up and source.
A redirect is an intolerable compromise IMO ... it's about as meaty as Bus Uncle, Dog poop girl, Star Wars Kid and other Internet phenomena that we have separate articles on.
I cannot see any real reason this is being nominated save an attempt to make what is notable reflect some editor's idea of what should be notable in his or her ideal world, aka WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and thus deleting it would be inherently POV. I would like to delete Paris Hilton from reality too, but she's notable by any objective standard and unfortunately deleting the article on her would not change reality. At least not yet (when are we going to get that feature in MediaWiki? :-)) Daniel Case 21:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bus Uncle was a major real-life (i.e. not fictional) event that has been cited as a source of cultural change and had a significant effect on the planet. Star Wars Kid has been involved in lawsuits, parodied hundreds of times, and had at least some effect on the planet. Dog poop girl was again a real incident that incited debate on cyber bullying, gathered death threats, etc, and we don't have an article on it. This faked video of an actor doing a bad job throwing a tantrum... Nada. No effect on the planet. No issues raised. No commentary, social change, long-term effects, or anything else. The world would be no different had it not existed. Not notable, never has been, never will be. Bushytails 06:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excuse me, I don't live in Hong Kong, and Bus Uncle had no significant effect on me ... I didn't know about it till I read the article, in fact. But that certainly doesn't mean it should be deleted. You tried to make this argument, as well as that tiresome string of "nada yada yada" last time and nobody seconded it. If that's all you can come up with this time, just consider the nomination closed (except this time we'll have a result of a more firm keep, after which I would consider other nominations to be bad faith).
    It seems you're focusing on the fact that this wasn't a real event but a staged one. So what? It was watched, widely discussed and the subject of ably-documented multiple non-trivial news coverage, which makes its authenticity or lack thereof irrelevant. We have articles about plenty of things that strutted and fretted their hours upon the stage and then were heard no more. I didn't see your logic in February and I don't see it now. Daniel Case 19:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently notable as a marketing attempt. (p.s. Daniel Case - 'dog poop girl' doesn't have a separate article anymore, jsut a redirect, so maybe you shouldn't cite that example...Canuckle 23:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I noticed that afterwards. Daniel Case 03:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the statement that this AFD nomination was made in "bad faith," it isn't true. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Despite having deletionist beliefs, I tend to think that once should be enough if the article was pretty complete the first time around. I don't see what's changed since the first vote. The first nom was an emotional reaction to seeing this on the Main Page under DYK; but it went into more detail about why the nominator thought it shouldn't be kept. Daniel Case 03:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though with the plot considerably shortened (and I think the same is appropriate for many of the articles on individual video series). DGG 00:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable (and brilliant) viral marketing initiative. Mnm1108 02:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)— Mnm1108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I couldn't have said it better myself. Daniel Case 03:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete. As I predicted when listing it for deletion the first time, absolutely nothing came of it, it's still not notable, and it's still just some random advertisement. Bushytails 06:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Daniel: You are applying WP:IDONTLIKEIT too broadly. By your definition, absolutely anyone who ever votes delete on anything can be dismissed by pasting that link. That is about not liking the topic of the article. Nothing else. "Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on the space shuttle because I don't like spacecraft" is different than "Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about the space shuttle because it's non-notable and not encyclopedic." And, if you're going to make personal attacks against other users (I count at least three above), what does that say against any faith you're assuming of others? Lastly, I already answered your opinion about why I nominated it for deletion the first time, maybe you should go back and re-read it, before making false statements? Bushytails 06:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Non-notable and unencyclopaedic", especially for articles that meet and exceed our criteria for notability (i.e. ones that are objectively notable) is usually a codeword for "I don't like it". Especially when "nn" is verifiably false, "unencyclopaedic" is very close to "I don't like it" anyhow. The problem is nobody is going to say "Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about gravity because I don't like gravity" - they actually say "Non-notable physics cruft, unencyclopaedic". Wily D 12:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said again. I have complained about this nomination as vigorously as I complained about the last one because, when I first started doing newpage patrol in 2005, things like this that met standards and justified their inclusion were speedy kept, or not even nominated to begin with. The last time this was nominated, Bushytails conceded the point but hung on to that one shred of policy which says that we don't necessarily have to keep things that meet the notability standard. That's really grasping for straws, and it makes IDONTLIKEIT look even more likely as an explanation for this nomination and his. I have found plenty of articles about marginal subjects that were sourced properly that I didn't nominate because the creators took time to understand policy and decided to be editors, not just fanboys. We should not punish editors, regardless of their experience or lack thereof, with extremely subjective deletion nominations as long as they have tried to demonstrate sufficient notability by our standards. I feel that I researched and developed this article to those standards, and I would point to it as an example of how articles about Internet phenomena should be done (Maybe, I daresay, that's why it's being nominated? Someone doesn't want the example around? I mean, and I speak from lots of AFD experience, it is so much easier to get an article about something like this deleted when it's started by a brand-new editor, cites no sources, doesn't use encyclopedic language and isn't properly formatted. But when it isn't ...) Daniel Case 19:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources say notable. Everyking 08:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - I was just about to nominate this article. Delete per nom, non-notable topic.--Bryson 20:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to reconcil that with the fact that it passes WP:N, and is therefor notable? Wily D 21:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a youtube video, that got brief time on TV and in newspapers considered so important in an encyclopaedia? --Bryson 21:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does it pass WP:N... read the part about articles with only temporary notability belonging on wikinews, not here. "a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability" for example. Bushytails 05:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I refer you to more recent coverage discussing the impact of the video:[20], and [21] Daniel Case 14:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did anybody argue it has long-term notability? Who would think that? Of course it's only briefly notable to the world at large, but in Wikipedia terms, notable once is notable forever. Everyking 05:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think in all fairness the "long-term notability" is very difficult to speculate on. It's certainly at the forfront of a phenomena with an uncertain future - I could definitely see this going "either way". In this case NOT#paper easily trumps NOT#newspaper, since the second is very uncertain. Wily D 13:30, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Security Design Centre[edit]

Possible advertising Jackofalltradesmasterofnone 12:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possible spam. No GNews-hits. Canuckle 23:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no independent sources verifying already dubious assertion of notability. Fourohfour 16:52, 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. Walton^talk 17:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laszlo Forizs[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Seems to be a vanity- but anyways a nonnotable biography. Was prodded, but author removed, with comment

Deleting this article reminds me to the case of C. F. Gauss. When a work on P.D.E. by Jacobi was shown to him he said it was not notable enough. A note came: greater garbage had been published by G.

Main author is Vikankata, whose only contributions are to this article, plus spammed links to Forizs's homepage at various film articles (Special:Contributions/Vikankata). Staecker 12:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. He seems to be mexican. Possibly fails WP:BIO.--Edtropolis 13:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 16:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not seem remarkable for a scholar still in the early stages of the career (i.e., the point where the stage of the career itself is not remarkable). Interesting that the important publications are in a completely different field than the Ph.D. -- must be really smart and interesting person, but should not now the subject of a WP article. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk)
Think it over -- No one of the explicitely mentioned 15 reasons for deletion are satisfied. Staecker's note: "Main author is User:Vikankata, whose only contributions are to this article" is irrelevant. Myke's note is quite interesting. What makes his note relevant here is the special situation in Hungary before the changes in 1989. If you have a look at the biography, it started in Pannonhalma, at a Benedictine school. From such a school no humanities or even no career as an educator was possible. In fact it was prohibited. It's not an accident that Mr Forizs got a degree as an educator some twenty years after finishing his first university as a physicist. He had no other choice if he wanted to become a researcher. (Vikankata's friend)
- The works list is impressive, but taking three of the books with ISBN numbers, I couldn't find them in any major library catalog (tried: LOC, Harvard, Abebooks, WorldCat), so without a prose discussion of the author or reliable sources of the books' importance, I stand by my opinion. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to Myke -- It is a bit unfair to try to check it only in these catalogs. It's a shame but you won't find too much in these libraries from our greatest writers, poets or composers, and they are still worth for a WP article. If you really want to check the reliability of the information given on Mr Forizs why not try a local database first? E.g. http://www.oszk.hu/index_en.htm or MOKKA http://helka.iif.hu:8088/corvina/opac/wpac.cgi and type Fórizs László to the first line or try http://www.eduport.hu/kozelkat/ and choose any particular library, e.g. the first one, a public library (Fővárosi Szabó Ervin Könyvtár) katalógusa or the library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Könyvtára) or if it is difficult because of the language barrier go directly to the database of the library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences http://prol.mtak.hu/F?RN=400027349 and type the required name. Or get the records directly: [22] Vikankata
- Comment. 193.226.223.137 (talk · contribs), who signs him or herself "Vikankata's friend" in the comment above, has the same editing pattern as Vikankata (talk · contribs): edits only to this article or to spam links to it elsewhere. The reply to Myke, which reads as if written by the same person, was by Vikankata himself or herself. —David Eppstein 19:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC) PS. Also 193.226.226.205 (talk · contribs) added many of the the same spammy links earlier. —David Eppstein 19:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We are working together. But this was again an irrelevant note. Try this link instead: http://odr.lib.klte.hu/corvina/odr/wpac.cgi and check the books if you really want to. In any case, the decision is yours. We do not want to argue any more. We checked Sándor Weöres and Jenő Dsida two of our really important poets and found only one of them. So it is almost the same whether Laszlo Forizs got a page or not. Good bye. Vikankata
Delete It is very hard to evaluate this work, and I do not think we should delete until some of those people at this WP who know the language can be heard from. Though not listed on the page, this article seems a translation of the page on the Hungarian WP [23]. I did figure out how to use the Hungarian online catalog, and it seems that only the "Creation Hymns of the Rigveda (Rigvéda – Teremtéshimnuszok) (1995) (In Hungarian) ISBN 963-85349-1-5 is possibly an original book. Everything else is either his PhD thesis, conference presentations or translations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Keep I am not sure whether I can suggest you to keep an article, but consider this "Dhammapada - Path of Virtue (Az erény útja)" (2002) ISBN 963-20227-3-4 (In Hungarian) is referred in the Magyar Nagylexikon, Academic Press, Budapest, Vol. 4, p. 720 under the lexikon entry Buddhism; "Creation Hymns of the Rigveda (Rigvéda – Teremtéshimnuszok)" (1995) (In Hungarian) ISBN 963-85349-1-5 is referred to in Magyar Nagylexikon, MNK, Budapest, Vol. 15, p. 499 under Rig-véda. University courses based on his work (not at all complete, based on the availability on the net): Dr. Tibor Porció: Dhammapada, Religious studies, Attila József University, Szeged, (http://www.vallastudomany.hu/Members/porcio/szovegolvasas), Rigvéda - Teremtéshimnuszok by Prof. Ágnes Birtalan: Mitológia, sámánizmus és népvallás, Roland Eötvös University, Department of Inner Asian Studies (http://www.btk.elte.hu/innerasia/Irodalom2.pdf), Dr. Imre Garaczi: History of Philosophy (Filozófiatörténet), Course code: TT1312F (http://www.vein.hu/public_stuff/oik/tematikak/tematikak/2004-05-2/TT1312F3.html) both books are used as primary source by Dr. Ferenc Ruzsa: Oriental Philosophy (Keleti filozófia) (India), ELTE BTK Institute of Philosophy, Course code: FLN-300.11 (http://philosophy.elte.hu/institute/course/syllabus/200401/komplett_kredit_syllabus_200401.pdf) (http://phil.elte.hu/institute/course/200401/kredites_filo_200401.RTF) (Librarian) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.199.218.182 (talk • contribs) — 195.199.218.182 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 16:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is a vanity article. There are thousands of people in the world who led a university faculty for a few years and translated books. Zello 16:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Dear ZELLO what do you think about Juan Mascaro? (WP: Juan Mascaró (December 8, 1897 – March 19, 1987) was a translator born in Majorca (an island of Spain) to a farming family) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.226.223.137 (talk • contribs)
  - I'm not Zello, but see: WP:WAX. —David Eppstein 05:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi, David. I am afraid, it is a deeper problem, I mean the selection principles. You mentioned somewhere that the deletion of Forizs was not intentional, but only an editorial mistake. No, it was intentional. I deleted it. Then the robot reconstructed the article. And I started to think it over. You know Hungary is so terribly misrepresented in WP that it is more than a shame. I am 100 percent sure that it is not Laszlo Forizs whose entry is so badly needed in this encyclopedia, yet I am more and more convinced that he is eligible and worth being there. I am waiting for your decision. Vikankata
Strong Keep Forizs had not only been the chair of the Department of Buddhist studies (shared with Lodoe Lobsang Sonam, a well known Tibetan monk and scholar from Dharamsala, the personal envoy of His Holiness), but he was one of the few guys who made the Institute (literally, out of nothing). He was there from the very beginning. It started as an underground group of young Hungarians interested in oriental languages and Buddhism, and now it is a well established Buddhist Institute, The Gate of Dharma Buddhist College. His contribution to the laying down of the foundations of this unique Institute is unquestionable. He actively participated not only in determining the whole curriculum, but also in the long and difficult process of the accreditation of the Gate of Dharma College by the Accreditation Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. The institute is now fully integrated into the Hungarian System of Universities and Colleges. After getting the full accreditation Mr Forizs left the committee and a bit later left the Institute. Now he is again a school teacher. (a Hungarian buddhist) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.199.218.182 (talk • contribs)
- This is not a vote, but you are only allowed to express one boldface keep/delete opinion. This is the third opinion from what to me looks very likely the same person. —David Eppstein 15:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sockpuppetry above is convincing me that this is indeed a vanity page. And I'm not seeing the reliable secondary sources (such as reviews or citations of his works) that would be needed to pass WP:N. —David Eppstein 15:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did a Google search in Hungarian, but cannot find any secondary sources about this guy. K issL 15:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Changed my mind to a Weak Keep per the arguments below. K issL 07:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again on lacking secondary sources

To KissL and David:

Ruzsa Ferenc: Purusha és Ymir. Az összehasonlító mitológia kísérleti ellenőrzése. In Keréknyomok, Orientalisztikai és buddhológiai folyóirat, 2006/1. (Fórizs László: Rigvéda - teremtéshimnuszok, FLI, 1995)

Attila Almási (Vienna University): The Buddhist Intermediate state in Religion in a Changing World (International Conference, Szeged IP 2006) (http://www.reuropa.org/ip2006/programme/the-buddhist-intermediate-state/preview_popup/file)

D'INTINO, Silvia Perdre au jeu. Généalogie d'une allégorie védique in Journal Asiatique, Volume 293, issue 1, 2005

Magyar Filozófiai Szemle - 2002. 1-2.: http://epa.oszk.hu/00100/00186/00011/7simonfi0212.html

CSIKÓS, ELLA. A KREATIVITÁS MINT LEHETÕSÉG. Whitehead metafizikájának egyik alapfogalmáról Whitehead: Folyamat és valóság (a továbbbiakban: PR), 3., 5. és 7. magyarázat kategória. Typotex Kiadó, Budapest 2001, 38. o. (http://epa.oszk.hu/00100/00186/00010/3csikos014.html)

Dhammapada. A Tan ösvénye. Páli nyelvből fordította Vekerdi József, Terebess, Bp., 1999 ISBN 963-914-732X (1)

Andrea Jankovich, Concentration - Morality - Wisdom Educational program of a Buddhist Monastery in Myanmar (Koncentráció – moralitás – bölcsesség. –Egy buddhista kolostor képzési programja Myanmarban) in Új Pedagógiai Szemle 1998 december (http://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00035/00022/1998-12-eh-Jankovich-Koncentracio.html)

Lust Iván: RAGASZKODNI ÉS ELENGEDNI, Hasonlóságok és különbségek a pszichoanalitikus és a buddhista magatartásban. In HOLMI, X. évf. 2. szám, 1998.

Fehér Judit: Nágárdzsuna. A mahájána buddhizmus mestere. FLI, Budapest, 1997 (Fórizs L.: Nágárdzsuna filozófiája & Fórizs L. (ford.): Tűzprédikáció, both in India bölcsessége, Budapest, 1994)

Miklóssy Endre: SZABÓ LAJOS, A FUNDAMENTUM (1902. Budapest – 1967. Düsseldorf) in Magyar Szemle online, Új folyam VII. 6. szám, Budapest, 1998 december (Fórizs: Rigvéda - Teremtéshimnuszok, 1995)

Ruzsa Ferenc: A KLASSZIKUS SZÁNKHJA FILOZÓFIÁJA, FLI, Budapest 1997 (Fórizs: Rigvéda - Teremtéshimnuszok, 1995 & Dhammapada, 1994)

Agócs Tamás: Az éntelenség logikai bizonyítása. Kamalasíla: A Gyémántszútra kommentárja Vadzsraccsédiká-tíká, in Buddhist Logic (Buddhista logika), Történelem és kultúra, Orientalisztikai munkaközösség - Balassi kiadó, pp. 109-124. Bp, 1995 (Fórizs L., A keletkezés egymáson függő láncszemei (Vinaja-pitaka I.1.), in India bölcsessége, Budapest, 1994.

Of course, it's true that there are so many much much more important Hungarians without any WP entry Vikankata

I can't read Hungarian, but some of these (e.g. Czikos and Jankovich don't seem to mention Forizs at all, while the only one that's in English (Almasi) contains only a trivial reference to him, a citation in a list of secondary works in Hungarian that's not mentioned within the body of the paper. WP:RS needs more substantial text specifically about him or his work. —David Eppstein 19:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jankovich refers to his Dhammapada: Az erény útja. 1994, Farkas Lőrinc Imre Kiadó.

Csikos refers to Whitehead's: Folyamat és valóság. Typotex Kiadó, Budapest 2001 (by Forizs-Karsai)

In the case of Almasi, of course, David is right. I can't give him a smoking gun reference. Nevertheless I think KissL's note "but cannot find any secondary sources about this guy" does not apply. Vikankata

Comment I'm afraid you got my note wrong, so let me clarify – I did very well see the kind of sources you are listing above, but these are mentioning Fórizs as the translator of some works. By the term "secondary source", I meant a source whose subject is Fórizs (the existence of such secondary sources being the notability criterion set forth in WP:BIO). I still haven't seen any such source, so my above note still applies, with this precision. K issL 08:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your interpretation of secondary sources is too restrictive, and there are other (deeper) problems here, too. Let us take as an example Forizs's Rigvéda - Teremtéshimnuszok. It has been used in standard university courses all over the country since its publication. The spectrum is wide from Ancient poetry classes to the history of philosophy or ethnography courses all over the country. It is a highly original work, yet it is many times referred to as a translation (e.g. by Dr. Ferenc Ruzsa ELTE, Dr Ágnes Birtalan, ELTE, Dept. of Inner Asian Studies, etc. etc. This is not an accident, it is a tendency. Professor Birtalan is one of the best scholar in Hungary in her field, yet, when Forizs's book is referred to in her bibliography attached to her widely respected course "Mitológia, sámánizmus és népvallás" even the year of publication is wrong.) The fact, that you can still found evidence of the widespread use of Forizs' works in Hungarian universities and colleges from Veszprém to Szeged, from Pécs to Budapest, not to speak about such religious institutions as The Gate of Dharma Buddhist College or The Bhaktivedanta Institute, proves the contrary. In any case, the absence of references in Google or Google Scholar should rarely be used as proof of non-notability. (Wikipedia:Notability (academics), example 3) Vikankata

I still prefer to stick to my definition of secondary sources, however accepting the argument that the "translations" in question may indeed be considered original, and thus establish notability, I have changed my recommendation above to a weak keep. K issL 07:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still thinking on it. I really do not understand your editing and administrating procedure. David Eppstein is a computer science professor, P. Christopher Staecker is an Assistant Professor of Mathematics at Messiah College, Myke Cuthbert is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Music at M.I.T., I do not know who the other guys are. It does not mean they can't have a feeling about the WP entry in question, but it can hardly be an objective assessment. Why don't you ask someone in a field more relevant to Forizs's interest and works? Vikankata

Hi Vikankata -- Indeed, you've spotted one of the biggest flaws (real or perceived) in Wikipedia -- that articles by experts are edited, judged, and even deleted by those who aren't experts in that field. Unfortunately not only do few Buddhism experts read AfDs, the number who are also comfortable in Hungarian is likely to be zero. This general type of problem has chased several expert editors away from the project; I hope we don't lose you in the same way since you seem like a great contributor. So in order that we have anyone qualified to assess articles for deletion, the community created notability guidelines which help determine when an article is maintainable and when it is likely to attract inaccurate statements. There's a set of guidelines for professors (called WP:PROF) which people are referring to here to help them decide on Forizs's article. I can see that you're doing everything you can in good faith to improve the article and forestall deletion--it may be easier if you stuck around and learned what sorts of things articles have which get "Keep" recommendations and what this article is currently lacking. You may be privy to sources which none of us can find, but aren't sure how to integrate them completely. If these arise, the article could then be recreated: if it is possible to write an article on Forizs which establishes his notability, then a few months of editing here would show you how to do it. I am sorry that I can't change my recommendation though. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Myke, thank you for your quick and fair answer, and the extra step you made to reassess the entry. I appreciate your comment and advice. Vikankata

To offset our lack of expertise, I've posted brief notices on Wikipedia projects devoted to Hungary and Buddhism about this AfD (not with any bias about whether it should be deleted or not, just a short sentence saying that there's an AfD going on that they may be interested in, per the note about neutrality in the "not a vote" template at the top of this page). I think the Hungary one is where Zello and Kissl come from, so at least we now have a little expertise in that direction. I myself know very little about Buddhism or Hungarian literature, as you say, but I do feel that I have some competence in judging notability of academics more generally, according to the guidelines Myke mentions, and I think participation of people like myself in AfDs of academics across multiple disciplines is a good way of achieving a certain level of consistency in the decisions. —David Eppstein 05:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, you are right, and no one questioned your competence in judging notability of academics. My point was that the work of Mr. Forizs belongs to another field, literature and poetry, and translations of philosophical texts, both Western and Eastern. But even from the purely academic perspective (which I think is quite narrow here) if the translation of Whitehead's Process and Reality (a comparable text to Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, I mean in difficulty) is nothing and there are thousands of people out there who do similar works (not to speak about translating from the original Pali or Sanskrit or Vedic sources), then it is difficult to discuss anything. Vikankata

Delete -- Taking into account that so many Hungarians are still missing and Hungary is so badly represented in WP, I think it is better to drop this entry and concentrate on other guys. Vikankata
Delete - --Koppany 13:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. —Psychonaut 16:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:PROF Criteria 3 (An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a ... course) is satisfied (check Vikankata's data)

Needs editorial work. {{expert-subject}} Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/Culture/Philosophy_and_religion Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Literature 84.0.33.33 12:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Raerek. A lot of courses taught at The Gate of Dharma Buddhist Collage are based on Forizs' works. In addition to this his "Folyamat és valóság" is the standard text in all Whitehead's course, see e.g. Csikós Ella: Roland Eötvös University, Budapest, Whitehead metafizikája, FLN-350.19. Of course, most of the criterias of WP:PROF WP:BIO WP:N, if applied selectively, can be used to drop or keep anybody. There is another point here worth your attention. What is the status of translation, or more importantly translation from rare oriental languages? 193.225.127.130, 13:48 23 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 No consensus, default to Keep. Walton^talk 17:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard Buchwald[edit]

Notability. No secondary sources on the man. Of the 200 scientific publications reported, only 24 (from 1957 to 1982, all in German) are listed in PubMed. Biologos 11:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Of probable interest as a promoter of fringe views on vaccination. Not a mainstream medic, but has published in German and had books translated into English. Presumably popular among people holding similar views, seems to be used as a reference by them. Even if a fruitcake, quack or eccentric, seems to be a notable one. However the article as written lacks references and any critical analysis or peoperly referenced biographical material. This needs remedying. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now to give editors a chance to flesh the article out with content and citations. "Gerhard Buchwald" yields 11,000+ ghits, the majority in German, but he appears to have presented at a number of international symposiums and he is reasonably well quoted. If there isn't sufficient interest to lift this article from stub status, let it die. --Nonstopdrivel 12:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 16:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Partly on the basis of the German Wikipedia. Their standards for admission are higher than ours, and they have a better knowledge of the available literature. PubMed unfortunately covers only a few German language journals--the necessary index is Excerpta Medica, and I don't have access to that one--in general, only med schools have it and in the US not all of them. From the publication list, that two of the books have been translated into English is I think significant.

As I understand it, the theory is not all that fringe with respect to the effectiveness of vaccination against tuberculosis, which was never adopted in the US; the risks from smallpox vaccination are also real, & that too has been discontinued. DGG 01:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point: smallpox vaccination was not discontinued because of its risks, but rather because of its remarkable success: smallpox has been eradicated as a naturally occurring disease, so there's no more need for vaccination (outside of bioterrorism, of course). MastCell ^Talk 02:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The English-language versions of his books have either been self-published (ISBN 3-8334-1572-X), or published by a Books-On-Demand service. I'm not sure whether that adds any relevance.--Biologos 11:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like WP:POV advertising to me: He also conducted a thriving medico-legal practice providing about 150 medical assessments of cases of vaccine damage for claims for compensation. Someone whose scientific agenda aligns with his bank account is enormously suspect to me. Until someone can establish he is a serious scientist respected by his community, I think this article should be removed.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 03:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Add him to antivaccinationist or vaccine critics if desired. As to waiting longer, the article was started in Dec 2005. Midgley 19:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep: Per above. Also, vaccine injury risks are quite real, as can be shown by the long list of recalled vaccines have been withdrawn from pharmaceutical markets. Ombudsman 19:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is specious. Just because there may be risks from some vaccines does not mean everyone commenting on this issue is notable. In the same way, just as physics is a serious pursuit, not every crackpot who claims to be doing physics is notable. (Not to imply Gerhard Buchwald is a crackpot; this analogy is just to make a point.) --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 23:21, 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. Article is original research. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destructive creativity[edit]

The article seems to be based on a mistranslation of foreign language sources actually about creative destruction. None of the sources cited are supporting the definition as a mental process, and most are economic in nature. The article itself seems to be a WP:COAT for popular criticism in general, as originally most recent historical events were explained from a specific bias, from WW2 to the collapse of the USSR.

The article is trying to press a WP:POINT ("Bad things happen because of some mental process"), one that is not true. Sources are cited, but none support the claims in this article. Most of the article is original research. User:Krator (t c) 11:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is help 1) Destructive creativity is not creative destruction, these are different forms of creativity with different behavior and goals. The latter is beneficial for society, while the former is not. Definition of destructive creativity: The drive to create new profitable sources of income that are not beneficial to society can be denoted destructive creativity.^[1]

2) Any Creativity is a mental process (this definition is from Wikipedia with sources for creativity), and destructive creativity too. Emotional trauma and mental illness (diagnosed or underdiagnosed), among other known causes of destructive behavior, are professionally described here: ^[2] and here: ^[3] and here: ^[4] Definition of destructive creativity in the form of economic parasitism is here:^[5] Definition of destructive creativity in the form of internet crime is here:^[6] Definition of destructive creativity in the form of terrorism is here:^[7] The article is updated. Your constructive approach is highly appreciated.Steveshelokhonov 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This one takes some time to think through. Initially it just looks like a poorly writen article with some bad grammar and hasty writing. But eventually it simply looks like this article isn't actually about anything at all! A Google search does reveal some uses of the phrase 'Destructive creativity' but the first one relates to parasitology... Others seem to relate either to business or to international relations, but none have any obvious relevance to this article. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is help: Destructive creativity in the form of economic parasitism is not "related to parasitology", this becomes clear when the source is actually read through. There you can see Definition of destructive creativity: "The drive to create new profitable sources of income that are not beneficial to society can be denoted destructive creativity."<^[8] Thank you for your attention.Steveshelokhonov 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The definition gives an external reference, supposedly a scientific paper about the subject matter, but the definition could not be found there, which means it's a misleading reference. Add to that the nonsensical sentence structure and incomprehensible wording. The rest of the article rambles on and on about supposed examples in history while providing no relation whatsoever to the definition. --Karlbrezner 12:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is help: Definition is there: "The drive to create new profitable sources of income that are not beneficial to society can be denoted destructive creativity."^[9] Steveshelokhonov 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The paper couches WP:BOLLOCKS behind an obfuscatory haze of rambling sentences with little, if any, logical connection. Supporting examples are pulled together from a variety of subjects and disciplines with no explanation of how they relate. The overall effect reads like a poorly constructed high school or college term paper that never quite decides what its central theme is. --Nonstopdrivel 12:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is help: All sources relate to various forms and potential causes of destructive creativity which is almost ubiquitous. The article is updated. Thank you for the effort to tolerate my handicap in English.Steveshelokhonov 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to read the whole thing, and have little idea what it was all about; trying to rephrase it in plain English, about all I can get out of it was that crime comes from bad thoughts. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bad thoughts" are not in this article. Destructive creativity is; its several forms are described with definitions from professional sources. The article is being updated. Thank you for reading the earlier draft.Steveshelokhonov 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm glad that you got that out of this, because all I got when reading this article a couple of days ago was the sense that it was some postmodernist rubbish on a different... level, to what I understand. Support deletion as per nom. Lankiveil 15:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The article is updated. Thank you for reading the earlier draft.Steveshelokhonov 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per all of the above. Eddie 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is being updated. Thank you for reading the earlier draft.Steveshelokhonov 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:COAT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COAT implies a "tangentially related bias subject"; I'm struggling to identify this. Please, may I ask what it may be? Jlittlenz 08:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is being updated. Thank you for reading the earlier draft.Steveshelokhonov 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Can't we just remove stuff that does not relate to the mental process? And make this article a stub? Or we could merge it with the economics article Creative_destruction? I mean its a psychological theory, so we should keep atleast as a medical article? I believe there are 4 days remaining before this Afd closes, so can someone respond to my suggestions? --Savedthat 04:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing everything not related to the mental process would leave an empty article. None of the citations are related to the 'mental process'. Whether that process even exists or not is not found in any of the references. --User:Krator (t c) 10:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creativity is a mental process (see Wikipedia), as well as destructive creativity, in which case mental process is in disorder (see mental illness and all five DSM-IV Sourcebooks). This definition may be replaced with any of the other four, the best one is from University of Oslo, titled "Destructive Creativity" about Economic parasitism, it is not "related to parasitology" (thanks for the laughs).

The drive to create new profitable sources of income that are not beneficial to society can be denoted destructive creativity.[24] Other sources give descriptions of destructive creativity in Terrorism, in Crime, in Software engineering, where destructive creativity in internet crime is defined as “trying to brake, trying to falsify, being nasty” . One source is focused on "Destroyers vs Builders" struggle. Psychiatric underpinnings of behaviors causing crime, destruction of property, attacks on people, self-destruction, vandalism and other crime) are described in very carefully worded medical terms on three thousand pages of DSM-IV Sourcebooks on destructive behavior of diagnosed people with mental disorders, who, sadly, engage in destructive creativity by committing various crimes. Undiagnosed and untreated people may still have signs of intermittent destructive behavior.

Anyway, removing anything in the article is ok with me. Real-life software engineers, economists, criminalists, lawyers, doctors and other people, mamas and papas, are still dealing with destructive creativity every day. The definition of destructive creativity for software engineers: braking, falsifying, and being nasty, is similar to professional instructions for law enforcement and forensic psychiatrists who are dealing with destructive behavior in society. Even deleted from virtual space it still remains in human minds and exists in big real world. Thanks for efforts of tolerance to my funny English. This experience is highly interesting. Helping people see pieces of the elephant. Sincerely, Steveshelokhonov 08:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is being updated. Thank you for reading the earlier draft.Steveshelokhonov 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be a reasonably widespread term in social sciences, 74 references on Google Scholar in different publications and by different authors Alex Bakharev 01:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of these references are about the topic as described in the article. Most of the references to the term "destructive creativity" are either part of an argument or rhetoric. It does sound nice. --User:Krator (t c) 19:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, only three of these references even use the actual term, in the other cases I examined the term was part of a sentence that just happened to contain that string, or alternately was referring to some other process entirely. For instance, the article on the teaching of music was apparently using the term to refer to a process similar to deconstruction in literature; taking an existing work, breaking it down, and reconstructing it into another form. This is utterly unrelated to the sort of concept being talked about here. Maury 14:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say. The article appears to contain some elements of original research, but it is reasonably well sourced. When in doubt, I prefer to keep the article. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete here and move definition only to Wiktionary I agree with many of the delete points made above, this article reads like a personal report on the term. Stripped down to just a definition the article would be inappropriate here anyway. Anynobody 01:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: appears to me to be a collection of disparate topics, collected solely because they have a similar name. However, the similar names appear to be well covered in articles on those topics. This article seems to add nothing of substance, and I believe does much to confuse the terminology - it did for me anyway! Maury 14:48, 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) 17:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Fisher[edit]

This page is highly trivial it is about a person who is of very limited notability in england and the music world and the article is completely un-sourced. Statements such as his favourite bands included are shout-outs to those bands and may be false as they are un-sourced.--Lucy-marie 10:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The band he is supposed to be a member of is described as a solo project belonging to somebody else entirely! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exceedingly weak keep to give interested editors a chance to flesh out and source the article. There are a few ghits for "Nathan Fisher" + bassist and he does appear to have been mentioned on a few review websites. That being said, the majority of prominent ghits are to Myspace profiles and the like. If significant improvements are not made to this article, let it die. --Nonstopdrivel 12:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This article is full of shout-outs for "his favourite bands" The article is unreferenced and I have never heard of him and I live in Swindon where the article claims the person is to originate from.--Jjamesj 17:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD#G7. —Cryptic 10:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of the USA PATRIOT Act[edit]

This was only ever meant to be a draft page (it was on USA PATRIOT Act/USA PATRIOT Act/History until it was moved). I can't justify it's existence. I'vem moved it to User:Ta bu shi da yu/History to work on and then merge into USA PATRIOT Act. However, in the meantime this actively worked on article has an NPOV, NOR and Wikify cleanup tag by the original moving editor! Ta bu shi da yu 10:18, 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 11:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Stogo[edit]

Person fails WP:BIO; PROD was contested in last October. Although the aticle might seem like a hoax, it is indeed about a real person. But the article does not cite secondary sources, only books written by the person. Google shows that he is quoted, once in a while, in newspaper articles, or mentioned briefly; but I did not find any substantial coverage about him (i.e. about his biography). Without that however, the subject is not notable, and the article not verifiable. I propose to delete, con panna. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 09:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As it stands, the article reads like a back page blurb. Would need a total re-write and good secondary sources before it stood a chance. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The article's claim to notability is circular; this is probably culled from the subject's own press bio. --Nonstopdrivel 12:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C'est la vie (phrase)[edit]

seems just a catch phrase, without significant cultural references about which we can write.--K.C. Tang 09:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Adequately covered by the entry here. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing more important is need than is said in List of French phrases used by English speakers#C. Monkeyblu e 09:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above --Lucy-marie 10:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essentially original research. --Nonstopdrivel 12:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Edtropolis 14:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep common and widely used phrase in English; appears in songs etc.; as deserving as Have one's cake and eat it too etc. JJL 17:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Adequately addressed on the C'est la vie page, although that article also contains a whole lot of other junk, apparently in an attempt to catalog every time the phrase has been used in any form of media. Propaniac 19:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, now that I take another look at C'est la vie, that article only disambiguates between a radio show, the article up for deletion, and a comic strip that has no article at all. If this article is deleted, C'est la vie will have nothing to disambiguate, and so I'm not sure where a short definition of the phrase (that would have been at home on the dab page) could be placed. That bugs me a bit. Propaniac 19:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems like a good opportunity to make that a regular dab page without the phrase-related stuff. JJL 19:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — List of French phrases used by English speakers takes care of this one. *Cremepuff 222* 00:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page is redundant because List of French phrases used by English speakers already explained it adequately. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Kylohk 16:45, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Phantom of Manhattan (musical)[edit]

Crystalballism. Complete lack of information. And, considering the fact that Andrew Lloyd Webber's cat completely erased the score from his computer two weeks ago (dead serious), who knows if this will ever be produced. — Music Maker 08:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for minimal content due to the fact it is a (set back) work in progress. No objection to recreation at a later date, when more information is available. However, that source currently making up the article has to be in it, just for the sheer doubletake value. -- saberwyn 11:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough is known to write a vaguely coherent article - no lyricist (officially), no plot, no dates, and no score... This only warrants a sentence at the end of The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical), at least until more concrete details are available. For more comedy, ALW did a video podcast talking (briefly) about his cat deleting the score [25] - Dafyd 12:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and consider moving anecdote to Andrew Lloyd Webber, a location that seems to me more suitable than The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical), as it pertains to his biography and only obliquely to the former musical. --Nonstopdrivel 12:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It appears that the name of the show was supposed to be "Phantom in Manhattan" anyhow. This is definitely less than a rumor. Come back when there is actually a show to write about! -- Ssilvers 13:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per ↑.--Edtropolis 14:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, Crytsal Ball. JJL 16:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, more crystal ballery. RFerreira 06:05, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David: the Musical[edit]

Subject fails notability. Google search for ""david the musical" murner" (the composer's last name) yielded 6 results. — Music Maker 08:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially a press release for a non-notable event. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:N fail. Doesn't seem to have left Boston. Monkeyblu e 09:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a quote from the evening's program. Fails WP:N and certainly doesn't merit an entire cast listing. --Nonstopdrivel 13:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.--Edtropolis 13:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:18, 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 11:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flapper![edit]

Fails to assert notability. A google search for "Flapper! Francoeur" (the composer's last name) yielded 122 results. — Music Maker 08:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability asserted. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does not appear that this musical ever had a professional production. It seems to have been sold to some schools for school productions. -- Ssilvers 12:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Nonstopdrivel 13:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. JJL 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:18, 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 11:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oedipus for Kids[edit]

Article does not assert notability. A Google search of ""Oedipus for Kids" Saferstein" (the composer's last name) yielded 236 results — Music Maker 08:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One ir two online reviews and/or pre-publicity articles, but not sufficient to establish notability. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Much of the information in the article seems to be a joke. -- Ssilvers 12:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Article itself seems to be a parody. --Nonstopdrivel 13:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:18, 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. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 15:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Socialist Web Site[edit]

Disputed prod. Web site fails notability. Only sources cited are itself and Alexa. Realkyhick 07:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge with International Committee of the Fourth International. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant sources. Nick mallory 10:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep They have a certain oddball notability. The Buffalo News mentions them[26] and the Asian Tribune reprints them some[27][28][29].--T. Anthony 10:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to International Committee of the Fourth International. --Nonstopdrivel 13:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge might work as it's a short article.--T. Anthony 15:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I could go with that. Realkyhick 17:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Appears to be a conspiracy theory web site.--Edtropolis 14:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, having been mentioned by both American and Asian newspapers, there is likelihood that sufficient people have heard about it around the world, establishing some notability.--Kylohk 15:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To what extent it's considered conspiracy theory will vary by political orientation. It's a lot more sober than most of the "classical" conspiracy sites. Now also hass a section in French. DGG 02:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fairly well known website, and just look at how many articles on Wikipedia link to it.[30] Serpent-A 04:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable website, at least 1-2 years ago it was one of the foremost leftwing websites worldwide. --Soman 17:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a venerable Trotskyist website which is well known in leftist circles. Sources will definitely be available from the left-wing press. —Psychonaut 16:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Post some sources and I'll gladly reconsider. I'm starting to be swayed toward notability anyway, even though the site's politics are polar opposite of my own. Realkyhick 21:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. Being parent of a deceased, attempting to meet Congresspeople, are not remotely plausible assertions of encyclopedic notability. Sadly, this probably happens every day in the US, with comparable experiences to thousands of people in the world. Xoloz 15:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Hager[edit]

Suggest deleting article since completely non-notable person. T@nn 07:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability Elmo 08:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability, bias, lack of sources. Seems soapboxy. Doczilla 09:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, article has been tagged for weeks with no attempt to provide sources or establish notability. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The loss of a child in Iraq, however tragic it might be, does not notability give. --Nonstopdrivel 13:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PR campaign brought here. JJL 16:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Burntsauce 22:31, 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 11:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armageddon Pills[edit]

I tagged this for speedy deletion as a short article with no context. User:Hesperian removed the tag and added a New York Times reference,[31] however I would argue that (a) the book is still apparently a work in progress, and I cannot find sufficient publication information to suggest that this is not still a case of crystal ball-style prediction, and (b) the NYT article is about a general phenomenon (GeoTagging), and the book has only a single trivial reference, thus not being a sufficient indicator of notability. Confusing Manifestation 06:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no context, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Realkyhick 07:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, briefest of brief articles, not even an ISBN, non-notable book at this stage. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 08:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Absolutely no context. Elmo 08:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Those who think this article has no context should look "context" up in a dictionary, and then read the speedy deletion criteria again. Clearly it has context. Having said that, I say delete as non-notable, since there is evidently no prospect of writing an article about this book based on reliable third-party sources. Hesperian 11:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable drug. Appears to be an indiscriminate info.--Edtropolis 14:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck the above comment by someone who evidently didn't actually read the article. Hesperian 00:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Agree that is non-notable and I agree with User:Hesperian that future prospects are slim. JodyB_talk 15:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless the author provides a context, if add one, may my vote would have changed--JForget 00:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No notability at all. Perhaps the author can find some references and information to prove it's notable it could be kept, but I don't thnk that would be an easy task... *Cremepuff 222* 00:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the above. Not notable. A1octopus 22:46, 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 per WP:SNOW, WP:CSD#G11 and likely WP:CSD#G12. MaxSem 11:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Foundation International[edit]

Not sure what to make of this page, but it doesn't sound deserving of its own article. Nyttend 04:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a hoax and seems pointless. oysterguitarist~Talk 04:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a soapbox. Alternatively, reduce to stub, since there are GHits about members being arrested. The "proof" of images of Jesus being visible on the Moon, Mars and the Black Stone of Mecca is mighty convincing though. Just one question: did they use a digital camera or a regular one to take His picture for comparison? Clarityfiend 05:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a place for personal essays. Ironically, this article might also be a WP:COPYVIO. Pure POV tripe. --Nonstopdrivel 05:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see anything here that even makes it salvagable as an article. At best this is non-notable POV. 76.174.235.161 06:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Gosh, where to begin? Blatantly promotes a POV, likely copyvio, essay, probable hoax, can't believe it didn't get speedied. Realkyhick 07:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, essay, possible hoax and the article has never seen NPOV. Elmo 08:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Completely unencyclopaedic. Hilarious 'evidence' of faces appearing on the Moon, Sun, etc... An interesting sociocultural phenomenon, but needs a non-POV editor to write it, not this article. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 08:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Smells like a WP:HOAX, if not that, then completely unencyclopedic. east.718 10:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it Reads like propaganda. -N 10:57, 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. Shadow1 (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Phish tribute albums[edit]

Non-notable albums by non-notable musicians. Corvus cornix 04:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page is a list of tribute albums for one of the largest touring acts of the last two decades. That satisfies notability. — Music Maker 04:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jimmy Buffett, The Wailers, and Dave Matthews are NOT non-notables. RunLikeAnAntelope 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You are correct, but is it possible there is a better way to convey this information. While I haven't quite made my mind up yet on this, I do feel that it borders on absurd to have a list of Phish tribute albums. Are we next going to make a list of tribute albums to Phish tribute bands? At some point information is better to implement by attaching it to pre-existing articles rather than by creating new ones, I think that this may be one of those cases. Trusilver 06:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I have to say that the line would be drawn before the list of tribute bands of tribute bands (this isn't a tribute band, it's a tribute album -- a little different). This is important information, relevant to a GA. It doesn't belong in, say, Phish discography, because it isn't Phish discography. Furthermore, as it was just too much information, the main Phish article doesn't even have a complete discography on it. This list is the most logical place for this information. (This response should also be considered for the other five articles so nominated.) — Music Maker 08:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Okay, I find that line of reasoning acceptable. I just worry that we are lowering the bar every day on what is deemed notable. Trusilver 19:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Phish. If the fact that Phish tributes have been made is itself notable, there's no reason why this can't be mentioned in the Phish main article. The vast majority of content in this article is self-redundant anyway. --Nonstopdrivel 05:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Phish. Neither the list or the individual albums are notable enough to stand alone. Realkyhick 07:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The albums are so different from one another in conctent and genre, plus there are more than just a couple. Six widely distributred albums is enough to warrant individual pages. Also, I noticed the All Music Guide has entries and reviews for each, not just listings, which to me constitutes notability in the music world. Steph11 12:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per ↑. Phish is not the only band inspired to make albums. They were also seen on the SNL segment Jarrett's Room.--Edtropolis 13:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Phish per Nonstopdrivel. Carlossuarez46 21:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep, although Phish looks quite notable even If I haven't heard of them. --JForget 00:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no question about the notability of Phish, the question is about the notability of the tribute albums. Corvus cornix 17:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 15:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharin' in the Groove[edit]

Tribute album by non-notable musicians Corvus cornix 04:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jimmy Buffett, The Wailers, and Dave Matthews are NOT non-notables. RunLikeAnAntelope 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Antelope. — Music Maker 04:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into a tribute albums section under Phish. --Nonstopdrivel 05:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Phish. None of the individual albums are notable enough to stand alone. Realkyhick 07:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Phish. east.718 10:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are major recording artists on this album!. Steph11 12:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tribute album comprised of notable bands. It has even been on the Billboard magazine Top Independent albums chart in 2001 at number 25. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering the success has a tribute album, definitely notable, I don't see why the article should be deleted.--JForget 00:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Almost all the bands listed are wiki-notable and many quite notable in fact! Jonathan Williams 02:13, 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 Keep. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 15:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone Phishin'[edit]

Tribute album by non-notable musicians. Corvus cornix 04:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The album is internationally available all over the world and Phish is one of the most successful American rock bands. Album sold so well that a sequel was made the same year. RunLikeAnAntelope 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not the individual artists could be considered notable (they certainly are in some circles -- very small circles, but circles nonetheless...), the music that they're playing satisfies notability. — Music Maker 04:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into a tribute albums section under Phish. --Nonstopdrivel 05:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Phish. None of the individual albums are notable enough to stand alone. (This is a recording.) Realkyhick 07:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Album was even reprinted in a double disc sequel combined with Still Phishin'. Plus, All Music Guide has entry and review, not just a listing, which to me constitutes notability in the music world. Steph11 12:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as per ↑.--Edtropolis 14:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 15:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still Phishin'[edit]

Tribute album by non-notable musicians. Corvus cornix 04:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The album is internationally available all over the world and Phish is one of the most successful American rock bands. This is a sequel to the first successful Phish bluegrass tribute. RunLikeAnAntelope 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not the individual artists could be considered notable (they certainly are in some circles -- very small circles, but circles nonetheless...), the music that they're playing satisfies notability. — Music Maker 04:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into a tribute albums section under Phish. --Nonstopdrivel 05:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Album was even reprinted in a double disc sequel combined with Gone Phishin'. Plus, All Music Guide has entry and review, not just a listing, which to me constitutes notability in the music world. Steph11 12:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RunLikeAnAntelope--JForget 00:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 15:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JamGrass: A Phish Tribute[edit]

Tribute album by non-notable musicians. Corvus cornix 04:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The album is internationally available all over the world and Phish is one of the most successful American rock bands. This album also recieved some radioplay upon its release. RunLikeAnAntelope 04:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not the individual artists could be considered notable (they certainly are in some circles -- very small circles, but circles nonetheless...), the music that they're playing satisfies notability. — Music Maker 04:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into a tribute albums section under Phish. --Nonstopdrivel 05:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Phish. What I said above. Realkyhick 07:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Album available worldwide. Plus, All Music Guide has entry and review, not just a listing, which to me constitutes notability in the music world. Steph11 12:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Phish is a notable band. They were inspired by millions.--Edtropolis 14:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 15:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The String Quartet Tribute to Phish[edit]

Tribute album by non-notable musicians. Corvus cornix 04:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vitamin Records released over 100 string quartet tribute albums dedicated to a number of popular rock bands; these albums are available worldwide. RunLikeAnAntelope 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not the individual artists could be considered notable (they certainly are in some circles -- very small circles, but circles nonetheless...), the music that they're playing satisfies notability. — Music Maker 04:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into a tribute albums section under Phish. --Nonstopdrivel 05:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Phish. Ditto, again. Realkyhick 07:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree about Vitam Records contituting notability. Label distributed major tributes online and in outlets. Plus, All Music Guide has entry and review, not just a listing, which to me constitutes notability in the music world. Steph11 12:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as I said above.--Edtropolis 14:06, 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. The Sunshine Man 15:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High Neighbors: Dub Tribute to Phish[edit]

Tribute album by non-notable musicians. Corvus cornix 04:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another major label release from Vitamin Records. RunLikeAnAntelope 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not the individual artists could be considered notable, the music that they're playing satisfies notability. — Music Maker 04:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into a tribute albums section under Phish. --Nonstopdrivel 06:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Phish. Do I even have to say why anymore? Realkyhick 07:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See above. Steph11 12:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Ocatecir ^T 00:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Oaks Mall, Florida[edit]

Non-notable shopping mall, no claims of notability, no sources. My speedy deletion tag was reverted. Corvus cornix 03:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some sources. --Eastmain 04:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to assert notability. Theft at malls is hardly a rare or notable occurrence. --Nonstopdrivel 06:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Notable enough on its own, theft doesn't enter into the equation. Realkyhick 07:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only evidence of notability is a single report of a theft. Does every victim of a robbery get an article on Wikipedia? Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 08:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has over 900,000 square feet of gross leasable area, which makes it a "super-regional mall" per the ICSC [32]. See also the views of several editors on notability of malls at the essay WP:MALL. Edison 16:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable enough at nearly 900,000 square feet, also has several reliable sources. ~~I'll be bold and move this to The Oaks Mall (Florida), though.~~ Move made to The Oaks Mall (Florida). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eisdon and notability according to WP:MALL which this seems to pass. Burntsauce 23:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep large enough to qualify. All mall articles now will be smaller than they used to be, since the spam lists of stores are finally being removed.

but I do not see why speedy tags are being placed on articles that make some assertion of notability. Is it because of habit, or of a hope that sometimes one will slip through? DGG 02:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assumption of good faith. The speedy tag was put on the article under the auspices of A7: Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. There are still no claims of notability in this article. Not all shopping malls are notable, and if there is nothing in the article other than a list of stores, and doesn't say anything in the article about how this is different from any other mall, then, to my thinking, it merits an A7. Corvus cornix 16:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of A7 does it fit: " real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content" ?DGG 01:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Company, obviously Corvus cornix 17:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Size and sources demonstrate notability. Alansohn 17:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MALL as a super-regional mall with multiple sources. Yamaguchi先生 04:17, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Demartini[edit]

Is this an ad? It must be, since this man is not prominent or famous or whatever enough to deserve an article. A search results in few sources that are not somehow promotional. Pablosecca 03:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article doesn't pass WP:POV, much less WP:NOTABLE. It's poorly written and has a distinctly unencyclopedic, whimsical tone. Paul Bragg is himself well known in the health-food industry, but his notability isn't transferable to Mr. Demartini. The latter, I'm guessing, gave a testimonial in one of Mr. Bragg's videos. --Nonstopdrivel 03:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Completely non-notable, borderline spam. Realkyhick 07:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not even asserted, never mind proven. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 08:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very little notability. But why is this AFD categorised as "places and transportation"? Peterkingiron 13:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 04:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Youth[edit]

Zero Google hits for this supposed legend. Corvus cornix 03:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's either a hoax, or the most non-notable legend ever. --Haemo 03:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Its a hoax. ~ Wiki hermit 03:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Being a hoax isn't a reason for speedy deletion, but being patent nonsense is. Resolute 03:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this hoax. Besides being patent nonsense, poorly written, and unsourced, it reminds me vaguely of a Pecos Bill knock-off. It made me laugh, however, so that's something. --Nonstopdrivel 03:58, 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. Sr 13 07:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Ridge[edit]

not noteworthy enough for an encyclopediac entry to be possible Kripto 03:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her best claim to fame is being married to a former athelete. Fails WP:BIO. Resolute 03:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep Several sources to back that she's an interior designer of note in New Zealand. Article may need padding.--Ispy1981 04:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. At the very least has demonstratable name recognition. The fashion and interior design stuff gets a fair few articles in gnews archives[33]--Limegreen 04:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would she be notable without the celebrity status of her husband? And who outside of New Zealand has ever heard of her? All the sources are local to NZ. I also object to the opening statement: "the ex-cricketer" -- as if her husband is so well-known that anyone would have heard of him outside of cricket fandom. --Nonstopdrivel 06:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call dude. Is there any proof this whole like 'New Zealand' thing exists anyway? I trawled Gawker for like fifteen seconds during the second ad break in the Simpsons and there's zip. Maybe it's somewhere real out there like Brooklyn? Nick mallory 06:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the sarcasm is called for, but point taken. If we have room for American socialites like Paris Hilton on the wikisphere, I guess there's no reason why we don't have room for New Zealander socialites. --Nonstopdrivel 13:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the American Wikipedia. If she's notable in New Zealand, she's notable enough for Wikipedia even if not a single individual outside that country has heard of her. --Charlene 08:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think that was the point I was making Charlene...

Keep: Are you kidding? I would be hardpressed to find anything in WP:V stating that reliable sources don't count if they're in New Zealand. RGTraynor 14:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This article was a long-standing request at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand. Sally Ridge has been known as a television personality in New Zealand for a considerable length of time, separate from anything to do with either her ex-husband or current husband. I realise that "other shit exists" isn't a particularly good argument on AfD, but as one of the regular designers on such series as the NZ edition of Changing Rooms and Home Front. and in the media in general after that, Ridge would rate level with the likes of the UK's Lawrence Llewelyn-Bowen. And I don't see anyone rushing to delete his article due to a lack of notability. It needs expansion, not deletion. I've given the article a thorough copyedit which is a start. Oh - and no, Nick, as everyone knows, Brooklyn is in NZ, not the other way round :) Grutness...wha? 06:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Solid keep. Short article, but notability guidelines seem to be met pretty handily. Longstanding request for this article by an established project helps, too. Realkyhick 08:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least one source demonstrating notability, others should be added and could certainly be found. Nonstopdrivel's response above unhelpful. Notability does not have to be international. And yes, she would be notable without the status of her husband. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 08:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Individual is certainly notable in her own country, and easily passes WP:BIO. --Charlene 08:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
some thoughts - 1. Ms Ridge has been in the media. Checking the googlenews archive posted above, for either trying to demolish a house and/or for being married, and/or having children and/or having a job; it seems that she has high name recognition. But that is not the same thing as notability. It seems her best description is 'socialite'. 2. There is no way to know if she is a high-flyer among New Zealand interioir designers, but I would assume that if such things are unascertainable. awarding her the benefit of the doubt would be a mistake. 3. She was on TV, and this is not the same thing as notable either; none of the shows she is associated with (and I think the TV shows are the best measure of her notability) have wikipages of their own. Homefront goes to a page about a civil populace during a time of war and the 'changing rooms' page is about the British show with her name mentioned in passing, and Celebrity Treasure Island is a redlink.. 08:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've fixed two of those links to point to the corrct pages... as to Changing Rooms, it makes sense to list the NZ show on the same page as the UK one gioven that there was some interchange betwen the two series. If there hadn't been, it would surely have merited its own page. Grutness...wha? 14:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is certainly notable within New Zealand in the fields of interior design and from her TV work, never mind the notability from the issues raised from the demolition of the house. All of these add up to pass the notability requirements.--Mendors 10:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I still object to the idea that she derives notability from a controversy surrounding a house demolition. In my hometown there are always controversies surrounding proposed demolitions of historic buildings. They don't create notability outside the local area, much less nationally or internationally. They certainly don't merit Wikipedia articles. What is so special about this demolition controversy? --Nonstopdrivel 13:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial response to comment - This one did make headlines nationally (I live at the other end of NZ to Auckland). I suspect the reason it made such a big splash is that the couple planning to do the demolition were both already of sufficient fame to merit it. It's a cause and effect thing - you say notability comes through news of the demolition, but the demolition wouldn't have been big news if the notability wasn't already there. Which brings us back here. Grutness...wha? 14:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Ridge has over 200 unique hits on the New Zealand Google, which is not at all bad. Those hits range from articles in the NZ Herald to an IMDB listing to fashion magazines to TV station websites to Yahoo! "babe" shot groups. That you might not like or agree with her notability is possible, but that she passes WP:V is incontrovertible. RGTraynor 14:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Charlene.fic Taprobanus 17:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable. JJL 18:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to pass WP:V quite easily. Article may be a stub, but it just needs improvement. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty notable in NZ. For those who say "nobody outside of New Zealand has ever heard of her," may I direct you to WP:IDONTKNOWIT. A person doesn't need to be known globally to be notable, and using this argument in AfD discussions lends itself to biasing Wikipedia in favor of certain countries/ethnic groups/etc. -- a very unencyclopedic bias. --Ace of Swords 20:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO, and notable person in New Zealand--JForget 00:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google News Archives comes up with 99 hits relating to her relating to her design work as well as the house issue. [34]Capitalistroadster 02:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject passes WP:BIO through multiple claims to notability backed by reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 04:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's Wrong with Me[edit]

This is definitely not a notable song by any means. Heck, the artist and songwriter are both redlinks, and the page is completely orphaned. I've followed the Billboard charts for years now, and I know for a fact that it was never charted. Therefore, I see no reason to keep this page (although actually, Todd Fritsch is a damn fine artist). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Apparently this article was created by a single-purpose account, User:Aimforcentermass, whose only other contributions have been a page for Todd himself, and a page for the songwriter of the song. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What's wrong with this article is it's not demonstrably notable. That said, an article on Todd Fritsch may be reasonable. FrozenPurpleCube 03:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll work on that actually -- Todd himself is notable, despite not charting here in the US. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable it has two red links. oysterguitarist~Talk 03:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article makes no attempt at asserting notability. Resolute 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even close to asserting notability. Realkyhick 08:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable song. A one-line article is not enough for notability.--Edtropolis 14:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The musical artist is non-notable as the song itself.--Edtropolis 15:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because there's no article on Todd Fritsch doesn't mean he's not notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 19:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Eric444 04:16, 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 all the pimps in the crib, delete it like it's NOT. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 14:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mack G[edit]

Hoax. 14 year old rapper who's one of the richest in the world, extremely famous, but doesn't seem to exist. I love the reference notes that do not link to any references. Corvus cornix 02:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Hilariously, the two mystery "citations" point to an article on Ice Cube, and to a list of 100 influential rappers, of which this individual is not listed. Resolute 03:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Resolute. Anthony Rupert 03:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Resolute oysterguitarist~Talk 03:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not one ghit for "Mack G" refers to a rapper, though there are lists of rappers in which the words "Craig Mack, G-Dep" occur. This is one of the better-written hoaxes I've seen, certainly worth a laugh, but no less worthy of deletion. --Nonstopdrivel 04:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Resolute. Maxa megalon 2000 05:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the article is copied from Ice Cube's. Sci girl 05:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Yo, bro, it's bull----. Realkyhick 08:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. 10/10 for balls, 0/10 for content. Even the external link to his own website leads to an empty page! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 08:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy it. It's a hoax. east.718 10:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not MySpace. Fails WP:MUSIC.--Edtropolis 14:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete the article. Take some of the more intriguing incidents and put them in the main article, but this is mostly a fancruft list of mundane injuries (given that the subject is Jackie Chan). —Kurykh 22:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Chan Injury List[edit]

Very big example of fancruft. We don't need to learn about how Jackie Chan got shards of glass up his buttocks while he was filming. Either deletion or merging into the individual movie articles would be the best choice. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 02:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. You've got to be kidding me. There may be a place for this, but Wikipedia ain't it. Take the fancruft elsewhere, pronto. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge to Jackie Chan only because I know Jackie Chan himself loves to talk about all of the times he has been injured while filming his movies. --Hnsampat 03:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; *if* this is notable information, then it should not be merged directly into Jackie Chan. The parent article is already long, and adding a long list to the end would be counter-productive. Separating long lists of otherwise notable information is one way of avoiding bloat in parent articles. Fourohfour 17:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Swift Delete as patent fancruft. The place this belongs is precisely where it's located: on the Official Jacky Chan Injury Map. --Nonstopdrivel 04:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Listcruft. What next, list of body blemishes on Jackie Chan? Puh-leeze. Realkyhick 08:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jackie Chan, it's notable that he nackers himself so regularly on films and it's something he brings up alot. Too crufty and not notable enough for an article of it's own, but I would recommend we stop short of deleting the information outright. Elmo 08:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia that does not need to crowd the Jackie Chan article. Doczilla 09:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main articles for movies - but only in the text where appropriate, not as trivia. east.718 10:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jackie Chan is famous for his injuries during filming. These are non trivial injuries too. The facts go beyond the interest of fans, so deserve to be kept somewhere. Sure the article needs some more references. GB 11:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up Jackie Chan's injuries have been widely documented and even referenced in popular culture, (such as in Celebrity Deathmatch before his fight with Claude Van Damm). This makes it a notable subject outside of Jackie Chan fans. Chan has also mentioned his injuries when he was in Stefan Raab's TV Total comedy show. So, I'll just go and clean up the list. Also, had this been merged into the Jackie Chan article, it would make it disproportionate (which was why I deleted the whole section on its article).--Kylohk 12:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean upThe injury list have been seperated from the main article, and this subsection should be kept, i will provide references at a later time, but anyone who wants to do so in the mean time please go ahead. As far as i know all the injury listed have been documented one way or the other, and since jackie chan is listed in the guiness book of record as the actor with the most stunts and injuries, this section should be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DaliusButkus (talk • contribs)
Strong Delete as horrible fancruft. Eusebeus 13:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. His injuries in a stunt is very notable. He was inspired by fans and MTV.--Edtropolis 14:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a long list of trivia, which is to be avoided within articles, so why have an article that is nothing but trivia? This fancruft can safely go back into the Jackie Chan article in a much abbreviated form (maybe a mention of the Guinness Record), but we don't need to list out every single last bruise. - BierHerr 15:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It is only a list for notable and documented or witnessed injuries, so i say keep, since this is unprecendented in the acting stage, and it's been removed from the main article and subcategoried, it should be kept, else i will reinstate it within the main article, can't see where all the fuss come from. fancraft is an invalid reason for deletion, for those calling this fancraft please do some research on the topic before saying it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.199.10 (talk • contribs)
- Comment Note that the inclusion of the list in the main article itself would cause disproportionation. In fact, his injuries have already been mentioned in the stunts section.--Kylohk 15:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Worth retaining as facts about a notable actor's life/career, but separated from main article to keep main article a reasonable length. I'd recommend also including further info about the circumstances of the injuries, and to include this info in articles about individual films. --Ace of Swords 17:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's one of the most famous people in the world , so it is notable. IP198 19:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a very good reason. Ozzie Osbourne is famous, but we don't keep track of all the times he was stoned or stuff. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 20:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First you said it is all fancraft now you compare it to ozzie osbourne being stoned, pick on your side of the argument and stick with it, so you probably agree this list of injuries are not fan made fiction now, but your comparing injuries with drug abuse is pointless, i say strong keep cause to seperate the injury list from the main article.
Strong delete. Jackie Chan is very notable; every little injury he sustains, however, is not. Wikipedia is not a celebrity medical file. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Reliable sources do exist about his injuries, in fact, they have been added to the article. For instance, his Guinness Book of World Records does mention that he can never get insurance. His injuries definitely must be noted for the award to mention it.--Kylohk 21:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I may be so bold as to sum up the delete opinions, I think most would agree that a paragraph in the Jackie Chan article mentioning the fact that he has many injuries and that he holds a World Record will suffice. There is no encyclopedic reason to LIST every injury. So my opinion is to sweep this back into the main article (as a summarizing paragraph, not an all-inclusive list so as to avoid making that article too long, as is your concern) and delete the unnecessary "List Of" article. - BierHerr 23:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jackie Chan as an injured actor is notable, and does deserve its own article, even if every little detail is not notable for its own separate article. There is no reason to keep wikipedia small, we can go into detail. If each item on the list has been reported in multiple media, then there is justification for including it in a list. GB 03:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jackie Chan or the movies... whatever is the best option, not sure if a separate list of his injuries is really necessary. The references can be transferred of course to the appropriates--JForget 00:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and cleanup As you see improvements and referencing have already started with this article, so i say give it time to improve, and keep it seperate from the main Jackie Chan page, just like his filmography.
Delete as much as I like watching his movies, this is excessive trivia and since the main article already covers injuries proportionately, this article must go. Not everything that is sourced and verifiable is encyclopedic. Resurgent insurgent 06:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But only if we can confirm, per User:DaliusButkus, that Jackie Chan is listed in the Guiness Book of Records as the actor with the most stunts and injuries. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment [35] This link, from Jackie Chan Kids (the kids section of the official Jackie Chan website) talks about the Guinness World Records (Use the text search, search for "Guinness"). Note that the official Guinness World Records website does not list all records, if you want further verification, you can always send a text message request to their specified number.--Kylohk 08:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRIVIA.--Jerry 20:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The WP:TRIVIA does not recommend deleting at all, but recommends that the article should be reorganised into a text format rather than a list of facts. GB 06:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of injuries suffered by Jackie Chan or Merge to Jackie Chan, as Jackie Chan is notable for his injuries, amongst other things. 70.55.86.40 04:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. I agree with HongQiGong's comments. Magioladitis 07:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Guy gets hurts a lot, he deserves a whole article devoted to his injuries. 71.126.192.8 15:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some of it to Jackie Chan. Does not deserve a separate article, but Jackie's injuries are a significant part of his biography. -- MightyWarrior 09:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Merging the article is not a good idea, since the biography would become disproportionate.--Kylohk 11:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its a good article. Mr Tan 12:14, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali S. Asani[edit]

No evidence of any notability Sefringle^Talk 01:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 01:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to establish notability; the only reference is the subject's own website. --Nonstopdrivel 04:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject more than establishes WP:NOTE for academics. Seen as a prominent person in his field. Has written several books in his field. The very first ghit is his page at Harvard University. Article needs work.--Ispy1981 04:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest keep. Notable, but barely. Published works and Harvard status helps. Realkyhick 08:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 05:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The award cannot be verified from the Harvard Foundation's own website (because of the poor quality of the site, rather than because the claim is bogus, I would guess!) No other external sources. Has written some articles found on Google Scholar, but then so have I and I don't have a Wikipedia article! Fails WP:PROF unless some better external sources can be found. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 08:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems notable. 50+ hits on Google Scholar. 700+ hits on Google Web including links from: Harvard University, Institute of Ismaili Studies, UK, JSTOR, Oxford Journals. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 10:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve. Scholars do have notability. They just don't want their birth dates being published.--Edtropolis 14:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all scholars are notable. They must meet WP:PROF which I don't think this does. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 14:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — WP:PROF suggests notability is established by the receipt of a notable award which seems to be the case with the Harvard Award. That, coupled with his publishing should be enough. JodyB_talk 15:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Aminz 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the award is mentioned on speaker bio's hosted by other academic institutions, which adds reliability and notability to the award. If someone can demonstrate that this award isnt notable I will take another look at the notability of this prof, but at this stage the award and publications push the subject over the line. John Vandenberg 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See comment to RandomHumanoid below. I take no position on the notability of the award, but the fact that it's given by an organization he's directly involved with suggests that it isn't usable as a reliable secondary source. —David Eppstein 15:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- His list of publications and Harvard Foundation award establishes notability as a scholar and activist. His position as "Professor of the Practice of Indo-Muslim Languages and Culture" at Harvard does something even harder: establishes notability as a teacher. Harvard has a number of different names for faculty who are hired as much or more for their teaching or their professional experience as for their academic scholarship: Proctor, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Preceptor, Senior Preceptor, but the highest is almost certainly "Professor of the Practice of X." -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's notable, though I am not sure whether professor the practice of elsewhere has they same connotations at Harvard. At some places it's fairly liberally awarded, as the teaching-only line is not tenure-track & tends to lack some of the perks. Not all the GS links are independent. And two of the works are elementary textbooks,but that's fine for his position.DGG 03:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring specifically to the usage at Harvard--though even there it varies slightly from department to department. The standard of a Prof. of the Practice in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard is full-time, not adjunct unless someone has other evidence (Harvard faculty handbook, pg. 39). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is adjunct faculty, which is non-tenure track and frequently mentioned by people to inflate someone's importance or credentials. (For example, almost every physician associated with HMS (Harvard Med School) is a "clinical" professor of something, but that is a world apart from being an "actual" Harvard professor.) But I'm concerned with the over-emphasis in many of these discussions on a Harvard affiliation, as if that in and of itself establishes notability. I am not personally familiar with the award he received, but it is conceivable this is not as large a feather in his cap as some would have us imagine.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 15:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It seems he serves on the advisory board for the Harvard Foundation, so I don't think the award can be used as a reliable secondary source, regardless of its inherent notability. —David Eppstein 17:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was wrong about this being an adjunct position. Funny thing -- I wrote my comment this morning while having breakfast with a (senior) faculty member who told me the position was equivalent to adjunct when I asked him what it was. (Yes, we have breakfast with our laptops out. He was reading the Times, I wikipedia.) Turns out I was misinformed. From the Crimson ...the post of professor in practice, a tenured position created during the 1992-1993 school year that allows faculty to teach and maintain private practice. So, I do hereby stand humbly corrected. (Nonetheless, my opinion regarding notability remains unchanged.) --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 02:21, 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.

Tahir Abbas[edit]

This discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 06:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Cahen[edit]

No evidence of any notability Sefringle^Talk 01:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 01:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 01:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - if one scholarly article is all he's published, and he has done nothing else worth mentioning, then he fails WP:BIO. --Evb-wiki 01:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in light of the added text and sources. --Evb-wiki 19:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence pertaining to significance of published work. --Nonstopdrivel 04:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There may be evidence to suggest that, not only has he written more than one article, but was a notable in his field. But it's in French.--Ispy1981 04:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 05:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It took about two minutes of web searching to discover that Cahen is considered one of the most distinguished professors in Middle Eastern history. Peer-reviewed reviews of the book in his honor found on the web say that his career was distinguished. Probing a bit farther we find, this statement in the Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 1996, as the first line of the Festschrift review "This book honors the best historian of the Middle East in the twentieth century." This review provides a detailed biographical sketch of the professor, showing how his participation in the French Communist party may or may not have affected his scholarship. Anyone who can downplay his importance with "I am known all over the world, to one person in each country" is surely an important figure. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Claude Cahen is a very well-known scholar of Islam. His work on Dhimmi in Encyclopedia of Islam is regarded as authorative. --Aminz 18:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per references found by Myke Cuthbert. —David Eppstein 20:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable historian according to the standards, no reason to delete the article.--JForget 00:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Perhaps the nom would like to inform us of the search he made by which he concluded the person was not notable? DGG 03:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To his defense, the article at the time of the nomination did not assert notability. It does now, and clearly pass the professor test. (Keep) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable historian Misheu 08:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aminz. --- A. L. M. 09:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, and greatly expand. Cahen is more notable among historians than Joshua Prawer, on whom I wrote an article I'm trying to get to GA status. The sources I read indicated that Cahen revolutionaized Crusade studies, and was one the most important medievalists of our time. I suggest that this nomination be withdrawn. nadav (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 22:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with similar themes and release dates[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This list I would say is a trivia list composed by original research and unverified claims. Even though it has been nominated several times before for deletion, it has miraculously survived via "no consensus". But I believe this "article" isn't encyclopedic and should be deleted _→AzaToth 01:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the first AfD is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with similar plots _→AzaToth 18:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Isn't encyclopedic. --Plasma Twa 2 02:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how it isn't encyclopaedic. Uncle G 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, just how similar are we talking anyway? This is too indiscriminate and nigh impossible to verify. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too discriminate. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 02:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, surely you mean indiscriminate. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 02:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The last two times this was nominated I thought it was better than most indiscriminate lists, and many of the people who supported keeping it said citations comparing the films were necessary and must be added to avoid the list descending into WP:OR, or relying on the personal opinions of passing editors (ie, an editor thinks "Movie A was a bit similar to Movie B, I'll add it to the list"). Not only have sources failed to appear, but I've been watching this article closely for a while, and regular editors have actually been removing requests for sources. That's right, far from addressing the concerns raised in previous AFDs, they have been making this list worse. This aggressive edit summary is just one of many attempts to prevent sources being added, this editor claims that reading the individual articles is enough and citations are not needed, so interpretation and opinion is needed on the part of the reader. This list will never be anything but WP:OR and WP:NOT#IINFO. Masaruemoto 03:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that this was a needlessly aggressive edit summary. But the lousy behavior of one editor isn't necessarily a good reason to delete. A lot of work has been done to provide over 30 specific references and several general references to the phenomenon of films with similar themes and release dates. --JayHenry 03:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not one editor at all, like I said, one of many. There are other instances of different editors removing requests for sources, I just provided that one as an example. Even if this entire list was sourced, it would still be largely relying on the personal opinions of some arbritrarily chosen film reviewers. Maybe rename to List of films that a film reviewer, sometime, somewhere has compared to another film that happened to have a "similar" release date, because that's all this will ever be. Masaruemoto 05:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please read the very first AFD discussion, from September 2006, where the actual name for the concept was given. Uncle G 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. --Evb-wiki 03:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To be quite honest, I don't see how this is even remotely encyclopedic in nature. If someone could explain how it is, I'd be glad to change my opinion. --Haemo 03:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the very first AFD discussion, from September 2006, where such an explanation was given. Uncle G 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see an actual argument above that this is unencyclopedic. I will observe, the following:
- Per WP:FIVE: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." This is perhaps not information you would see in a general encyclopedia, but it's certainly something you'd see in a specialized encyclopedia of the film industry say; or an almanac of the film industry. The argument "unencyclopedic" is generally a poor argument when applied to lists, because lists are generally almanac-style information which is explicitly allowed.
- Per WP:LIST: "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." This is a chronological list, grouped by theme and also annotated. It is valid per WP:LIST.
- The article is well referenced. It has nearly 40 sources, including many that specifically address "films with similar themes and release dates," I think that contradicts any assertion that this is WP:OR.
- As for indiscriminate, I'd point out that Hollywood only produces so many movies in a year, and not that many of them fall under this phenomenon -- in other words, the content of the list is not infinitely large. Quite the contrary.
- It has not been raised yet, but has been in previous AFDs, the issue of WP:NPOV. NPOV simply states that information be presented neutrally. Thus, the inclusions in the list are not the opinion of any editor, but an assertion from a source: i.e. Happy Feet and Surf's Up are both about computer-animated penguins on Antarctic adventures released within one year of each other. Perhaps you somehow disagree that these films are similar, but the observation that they are similar is sourced to USA Today. Also, the notion that someone would have a "pro films about penguins being similar bias" is somewhat ridiculous.
- In previous AFDs a lot of the arguments have been some version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's fine. I don't like all the manga articles. But it's not a reason to delete. Not by a long shot. --JayHenry 03:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a comment about you number of movies made by Hollywood point, the MPAA rated 404 movies in 2006, and average of 7.7 movies per week. So movie's coming out that are similar is gonna happen a lot. TJ Spyke 04:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The intro, while plausible, is unverified and fails WP:OR; the subject itself is inherently, irretrievably incomplete and unencyclopedic. Furthermore, there is a direct correlation between the number of movies in a section and the decade it describes, which leads me to believe this article is the product of a group of young people. It's an example of the same historical shortsightedness that causes the Top Ten Greatest American polls to feature Oprah at number 8. Somehow the majority of Greatest Americans have lived in the last 20 years. I think the same shortsightedness applies to this article. --Nonstopdrivel 04:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the very first AFD discussion, from September 2006, where sources documenting the phenomenon, under an actual name, were cited. Yet more sources documenting the phenomenon were cited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with similar themes and release dates (second nomination). Uncle G 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. Potentially this could be a valid article, but the editors seem to be stretching to put films on this list. In what way do Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind have similar themes? And even less so, what do Sweet Sweetback's Baadasss Song and Shaft have in common? That they are about black people? --Metropolitan90 05:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The criteria for inclusion as to "similar themes" are too vaguely defined, making this indiscriminate information. --Metropolitan90 09:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this might be important reference to movie critics, although I think concensus must be reached on its talkpage for deciding wich movies are similar --Andersmusician $ 06:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No external criterion for what should be included here, hence this is original research. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An appropriate external criterion was given in the very first AFD discussion, from September 2006. Please read it. Uncle G 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then if the criterion (mention by external film reviewer) exists, it should be applied. In other words a reference for each item on the list to a review mentioning the similarity. A lot of work I know, but that's what the use of this criterion involves. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 10:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete vague, subjective, trivial, unmaintainable OR list. Doczilla 09:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back when this was first nominated for deletion, as List of films with similar plots (AfD discussion) in September 2006, I gave a whole list of links to places where people talked about "copycat" movies, such as this magazine article, and it was suggested by MacGyverMagic that the article be renamed to copycat movie. That never happened. I suggest that all of the above editors look at the prior AFD discussions. It's time to actually do what was suggested 9 months ago. Uncle G 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even if this is true, who cares? --Nonstopdrivel 13:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can follow the links that I gave to see that it is true. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion. It is usually abused as the argument given by editors who cannot find a real rationale based upon what our policies actually say. Uncle G 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This list remains a directory of loosely associated items with a vague and arbitrary standard of inclusion. There is no objective definition of what constitutes a "similar theme." There is no objective definition of what constitutes a "similar release date." Individual editors must decide what constitutes a similar theme or release date, which is impermissible original research. I acknowledge that since the last AFD a number of editors have tried to get the list into better shape but it still fails WP:NOT and WP:OR. Otto4711 12:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Having individual editors make the decisions is unnecessary if they use the sources that were pointed out to you in the second AFD discussion, some of which can currently be even found hyperlinked-to by the article. Please actually look at the sources outside of Wikipedia that have done the analysis that have been pointed out again and again over 4 AFD discussions. Uncle G 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have looked at a number of the linked sources and I explained the last time around why I find relying on reviews and other opinion pieces for sourcing questionable. It entails giving undue weight to reviews that support the notion of similarity while discounting those that don't. And I can type in highly dramatic italics too, so I'm not really that impressed by it. Otto4711 19:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you seriously think that this article is biased, find some sources that say why some specific pairs of movies are not similar and add them to the article for balance. Remember, a NPOV is not reached by deleting information, but by adding the competing opinions. --Itub 08:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll pass, thanks, List of films that some people say are similar in theme and release date but other people say aren't would be an even dumber list than this. Otto4711 18:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JayHenry, plus some comments. Saying that "there is no objective definition of what constitutes a similar release date" is not a convincing complaint, as it can be trivially made objective by agreeing on a timespan and adding it to the top or the article, or even to the title. For example, how about "List of films with similar themes released within one year of one another"? (Which from observation of the list, seems to be the de facto criterion in most cases). The question of similar themes is arguably more subjective, but I haven't seen any controversial claims in the list, and specific cases could be discussed in the talk page. In most cases the similarity is blatantly obvious. Who would dispute the fact that Tombstone (1993) and Wyatt Earp (1994) are both films about Wyatt Earp? Or that Deep Impact and Armageddon, released in 1998, were films that featured a celestial body hitting the Earth? The ultimate sources are the films themselves. If seeing a film and concluding that it is about a celestial body hitting Earth is original research, then so is concluding that a film is about Joan of Arc, and there are many instances of this in the featured list about Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. --Itub 13:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. The ultimate sources are the people who, outside of Wikipedia, have observed the phenomenon of copycat movies, analysed it, and documented it, not Wikipedia editors watching films, drawing their own conclusions, and writing them up directly in Wikipedia. It is this very misunderstanding of the Wikipedia:No original research policy on the parts of editors adding text to this article that is partly the problem here. Uncle G 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOR does not prohibit the use of primary sources. It just says they should be used with care. Almost all of the articles we have about films, music, literature, etc. include some sort of plot synopsis, and in the vast majority of cases this is based directly on the work and not on secondary literature. Casablanca is a Featured Article with absolutely no references for the plot synopsis and lead. Is it original research to say that "Casablanca is an Oscar-winning 1942 romance film set during World War II in the Vichy-controlled Moroccan city of Casablanca"? (That's the very first sentence in the article and it's unsourced.) If we can have a synopsis on a movie based on the movie itself, we can certainly note that two movies have similar themes while referring to the movies themselves. --Itub 08:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if there were a source for each item, which would be a minimum requirement for making this list even remotely useful, the source would have to be the same for each item because that's the only way the same criteria would be applied. Since a wild variation of criteria is applied for the items, it is not really an accurate list at all. It's utterly useless and unmaintainable. --Spike Wilbury 15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of <randomly selected entertainment medium> with <two randomly selected properties in common>. Definition of "similar" is elastic, and there is no encyclopaedic topic films with similar themes and release dates to support this list. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's an encyclopaedic topic of copycat movies. Renaming and refactoring this article was suggested in the very first AFD discussion. As I've already said, It's time to actually do what was suggested 9 months ago. Uncle G 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make it so. That is quite different from the subject as now, so I don't see it has much bearing, but if enough (FSVO) of the current entries fit the bill in your view then a move, purge, slice, dice, refactor and refinish is fine too. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all cited content to a prose article properly titled to cover this pattern, especially with more attributable sources that study trends in the film industry. As a list, this article has been abused by synthesized additions. When a prose article is created, then the cited examples should be whittled down to the most significant to reduce the nature of an indiscriminate list. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The criteria are so vague as to be worthless. Similarity of plots or themes is (with a few exceptions) subjective. And what exactly is a "close period of time"? Clarityfiend 17:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the phenomenon exist and is sometimes covered in newsstories when it occurs. The criteria should be sharpened though and the list should only include movie combinations where a reliable sources can be found that noted and mentioned the similarity between the movies. In addition: there is nothing "miraculous" about an article surviving AfD with "no consensus". Wikipedia has always had the policy that, when in doubt, don't delete. A "no consensus" result is the same as a "keep" only with not-near unanimous support. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see an article being written on the topic of "copycat films" but this list fails WP:NOT. Furthermore, attempting to categorize/classify these films as "copycats" due to a percieved similarity between subject matters and a similar release date is painfully original research. Without substantial sourcing to prove that "Movie X and Movie Y have similar themes" grouping them as such is a primary observation and Wikipedia is not the place for such things. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It's a well-known convention in the film industry-- even more so than the lead balloon of the "let's get out of here" paradox -- that movies with similar themes are often produced by competing studios and released at the same time. Not copycats (who would copy "First Daughter"?), because they're parallel developments. It's more like deja vu. Hence, Black Sunday and Two Minute Warning, or The Truman Show and EdTV. There's a similar trend in television shows, such as 1974's "Happy Days" and the less well-known "Sons and Daughters". The critics here just aren't film critics. Roger Ebert has acknowledged this same Hollywood oddity, usually when reviewing the second of two such films. Great list. Mandsford 23:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research and trivia. >Radiant< 11:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel that this article is a good one, as it keeps track of such phenomena with relative ease. Skrooball 17:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: List of films with similar themes and release dates has not been able to exercise any sort of notability as an article. Under WP:NOTE, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." (Bolding is mine.) Furthermore, the note for that particular passage says, "Note 1: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, January 6, 1992. ) is plainly trivial." (Bolding is mine again.) As I have said and some other editors have said, the so-called phenomenon of copycat films or copycat media in general need to be explored with significant coverage, and not through reviews saying, "Hey, these films came out at the same time and have the same plot. Anyway, the first one was good, and the second one sucked." The listing of these details are indiscriminate details that are synthesized to support the argument of this topic. "Significant coverage" would be more appropriate, and if there is no detailed commentary on this phenomenon, then it may not necessarily have encyclopedic value. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be "significant coverage" in your view, then? There are two external links in the article itself which discuss the phenomenon in general. One of which points to a Washington Post article that gives several examples. So what would satisfy your need for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? I vote Strong Keep, myself. It's a good article, well sourced, and all the objections to it seem like rationalizations, at best. They amount to little more than "I don't like it". 169.198.254.6 16:20, 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 Speedily deleted by Alphachimp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at 04:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC) with reason "CSD A1 - Limited to no context". Non-admin close. cab 06:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cibao Airport Flight Schedule[edit]

WP is not a directory, an updated schedule of flights is not needed, the article's relevant information (airlines, destinations,...) seems to be all at Cibao International Airport - Nabla 01:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 02:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a..uh... airport flight schedule. --Haemo 03:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Resolute 03:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article appears to have already been deleted. It was only one the AfD board for a couple of hours. What gives? --Nonstopdrivel 04:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Speedy deleted by Alphachimp. CSD A1.--Ispy1981 05:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision engineering[edit]

This article appears to be about a corporate methodology that has been machine translated from the French Wikipedia. The original version was speedily deleted by two separate administrators before being submitted yet again, after which the second admin (SR13) opted not to delete it a third time. Problems besides the poor translation and absence of context include a lack of English source material, assertion of notability, and the probability that this is spam or self-promotion. — Feezo (Talk) 01:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's comprehensive discussion. --Nonstopdrivel 04:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a realtively new discipline. It has achieved academic recognition, and has books, and companies trying to sell its methodology. The companies are not listed here so this is not a spam. GB 11:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 16:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its terribly wordy and frilly. Language issues aside, I believe its not notable. DeletexC | ☎ 04:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete see Feezo Tdxz 17:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When and if the French version is improved, then have it put at Wikipedia:Translation so a real human being capable of translating it can translate it. -Yupik 11:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Sr 13 05:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Championship Wrestling[edit]

Article appears to be vanity page without credible sources that would confirm notability. Author of page Cwmoneybags has few edits outside of this page and its related pages [36], and is creating what appears to be a walled garden. Darrenhusted 01:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Plus three template are at TfD that have individual votes as well

Delete as vanity listcruft supported only by references to the author's own web pages. --Nonstopdrivel 01:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as vanity, walled garden, and not notable. Articles also fails WP:CORP, WP:V, and WP:RS. Bmg916^Speak 01:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All NN wrestling fed. I suggest nomiating all the events as well, since they would be considered NN anyways (the same way we have deleted NN events of WWE/ROH/ECW/etc.). TJ Spyke 04:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ALL I placed a prod on each of the associated articles because they all failed WP:V. Prods have been removed by the creator of the article with no discussion or sources added. Article and all associated should be deleted. - T-75|talk|contribs 07:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all both the main page and all the other pages in this walled garden should be deleted as a vanity project that fails all the basic rules of Wikipedia MPJ-DK 11:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole unsourced walled garden; we have some indie feds around, but they're generally larger, more active, and have a bigger impact on the field in some manner. The events are definitely overboard. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Weed out the Walled Garden, and none of them pass WP:N or WP:V — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs)
Delete all as above, tear down the wall. Burntsauce 23:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All + Templates, per nom and other users. Nikki311 02:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the entire garden per WP:N and [37]. Sala Skan 15:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all PCW seems to be non-notable, and by definition anything else about it is also non-notable. It's a walled garden anyway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all to hell as per what happened with the ECWF. --SteelersFan UK06 23:08, 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. Peacent 00:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

India Crisis[edit]

Article appears to be POV pushing and not simply providing information. Captain panda 00:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly PoV. -FeralDruid 00:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete post haste, personal essay, is not neutral and fails to provide any sources. Mak (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per (talk); exactly my first impression. Article appears irretrievable to me, as there is no credible, NPOV information therein that could not be found elsewhere. --Nonstopdrivel 01:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per CSD#G10. ~ Wiki hermit 01:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Massive POV, per Wikihermit G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 02:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 02:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this just seems to be advertising for a charitable/political group or movement. This probably could have been "prod"ed. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 02:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, Advert. Elmo 09:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Utter nonsense. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this soapbox. Doczilla 09:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. G10 seems harsh, but it certainly is POV nonsense. east.718 10:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a snowball.--Edtropolis 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Massive PoV, no sources -- soapbox. --Iknowyourider (t c) 19:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NPOV, WP:RS. Carlosguitar 21:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. Burntsauce 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, blatant POV, couldn't even be rewritten as a proper article because the subject itself ("India Crisis") is just a soapbox speech. Fourohfour 17:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV article whose topic avoids neutral point of view guidelines. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; this article is original research, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. No arguments for keeping have addressed this. --Core desat 04:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goal horn[edit]

Article about a rather small part of ice hockey games. Unsourced, and doesn't assert notability aside from "Goal horns are played when the home team in a hockey game scores a goal". If kept, needs to be cleaned up due to major listcruft problems. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for pure listcruft; nothing more than a collection of esoteric trivia of interest to very few. The information would be better located in a fan page, though in significantly pared down form might be merged with another NHL or related article. --Nonstopdrivel 01:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal delete with the note that I have no objection to including this information on the individual team's page. Part of the problem with this article is that the equivalent is played at pretty much *every* competitive endeavor, whether it's Hockey, Basketball, Baseball, or I dunno, Competitive Ballroom Dancing. See Music at sporting events for a more encyclopedic attempt. This *might* be merged there, but I doubt it'd be a good idea. FrozenPurpleCube 01:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft. As someone from Canada, I can see a certain distinctness to the goal horn, but do not find them notable. What's next - a list if the ice surface sizes for all teams? Considered in that light, inclusion on the team page seems proper. Reference to the baseball horn at the Rogers Centre is actually referenced on that page as an example of where this info likely belongs. Citations would be required even to include this info on the team pages. Pever 03:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also reads as WP:OR. Resolute 03:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Complete WP:OR, fails WP:V (although I can't imagine anyone making all of that up). RGTraynor 14:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expand or move to Wiktionary I took a look at some similar topics: Train whistle, Air horn, Deer horn, and Steam whistle. Each of these is a complete article, with history of the technology to make the sounds, how they're used, diagrams, photos, etc. If this article can be similarly developed, then I'd say keep. If not, then move the basic definition to Wiktionary ColtsScore 23:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've put a note on User talk:Ohyeh as she/he created the article ColtsScore 23:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although for some of the stadiums and only if there is a source, it can be put into the respective articles while the goal horn can be described/merge into the hockey or NHL (or other league) articles. A list like that and especially with the lack of references is not needed. Fails WP:V.--JForget 00:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I think its an interesting and readable topic if its presented correctly, and as shown here, there is still a lot of work to be done. I really particularly like how they say what chord each horn is... if its true. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 00:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Croat Canuck. --Djsasso 05:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think there are alternatives to deletion here. Firstly, the chords are correct (I downloaded some chords), secondly I don't see any attempt at at least placing maintainence tags, and thirdly, it's an important feautre in NHL, anyways at least in Canada. Evilclown93_(talk) 20:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article subject belong on the Wikitionary. GoodDay 20:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I'm not certain how important knowing the chord being played at however many decibels is to the game itself--it's essentially a celebratory function, similar to the stereotypical 'GOAL' shouted for half a minute for football/soccer. I can see a use for it as trivia, and the argument isn't the veracity or accuracy, Evilclown93--it's whether this is a list that needs to be maintained each time a team changes its name, arena, or horn. And as a side note to FrozenPurpleCube, horns are generally not used in basketball, a sport where the home team may score thirty to sixty times in a 40-48 minute game. That might be too much even for the most die-hard fan! IL-Kuma 07:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The article should stay, but with many changes. There should be a history of when the goal horn was introduced (For the record, the Chicago Blackhawks started this in the mid-1980's) and how it has become a part of hockey. Rather than list the chord for each horn, used what type of horn is used for each team (Kahlenberg being the most common brand). --Capsgm2002 19:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Croat Canuck. Bsroiaadn^Talk 01:30, 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. Sr 13 05:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bank (Casino)[edit]

This article is about a fictional casino, one which has appeared in only one film to date. I don't think it's notable enough to have its own article -- there just isn't enough information about it, nor is it culturally relevant enough, to be encyclopedic. Powers ^T 00:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above or Merge with Oceans Thirteen. --Nonstopdrivel 01:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oceans Thirteen, as this isn't notable in itself G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 02:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable in of itself. Perhaps in the future, if the casino plays a continuing role in the Ocean's n franchise (haven't seen the new movie), the casino might merit its own article, but not now. --Kyoko 02:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some of the info to Ocean Thirteen.--JForget 00:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge or redirect; there is nothing to preserve here, and who is going to type "The Bank (Casino)", really? The hotel was actually computer-generated, I believe, a production detail that should be recorded on the film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:48, 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. This article and this debate have significant issues. Two sources have been provided, both in German. The two pieces of coverage are clearly related to one another, and I have no idea about the sources: one at least (queer.de) may not be independent enough to confer notability. That said, no delete comments came up after the first keep comments, and the article has been rewritten and additional sources have been found. But this issue doesn't yet seem settled. Mango juice^talk 14:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hirschfeld Eddy Foundation[edit]

Brand new charity, not notable. Delete exolon 00:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: uncited, only assertion of notability is subject's own website. --Nonstopdrivel 01:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep new sources added:

atricle about the Foundation
Social Times about the foundation

another 407 entries for "Hirschfeld Eddy Stiftung" on google.de

--Lebeneben 16:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable organisation (or at least, no proof of notability) G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 02:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While may be notable at some point, this organization has just started out, so nothing that asserts notability. However, I suggest a mention of this foundation to the articles of Fannyann Eddy and Magnus Hirschfeld, whom the foundation was named for.--Ispy1981 05:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I concur. --Nonstopdrivel 06:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason why it should be deleted. This Foundation is unique. There is no other Foundation for this purpose.

The initiative for the Foundation came from the Lesbian and Gay Federation in Germany (LSVD), which also provides organizational support for the project. The LSVD has stepped up its contribution to international human rights advocacy in recent years and was formally granted consultative status at the United Nations in 2006. The Hirschfeld-Eddy Foundation intends to link in with this process and will work together with other human rights organizations to develop its agenda.--Loveisahumanright 06:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting Initiative. Relevant because of its Uniqueness. I added the Council--Nicetobe 11:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - while the organization is brand new, it's uniqueness and ties to notable individuals makes it interesting. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This charity's activities seem to be conducted in German so a language and cultural barrier will delay the recognition of their work in the US. Their council is an impressive multi-national list and they are working for human rights of LGBT people who have had to struggle for any recognition within the United Nations. I recommend German-speaking LGBT editors be invited to look at article subject's homepage to verify notability or appropriate information, there seems to be a lengthy list of press releases or media references. Benjiboi 21:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Those involved in Hirschfeld/Humboldt and their work are established, as are the international contributors. I see no reason to delete. Evolauxia 15:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as far as I see the content is much more reliable than it was when the discussion started. I hope the majority will agree, this is a strong keep now.--Loveisahumanright 21:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

apparently our french friends see also a strong keep: [fr:Fondation Hirschfeld-Eddy ]--Loveisahumanright 21:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, the Foundation is very important in Germany for lobbying the german and european politics into support for organgisations in african, asian states, where homosexuality is still illegal. The foundation has a strong influence in german Development aid. I read in many german newspapers and magazines over the foundation GLGerman 22:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to be honest, the political influence is connected with its fondation forming LSVD. But it has a good reputation and outcome.--Loveisahumanright 09:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep formed from a major LGBT organization, say that makes it notable. Kwsn^(Ni!) 04:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naisa[edit]

The article does not assert notability that would satisfy WP:WEB, and this edit Efforts have been made to write an article about it in the newspaper, but the efforts proved to be futile shows that there are no likely reliable sources, and also proves the notability point. I didn't speedy it because I wanted to give the authors time to improve it, which has not happened. Kevin 01:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also fails under WP:ORG, as it is WP:NN and has no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 01:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. ~ Wiki hermit 01:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 02:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 30 members in a small town that isn't even named hardly qualifies as notable and doesn't merit the description "National" either. --Nonstopdrivel 05:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not Speedy delete. Despite the official-sounding name, when you actually read the article there's nothing to indicate that this is anything more than yet another minor community/bulletin board. 30 members?! Article itself provides the case for the prosecution if you ask me... Fourohfour 18:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, not likely to be notable. Sr 13 05:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming Incident[edit]

Minor Internet hoax. No good secondary sources exist; contradictory information abounds. Thunderbunny 04:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Im sure alot of people who see the video come here because they're wondering "What the hell was that". This article probably helps them out.--jonrev 04:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, this is generally considered a bad argument in AfD discussions. For another, the article really isn't written very well, and therefore raises more questions than it answers. Thunderbunny 00:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not written well? Excuse me? I've seen your articles, Thunderbunny, and you're not exactly Noah Webster, either. And Jonrev has a point. RMc 12:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless secondary sources can be found. This article relies solely on primary sources, which can be used to corroborate the veracity of secondary sources but do not in themselves fulfill WP:RS. I frankly don't see how an internet video qualifies as noteworthy. --Nonstopdrivel 05:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now There's nothing to suggest, at the moment, that this thing got any press coverage outside Wyoming. Though, Max Headroom started small, but I'd be crystalballing if I said it was the next Max Headroom.--Ispy1981 05:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er...it didn't get any press coverage in Wyoming, either. The event didn't actually happen. A remote location in Wyoming was specifically chosen for its lack of population. Thunderbunny 05:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Something Awful. It's notable enough for the information itself to be useful, but not enough for its own article. Since it centers on a prank by Something Awful members, it is worth listing among the other SA pranks in that article. Rob T Firefly 19:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really...the "prank" (I'm not even sure this can be called that...it seems more like an ARG that someone got tired of running) didn't make it off the SA forums. And, to make matters more confusing, SenorBambos is now denying that anyone from SA produced the videos. This is the main reason why external sources are necessary to make a viable Wikipedia entry. Thunderbunny 00:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is supposed to be a notable prank, though it sounds rather feeble to me . What RSs have written about it and said so. ?

Delete per the above anonymous editor. --Haemo 07:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it's interesting (and notable) on a number of levels: as an internet prank/meme, as an (imaginary) broadcast signal intrusion, and just because the videos are awfully spooky. It's worth an article. RMc 12:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you didn't include "it has some decent secondary sources" in that list. Thunderbunny 15:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should tell me why you're so hot to delete this all of a sudden, hmmm? RMc 02:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, your petulant little harassment campaign isn't really helping your cause here. Thunderbunny 03:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Driver Responsibility Assessment[edit]

The obvious POV problems of nearly every word in the article aside, this article is just a big quote from a law and a lot of angry commentary (probably by someone who had to pay this fine). There are no independent sources to confirm that this is any more notable than any traffic fine anywhere. Savidan 22:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN mechanism for a particular state's point system. --Dhartung | Talk 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup - obviously a notable "stealth tax", just poorly treated so far.--Mike18xx 04:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't "obvious"; its based on available sources. Since we have no good sources for this, it can't really be effectively cleaned up. Savidan 15:44, 18 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, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing more than negative commentary on the law in violation of WP:NPOV. Also classifies as WP:OR and violates WP:RS. Relies on a single primary source that is itself the subject of the article's commentary. --Nonstopdrivel 05:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly written POV rant. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Department of Motor Vehicles.--Edtropolis 15:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. IP198 19:49, 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. Sr 13 05:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Zoo[edit]

Article about a band which does not make a sourced claim that meets the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. Savidan 22:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending cites -- The USO tours more than establish notability.--Mike18xx 04:04, 18 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, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found and the article is thoroughly cleaned up. As a two-time Iraq veteran, I can testify that appearing on a USO tour does not of itself establish notability, since many USO acts are simply small-time artists seeking publicity (i.e., they're cheap or free). While we did occasionally get big names over there, the majority of entertainment was provided by people no one had really heard of. The reason for this is simple: most big artists simply don't want the risk of traveling in the Middle East. --Nonstopdrivel 05:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By WP:MUSIC, international tours only establish notability if they are reported in reliable sources. None are given however. Albums seem to be self-released, at least I could not find any information to the contrary. --B. Wolterding 10:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per WP:RS and WP:BAND.--Edtropolis 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Needs sourcing to be viable. JJL 18:10, 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, appropriate information is at Drill instructor. Sr 13 05:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drill Instructor Creed[edit]

Directory of links, no other appropriate info. Recommend deletion of page, and sectstub at drill instructor. Rifleman 82 04:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and sectstub per Rifleman. Drill instructor has a section about the creed, but it links to this article. Unneeded--Ispy1981 05:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on sight. This personal essay violates WP:NPOV, is poorly written, and is unnecessary. --Nonstopdrivel 05:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this rambling, poorly written essay per above. Doczilla 06:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It's a poorly written, unsourced, POV military-fancruft essay. it's barely notable enough to get a mention in Drill instructor, let alone an article of it's own. Elmo 09:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the (poorly written) Drill instructor. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It makes no sense, and there is a D.I. page already. JJL 16:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge onto Drill instructor ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 23:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is there anything in this article that really needs a Merge? I have added the Army and Marine DI Creeds into the Drill Instructor article, this version, if article edited further. Other Creeds could be added from other services, should others know the AF, Navy, Coast Guard, and any other worldwide services' creeds. Other information about specific creeds could be added as needed, as could anything from this article that is salvagable, if necessary or desirable. LaughingVulcan 02:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made please review as resources have been cited, a search of subject needs specifics only as in defining. The entry like oath of enlistment is specific. Drill Instructor provides detailed information that can overwhelm readers when explaining the difference in branches of military training policies, especially if all they want is a copy of the creeds available. Public interest in the subject is when presenting inscribed versions, practice in recital, persons sworn to protect constitutional rights, or historical research as to origins of creeds of military services. Merging is not effective when all a reader needs is specifics. Search relevance is optimized by 68.7% a variance of +/-2% with appropriate links. Like Google Mini, you can offer relevant and secure search across intranets, file servers, and business applications The Google Mini works with over 220 different file formats and its integration.

Drill Instructor Creed Thank you, 2020

If the parent article is not well elaborated in the first place, why should the daughter article be so long? WP is not a directory. All these creeds can be moved to wikisource, and a brief description about their purposes etc be stubbed at drill instructor. --Rifleman 82 07:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia project failure is eminent

damage control on clean up project should be main focus.

please be more specific when addressing articles. Parent article assuming Drill instructor, and daughter article Drill Instructor creed? If so how can adding relevant references used to establish factual information, living examples, and categories that cross reference subject matter. Makes it to long?

Editors should be able to proof article copies, verify subject matter facts based on their area of expertise, guide and direct entries into the correct projects with detailed instructions on the how to move. What I'm saying is, there are many people that have the ability to contribute information, but it is up to the editors to direct the flow. how the project is failing is there is no guide on the hierarchical structures of subject matter. It is better to establish a visible data structure diagram with a (modifiable frame, changeable only by editors to add additional sub topics)

This diagram can be viewed by writers and when they see a slot that needs information they can submit their article information to an editor that has charge over that subject matter.

once a collection of articles on that particular subject has developed, the editor can then ask for opinions as to which writers article should lead that entry. That writer then becomes the editor for that entry and compiles all contributions and sets up the sub directories. All contributions should be archived, but it will be the primary writer that modifies any changes.

example Article U.S.Congress, primary writer then list dates leaving blank slots as to the person that served at that time, primary writer give an open project date and close date. Editor then chooses best entry, which then that person becomes the editor and archivist for that entry. To clean a project is harder then starting over, it is better to clean the slate and have project managers start a data structure diagram and develop it from there and appoint new project manager editors based on their knowledge of the subject matter.

People want to help write, just give them a selection of what is needed and on what subjects. with a project start and end date.

I may wait until their is a better structure design in Wikipedia, I have seen this house of cards before. Once you start cleaning, you end up pulling out important support structures that collapse levels that have become dependent on the support of another subject. I want to help, as do many people. All we need is a list of subject matters under research, project dates, location to archive, and article structure template.

The most important use of link exchange from every ones point of view is that a lot of search engines rank searches higher depending on the number of entries that point to the information. There are a lot more algorithms to it than that but reciprocal linking is a part of it..

Most search engines theories is that the more links that point to subject matter, the more relevant the information is. That's why reciprocal linking is a good Internet strategy that works.

See automata theory

A computer science discipline that concerns an abstract device called an "automaton," which performs a specific computational or recognition function. Networks of automata are designed to mimic human behavior, thought patterns and organizational information skills.

Thanks, --Research2020 2:50pm, 19 June 2007

Response Uh, no.... ? Wikipedia is not a Linkfarm. So if you think it is, then yes, you will be disappointed. And this article, with its references to "Oaths of Office" (which DI Creeds are not,) its references to the other United States armed services links (which are provided at their own subjects in Wikipedia,) its inability to talk on a single point of subject, and flatly erroneous information (the Creed quoted is the Drill Sergeants Creed of the US Army - not "the" DI Creed,) make this article irredeemable and darn near an A1 speedy. I appreciate your attempt to make Wikipedia "better" by attempting to optimize search engines, or whatever, but first the article has to be an article. LaughingVulcan 22:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knight Realms[edit]

NN live action role playing group. Fredrick day 08:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not asserted (nor likely to be provable.) Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kim. Yechiel Man 13:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up in school one day. JJL 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Labyrinthe[edit]

Real world location but this article is a description of it's use in a NN Live action RPG rather than about the place (which already has an article) - which I'm not even sure is notable enough to deserve a line in any other article - let alone an article of it's self. Fredrick day 09:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Doczilla 09:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Tikiwont 11:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Wicca Tradition[edit]

We can't find on web about Greek Wicca nether about Elysios Hellenos because they just don't exist. Wicca was born in UK and there it keep. ( However nowadays there are many followers around the world. FeMoL 16:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Many of the sources cited are from before this tradition was supposedly established, and I doubt any of the more recent ones mention a Greek Wicca Tradition either considering their subjects. Geoffrey Spear 17:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC) On further investigation, the entire article appears to be a copyvio from http://www.greekwiccatradition.20m.com/greek_wicca.html Geoffrey Spear 17:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except the bibliography, with its curious misspelling of Farnell. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ All of the references, except the website and Gardner, are about Ancient Greek religion. None of them (again, except the website) are about the alleged Greek Wicca tradition. Presumably the group does exist and function, in some way, but none of this establishes notability. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as copyvio. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it seems to be about a NN attempt to revive the religion of ancient Greece, which has been extinct since the time of Julian the Apostate. Peterkingiron 23:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have deleted copyvio-ed material from the article. --soum ^talk 12:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Lane (Cutler Heights, Bradford)[edit]

No assertion of notability. Some of the article is unverifiable, and Wikipedia is not a road atlas or a tourist guide. SunStar Net ^talk 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is just a road, nothing more nothing less it is just a road--Lucy-marie 14:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete undistinguished road in an industrial estate. Wikipedia is not a directory. Ohconfucius 03:53, 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.

^ [38] Halvor Mehlum, Karl Moene, Ragnar Torvik, "Destructive Creativity" Department of Economics, University of Oslo, 16th September 2003
^ Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: Primary Care Version, DSM-IV® Sourcebook, Volume 1, 1995, DSM-IV® Sourcebook, Volume 2, 1995, DSM-IV® Sourcebook, Volume 3, 1997, DSM-IV® Sourcebook, Volume 4, 1999.
^ John Blume, Mental Health Issues in Criminal Cases: The Elements of a Competent and Reliable Mental Health Examination, The Advocate 4, 10 (August 1995).
^ Studies with the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit, FBI Academy. [39]
^ [40] Halvor Mehlum, Karl Moene, Ragnar Torvik, "Destructive Creativity" Department of Economics, University of Oslo, 16th September 2003
^ A Roadmap for Software Test Engineering [41]
^ A global assessment of terrorism. White Paper. September 11, 2006. [42]
^ [43] Halvor Mehlum, Karl Moene, Ragnar Torvik, "Destructive Creativity" Department of Economics, University of Oslo, 16th September 2003
^ [44] Halvor Mehlum, Karl Moene, Ragnar Torvik, "Destructive Creativity" Department of Economics, University of Oslo, 16th September 2003

[1] [38] Halvor Mehlum, Karl Moene, Ragnar Torvik, "Destructive Creativity" Department of Economics, University of Oslo, 16th September 2003

[2] Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: Primary Care Version, DSM-IV® Sourcebook, Volume 1, 1995, DSM-IV® Sourcebook, Volume 2, 1995, DSM-IV® Sourcebook, Volume 3, 1997, DSM-IV® Sourcebook, Volume 4, 1999.

[3] John Blume, Mental Health Issues in Criminal Cases: The Elements of a Competent and Reliable Mental Health Examination, The Advocate 4, 10 (August 1995).

[4] Studies with the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit, FBI Academy. [39]

[5] [40] Halvor Mehlum, Karl Moene, Ragnar Torvik, "Destructive Creativity" Department of Economics, University of Oslo, 16th September 2003

[6] A Roadmap for Software Test Engineering [41]

[7] A global assessment of terrorism. White Paper. September 11, 2006. [42]

[8] [43] Halvor Mehlum, Karl Moene, Ragnar Torvik, "Destructive Creativity" Department of Economics, University of Oslo, 16th September 2003

[9] [44] Halvor Mehlum, Karl Moene, Ragnar Torvik, "Destructive Creativity" Department of Economics, University of Oslo, 16th September 2003

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]