Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 2

< June 1	June 3 >

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azai Masazumi[edit]

This stub article lacks any verifiable sources, and may not even be a true notable historical figure. With no verifiable sources, a history article is inherently worthless. Per "Burden of Evidence": "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." --Kuuzo 17:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless his existence can be proven. I web search showed a lot of results that pertained to a video game called "Samurai Warriors" and others that were in Japanese script, but with URLs that looked very much like fora. I cannot be certain, but this looks like it might be a video game-inspired hoax. Adrian M. H. 15:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 12:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect and merge Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edgewood Middle School[edit]

Non Notable middle school. Sourced only to the school web site. No indication that the school is in any significant way distinct from may other schools of its general type. DES ^(talk) 00:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom.

Keep or Merge into its municipality. The school isn't completely non-notable by default, but can be fixed by finding articles concerning the school in the local area (which most likely will be possible. See WP:SCHOOL for more info. --Sigma 7 03:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Merge with a list of schools for that county and condense information. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Probably the best approach with non-notable schools. Adrian M. H. 15:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Carreon[edit]

No third party sources showing notability, quick Google source does not reveal any as well Aboutmovies 23:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The case he was a lawyer in has a disputed tag on it, so this article seems a tad dubious. The lack of sources is also telling -- you'd think a case involving a website would turn up at least SOMEthing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article says he has publsihed a book, but neither amazon nor other online sources have heard of it. (There is a book on religion by anothjr author of the same name) There are a few online sources which seem to confirm that he was involvced in the sex.com legal case in some way, and that he is a practicing lawyer. But so are lots of people. No non-trivial indepenant refernces found in a google search for "Charles Carreon -Wikipedia". The current article reads like a resume. Not quite a speedy, although close to a spam speedy perhaps. still, let it go. DES ^(talk) 00:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hid legal work does not appear to be out of the ordinary, and none of the information ape pars to be verifiable. -- Whpq 20:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Rehab[edit]

Non-notable band. Asserts no notability; has no sources. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, unsourced, and even reads somewhat like a news article. (→zel zany - review) 22:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I can find some sources, like this, but nothing really reliable, in my opinion. --Haemo 22:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's hardly reliable and would never pass off. Plus, they reference their MySpace group, which is even worse, IMO. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, and I can't find much in the way of WP:RS to indicate it might meet guidelines at this point. Besides, anything that uses three exclamation points in the first sentence must be terminated with extreme prejudice and substantial amounts of blue penciling. </editor> Tony Fox (arf!) 04:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Doesn't even claim notability. Closenplay 01:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC -- Whpq 20:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MeNTOPPIX[edit]

Notability to come. Chealer 21:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search finds nothing of note, so I'd say it's not notable... at least not yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of assertion of notability. Someguy1221 05:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for its lack of notability. Yet another minor Linux distro that only has a place in a list. Adrian M. H. 15:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Philippe Guillemin[edit]

Article doesn't establish notability and is unsourced. Chealer 21:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable as founder/creator of Zenwalk Linux. Sourced by two 3rd-party online industry rags. --Evb-wiki 22:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the nominator is not obligated to do any research on the topic in question, there are sources out there to assert notability, plus the fact that it was this person that created Zenwalk Linux. I'd say to give this article a good cleanup and expansion, as it is a stub. (→zel zany - review) 23:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Needs more reliable sources; expansion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable, non-sourced, no real potential as an article. Turgidson 21:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The creator of a notable operating system is probably notable, even if said operating system is only barely notable. Someguy1221 04:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. According to WP, Zenwalk Linux is just a Linux distribution. Sorry, I fail to see how putting together such a distribution is in and of itself notable, even barely. Is there a reference establishing notability in this case? Turgidson 16:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete As the creator of a barely notable Linux distro, which is not in itself a huge achievement, he cannot be considered particularly notable. Adrian M. H. 15:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jean-Philippe Guillemin is the creator of a very popular and innovative operating system, according to Distrowatch which is a reference in the open source world. The article is sourced by two 3rd-party online industry rags and the personal homepage of Mr Guillemin. dinosaure Tue Jun 5 20:24:25 CEST 2007— dinosaure (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Someguy1221 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Jean-Philippe develops an internationally-known Linux distribution, number 13 on Distrowatch. Other lead developers for more minor distributions have articles, so why should this one be removed? I admit that the article is not as in depth or complete as it should be, but that does not mean it should be removed. User:sega01 Tues Jun 5 14:58 EST 2007— sega01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Someguy1221 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bermaga[edit]

Per WP:MADEUP and WP:OR. This is an article is original research and its content is non-notable. -- Wikipedical 21:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 21:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You didn't need to AFD this. PROD hasn't been contested. Speedy delete per nom. Wikipedia isn't for stuff made up in school one day. --GreenJoe 21:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, but there is no valid reason to speedy delete this. if reliable sources can be found to document the widespread use of the term, then it would be worth keeping. DES ^(talk) 00:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Made up crap. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brings up a few thousand google hits (no mean feat considering there aren't that many Star Trek boards intact nowadays). It is also used by Star Trek cast members. It's not "made up", and is no less notable than any other Star Trek term on Wikipedia. --Twicedelay 09:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that this person is a new voter. GreenJoe 15:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I used to be User:Sdet. I created the article.--Twicedelay 15:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are about 3000 G'hits, none appear to have any expertise on the subject. --GreenJoe 15:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a neo -- Whpq 21:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as completely non-notable student film, utterly unverifiable crystalballism. Sole support for the article is most likely from sockpuppets. Pascal.Tesson 04:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Torrent This! (The Movie)[edit]

Appears to be an amateur/student film; no evidence of notability or verifiability, zero Google hits for the film title in conjunction with either of its stars. Contested prod. ~Matticus ^T_C 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --Haemo 23:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This! (The Movie), obviously made up one day, given the complete lack of GHits. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is very useful and provides necessary information for readers to understand the purpose of the article. Steelersfannumber1 01:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Touché salesman, I too have an uncle. Some of your comments on other articles are invalid as well, though. — Steelersfannumber1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep This article relates to a legitimate film that is currently in development stages.Xtcapplestar 08:10, 3 June 2007 — Xtcapplestar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Legitimate how? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Legitimate in the fact that it exists, and all of the information in the article is valid and true. ~~Steelersfannumber1 01:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)~~ — 12.217.136.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: After release, there may be more information, pictures, and links to official sites. Seems like it's not an advertisement. Could use some work, but it is fine for now. If it there are still no GHits after it's release, consider for deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelersfannumber1 (talk • contribs)
- First, AfD is not a vote - the final decision is based on the validity of comments and how the article does or doesn't meet Wikipedia's official policies, so there's no percentage in putting multiple "keep" comments that don't actually address the article's issues. Second, the main issue here is verifiability. There is nothing so far to prove the veracity of the claims made in the article, or even the existence of the film. To put it bluntly, what is stopping any editor from making up a film title, creating an article about it and claiming with absolute conviction that they are working on it while keeping all details secret? Wikipedia's verifiability policy is what. If you read through the policy page you will see why there is a major problem with the article - if nothing can be verified in reliable, third-party sources, nothing can be kept, and the burden of proof is on the article creator. ~Matticus ^T_C 01:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Burden of proof? What is this a trial? Wow. Well, go ahead and do whatever you want with this article, because for some reason you really don't want this article in your encyclopedia. Maybe someday you will start deleting only articles that are offensive or are completley made up, but that's not what you do now. It's a free encyclopedia, what is the point in going through all of this? You guys obviously have nothing to do but try to get all of the articles that you don't feel should be on here off. So I'm not going to continue this with all of you, do whatever you'd like. I won't lose any sleep over the fact that my movie will not be on Wikipedia. Who honestly cares that much? I hope you eventually get something else to do besides delete articles from a website that basically runs itself using Google. Steelersfannumber1 02:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Commant: Wikipedia has an anti-spam policy, which includes self-promotion by non-notable individuals, or advertising non-notable movies. --Sigma 7 03:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As has been said above, there are absolutely zero Google hits for this "movie" so I see no evidence that this is anything but something made up at school. Will (aka Wimt) 02:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That little input right there was really unnecessary. "As has been said above...", exactly! It's been said above. It was not "made up at school" and it is a "movie", Will. Next time read the previous comments, as I, the author, have already said it can be deleted. But, I have to say, that was a dynamite drop in, Will. Steelersfannumber1 02:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystal ball, unreferenced. Alternativly, Speedy delete, as the author placed a {{hangon}} tag on the page, thus adding it to the Candidates for speedy deletion. --Sigma 7 03:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the author added the hangon tag mistakenly. The author created the template Template:Dontdelete, which I tagged for speedy deletion as "divisive" (WP:CSD#T1), in turn causing that speedy template to pop up on the article it was being used in. Nevertheless, the author has already stated in this discussion it (the article) can be deleted, so speedy delete WP:CSD#G7 (author requests deletion) now applies. ~Matticus ^T_C 04:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Made up crap. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and likely not going to be notable any time soon. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mothers Apart from Their Children[edit]

Non-notable charity, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 21:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; they've been around nearly 30 years and I see one reliable source in the article itself. Still not sure if they actually are notable since no claims are made, but an expert could clean this up. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Needs reliable sources; expansion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - with more reliable sources only. — ^T_C Jackrm 15:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2Moons[edit]

Non-notable website which doesn't even exist yet. Fails WP:WEB. Corvus cornix 21:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete merely on the grounds that it doesn't exist yet. Even so, it still lacks notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy as it'll likely need to be recreated in a year or two. JJL 04:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - WP:CRYSTAL would seem to apply here. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep as per further discussion below. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please advise, I'm confused. The article refers to MMORPG; the official website states it's a normal MMORPG with a downloadable client. I already declined CSD A7 on the grounds that it 1) appears NOT to be a website and 2) has notability in that it's developed by what-has-become-of Acclaim, an once great game house. So what's going on? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, so I'm not hallucinating. Keep, obviously, then - seems like it satisfies notability. Article may need cleanup and other improvement though, but AfD is not Cleanup™. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The closed beta had already attracted 200000 players, the involvement of David Perry and Howard Marks gives it sufficient notablity. There are multiple sources on this game, including its development history and its advertising model. [1][2][3][4] etc. - hahnch e n 12:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. hahnch e n 12:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with integration of RPG Vault, Next-Gen and Firing Squad interviews pointed out by Hahnchen. Article needs a good cleanup though; looks like every section needs stripping and re-writing along with an external link cleanup. Marasmusine 14:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With clean up. I participated in the CB and there is a lot of hype among MMORPG fans waiting for this game.
Keep - relibale sources vailable, but could use a good copy edit for the content. -- Whpq

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salocin[edit]

Notability to come. Chealer 21:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate any kind of widespread use or press coverage. A measly 19 Ghits, none of which appear to be from reliable sources. It might be notable (what I know about Linux could be written on a stamp) but it's down to the writer to prove it — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:RS. The lack of GHits is telling, even to someone like myself who knows bupkis about Linux. (Otters aren't normally computer programmers, ya know.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment including the tag "powered by vir0s" does not strike me as very good marketing for an OS. --Infrangible 17:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claims of notability beyond being the subject of several internet forums. Someguy1221 02:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of independent coverage -- Whpq 21:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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'd consider a merge, but it is all unreferenced - I'm willing to undelete the history if anyone wants it for a merge - but they'll need to be prepared to reference every entry. -Doc^g 08:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WAGs of 2006[edit]

This is a list of girlfriends of the members of the England football team at the 2006 World cup, and as such I suggest it falls foul of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Tim! 20:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Non-English Wikipedians (Yes, I know im's English...) might not appreciate just how pervasive the WAGs are in English culture, and as the last major tournament 2006 is the current 'definitive' set. It's hardly indiscriminate, given that the list is self limiting at 21 (a squad of 20 + a manager) and will only crop up every two years at most. I don't think this would work as a category - it includes a bunch of redlinks, all of which could be expanded into valid articles (pick a name at random & Google it - these people are all the subject of major press coverage in their own right, even if their fame ultimately derives from their partners), which would be lost if it became a category — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. The wives and girlfriends of the English soccer team? Why not a list of the spouses of the Super Bowl champion Indianapolis Colts or the French soccer team? TJ Spyke 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate info. Why even bother listing the wives and girlfriends of sports players? Notability isn't inehrited ya know... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Iridiescenti argues they are separately notable, and some do have individual articles; if the others are notable, they should also. A category would then be appropriate. Otherwise, the place for lists might be the main article on WAGs--this article is getting a little long, but the thing to do would be subarticles, not a list. DGG 00:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I took up the invitation above to google one of them (I chose "Michaela Henderson-Thynne", a name chosen for easy googlability) and was underwhelmed. WP is not a British tabloid on a slow day. -- Hoary 05:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete war bait, easily could violate BLP, and just useless. Whs itc hy 06:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only because the British press doesn't respect the privacy of non-notable persons doesn't mean Wikipedia should do the same. Malc82 13:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If these people are only notable by virtue of who they're banging, then it seems to me even collectively they do not merit an article. If they are notable for other reasons, then a category would suffice, ~~since it is hopeless that this list will ever be complete~~. --Infrangible 17:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This list is already complete - it's about who the members of the group were at a specific time (July 2006) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see this is heading for WP:SNOW, but will still defend it - they may have got their fame only through their partners, but that's not an automatic bar - if it weren't for family ties, would we do have articles on a PR agent from Buckinghamshire, a librarian from Austin, or two very lengthy articles about a cat, or indeed overwhelmingly !voted "keep" on an article about an Alsation? The 2006 WAGs are the subject of their own TV series, news coverage as a specific group in Britain's biggest-circulation newspaper and lengthy articles (again as a specific group) in both of Britain's leading quality newspapers [5][6][7] — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply No need for Snow (shouldn't be done unless CSD rules apply, anyway). That there are other unneccessary articles on WP is no reason. If the examples mentioned aren't notable themselves, they should be heading for AfDs too. Malc82 20:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that some WAGs have notability of their own and that most of them are featured in the press, but the problem with this article is that it is pure gossip and has no encyclopedic value at all. Malc82 20:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On further reflection, it seems to me that, since the group will only ever consist of 21 people every two years, it could happily sit as a section of WAGs. Does anyone have any objection to merging it there? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Iridsecentis last comment into WAGs. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 13:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Iridsecentis last comment into WAGs. Doesn't deserve a separate article. Da-rb 22:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the WAGs article should only address the WAGs phenomenon (cultural influences, media attention etc.), which it actually does pretty well IMO. I still don't see a reason to keep a list of people who (theoretically) have nothing in common except for the profession of their husbands/boyfriends. As an enry to the village pump [8] just put it: popularity and fame are not identical to notability. Malc82 22:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate information. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 21:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The information on this article is relevant to WAGs#WAGs_of_2006.--ClaudioMB 14:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Though my spider-sense detects a looming deletion review, the arguments to delete, in my opinion, outweight those to keep. The list is split by state so is in essentially the same format as Category:Synagogues in the United States. Malla nox 12:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of synagogues in the United States[edit]

Violates WP:NOT as a directory. Clarityfiend 20:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename "List of Notable Synagogues in the Unites States" and get rid of the obscure congregations. It would be ridiculous to try to list every synagogue in the U.S.
Delete, but not because it violates WP:NOT#DIR especially badly -- it technically does, there are many valid reasons to have WP:LIST articles, and an argument could probably be made for this one -- but more because of the following sentence in Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Appropriate_topics_for_lists: "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value". A list of all synagogues in the United States would be either ridiculously incomplete or so huge it would be unmanageable -- at a conservative estimate, there must be at least ten thousand of them. An article I would support, on the other hand, would be a list of notable synagogues in the United States, where 'notable' is trivially defined as 'fulfils WP:NOTABLE and thus has a Wikipedia article' -- except that such a list already exists, in the form of Category:Synagogues in the United States! -- Simxp 20:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too broad. Punkmorten 09:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kind of encourages non-notable ones for the sake of completeness. As mentioned above, perhaps a category is more appropriate, thereby only notable temples will be included. --Infrangible 13:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful and informative. --Nricardo 22:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only merit in having lists of thsi kind is to identify articles that are needed. However WP cannot and should not have articles on every synagogue, any more than on every church: NN churches are regularly deleted, and NN synagogues should be too. The cateory should thus be enough. Conceivably, we might have a list of notable synagogues (i.e. those for whcih articles are needed), but I doubt it. Peterkingiron 23:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles purpose is not to be a database or to include all synagogues. It is mostly a list of notable synagogues that are already on Wikipedia. There are lists for other countries, this should not be any different. -NYC2TLV 03:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There already is "a list of notable synagogues (in the US) that are already on Wikipedia": Category:Synagogues in the United States. -- simxp (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has Clarityfiend considered nomination for deletion for the following lists: List of abbeys and priories, List of cathedrals, List of Buddhist temples, List of Hindu temples, List of mosques? Chesdovi 09:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do you ever go fishing? -- simxp (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You wouldn't be implying that I'm antisemitic, would you? The reason I nominated this article is quite simple: it's the first such list that I stumbled across during my "random article" tour of Wikipedia. I invite you to examine any of my mainspace and reference desk edits for any such prejudice. In particular, you might check my work on the Raoul Wallenberg article. Clarityfiend 18:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to occupy yourself with finding lists to delete, I suggest you start with Tamil Nadu which has over 700 Redlinked and non-linked entries….. just as a fisherman prefers catching the largest fish! Chesdovi 15:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very useful for research purposes. Heliumballoon 15:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:USEFUL isn't a real valid argument for keep. Whsitchy 20:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment WP:USEFUL sometimes is OK. Let me quote: "...In spite of this, there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest (as in the New York phone listing example) or a matter of opinion as in the restaurant guide example. " This case is not only of use to a localized town. Its useful to the whole world. Religion is a big part of a culture and meaningful in one way or another to the majority of people. Indeed often people may be interested in some religious item in another country. This exist for cultural and artistic value as well as for religious reasons. Religion is also political and by having a list of synagogues one might be able to gage political significance. All around this list if a minefield for a researcher. And that is precisely the purpose of an encyclopedia. Heliumballoon 10:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reform page with notable ones, otherwise it'll get too huge and unmanageable Whsitchy 20:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I doubt it could get that big, Jews don't even make up 1% of the US population let alone the world. -NYC2TLV 21:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Also, what's to prove what's real and what's not? Whsitchy 22:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment So we can have references provided. No need to delete an informative list. -NYC2TLV 05:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of lists like this on Wiki, they are useful and informative. -SpeechFreedom 08:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

both WP:USEFUL and WP:WAX are arguments you should avoid in AfDs, sorry. Malc82 19:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could be changed to list of "notable" synagogues, but I would prefer sticking with the categories. I know the redlinks argumentation, but if something is notable enough to warrant an own article you shouldn't need a redlink to notice it. Notability-defined lists have a tendency to end up with large amounts of NN entries because no one wants to be the bad custodian who rigorously sorts out everything that doesn't fit WP:NOT. Malc82 19:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Simxp Bulldog123 22:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move - Maybe to List of notable synagogues in the United States or something, but don't use that title, it's not good. Anyways, it's going to need someone to sort through Category:Synagogues in the United States, and do some work with that. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not need to be renamed; a "List of X" article generally means "List of notable X" in the context of Wikipedia; the opening paragraph should be rewritten to reflect this. Redlinks should be deleted if they are not notable, articles should be written if they are. Also, categories do not serve the same purpose as lists. DHowell 03:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Going by the guidelinelines on lists vs. categories, the only advantage of lists from there that seems to apply here is redlinks -- but you're saying it should only have notable synagogues anyway, so even that advantage would be null (not that a list of *all* synagogues would be ever be manageable, of course): articles on notable synagogues that don't have a pages yet will have once someone finds a source on them that establishes their notability and creates it, surely. What other specific advantage of lists over categories were you thinking of that apply here? -- simxp (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The list is better organized, geographically. While there are geographical sub-categories of Category:Synagogues in the United States, some are in the main category so their location is not clear. It may also not appropriate to create sub-categories that may only contain one or two items in order to make the category organization complete. Also, as long as the list doesn't get too big, the list is comprehensive and can be easily searched, unlike the categories. DHowell 01:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments on the List of synagogues, and per DHowell. Carlossuarez46 18:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm surprising myself by voting keep on this. I do so with a few caveats. Lists like this should be aggressively pruned of read links to prevent bloat. Notable synagogues, (eg those having articles) belong here. Its kind of like lists of birth dates: only the notables belong. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commentators on this AfD may also wish to consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of synagogues

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

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

The result was merge with Cincinnati Mighty Ducks Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati RailRaiders[edit]

~~Delete~~ Merge - After a year of being redirected to the Cincinnati Mighty Ducks team, a user undid the revision and replaced it with a page making it seem like the team like they played, when they did not. There is no chance of the RailRaiders playing since the franchise is now known as the Rockford IceHogs. The RailRaiders page has no more facts about them and thus should be ~~removed from wikipedia forever~~ redirected. Salisbury Steak (complaint dept. - contribs) 20:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Although the team never played they did exist. There are many pages of teams that "almost" played but were pulled at last second. Also remember, the owns of the Cincinnati Gardens (who was also the owners of the now defunct RailRaiders)are still saying they are trying to bring AHL hockey back to the area. The team probably would carry the Cincinnati RailRaiders name as well.--Cincydude55 04:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Team is notable enough to have an own section in the Cincinnati Mighty Ducks article, but there's no need to have an extra article. Malc82 13:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge redirect it to the Cincy Ducks article. I'm really not sure why it got resurrected in the first place. ccwaters 00:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, per above. Dblevins2 02:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, per above. --Djsasso 02:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, per above. The franchise itself has been transferred, and the team's website has been taken down. This is a footnote at best in Cincinnati hockey history. Should a local group secure an expansion franchise (although now there's an AHL affiliate for each NHL team, so further AHL expansion is unlikely) and revive the RailRaiders' name, the article can always be recreated. Ravenswing 03:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. BoojiBoy 17:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. GoodDay 19:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above.--Pparazorback 05:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Flibirigit 17:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with the name of a musical performer in their title[edit]

Delete - similar to many other recently deleted pages for similar lists, this is an indiscriminate directory of loosely-associated topics. The inclusion criteria are a bit on the broad side, capturing songs from which acts took their names and songs which have pre-existing musical act's names in them. Beyond that, the songs have nothing in common beyond happening to have a music act's name in the title. As trivial as the many other lists of songs deleted, including: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English songs whose title includes the name of a landmark, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with the word "song" in their title or lyrics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English songs whose title includes the name of a fictional place, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title includes a phone number (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs that are also the name of a TV show, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title includes dates and times. This was nominated once for deletion in 2004 with a result of "PAGE ALTERED significantly to make the vote invalid." Otto4711 19:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can imagine circumstances where this could be useful, e.g. it's far from implausible that someone could be working on a study of songs that reference other musicians. Barnabypage 20:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one is definitely trivial. For instance, "I Try to Think About Elvis" by Patty Loveless only mentions the King in one line. "Much Too Young (To Feel This Damn Old)" by Garth Brooks only mentions Chris LeDoux in one line. Even "Walking in Memphis" only gives one-line mentions of the artists that it mentions. Do you see my point? It's far too indiscriminate. Kill it before it spreads. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and every other reason already put forward But Partially Recreate a new article along the lines of List of Bands which have taken their names from existing songs (some of which seem to have got on this list) as that list would be encyclopedic, of interest, and easily verifyable. 81.158.41.23 20:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just realised we already have such an item, so just delte this one. 81.158.41.23 20:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment - 81.158.41.23 was in this case User:A1octopus who had forgotten to sign in.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --JayJasper 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NetHack (hacking game)[edit]

Non-notable and apparently unreleased web game that fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:WEB. Was prodded for deletion five days ago, and unprodded by the game's developer today, without explanation or any attempts to explain notability. McGeddon 19:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I'm no expert in the field, but there doesn't seem to be anything notable about this game. Perhaps there will be after release, but until then it seems like an ad. Barnabypage 20:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D31337 bcuz |7'$$$ @11 0b\/|()U$ h@><0RCRUF7!!!!!!!111lolololololo .... (For those of you who can't read contrived, affected leet speak, that says "Delete because it's all obvious hacker-cruft."). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonnotable and only barely verifiable. And what sort of fool christens his game after one of the greatest computer games ever made. Anyone for my tetris-clone, called 'Starcraft'? --Aim Here 21:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, whatever it is it doesn't belong here. Pavel Vozenilek 22:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 good sources Peacent 04:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UniLang[edit]

The article does not assert the subject's notability (WP:CSD#A7, however it has survived an AfD before, with no subsequent improvement). Article has peacock terms and reads almost as an advertisement. Article cites zero sources, and appears to be original research. I tagged it needing serious work over a week ago and nobody seemed to take notice. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 18:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Looking at the UniLang site, it doesn't seem impossible someone will come up with a good argument for its notability. Agreed it needs a great deal of work. Barnabypage 20:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Discussed briefly by a couple of reliable sources: [9] [10] JulesH 20:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those two refs are not "non-trivial" in their treatment of the subject, the first in particular. Adrian M. H. 15:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources listed above are pretty trivial (brief mentions). No independent sources failing WP:RS/WP:ATT. If the site was that significant, seems like Googling would provide some relevant sources, but I haven't found any. Last debate was terrible with arguments like "The site exists and is verifiable", "Nearly 3,000 forum members", and "nn." Wickethewok 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When an article looks a bit promotional, like this one, you'd think the promoters should take care of it and make it good. The article has stayed in almost the exact same state since January, 2004! There is no trend of improvement, and there are no reliable sources. We are not protecting a fragile flower that has no friends, so we should hold it to our usual standards. We should expect to see third-party coverage for something that's been around so long, if it's truly notable. EdJohnston 20:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources in the article, and the new ones discussed above don't stand up to scrutiny. Fails WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Banno 21:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rumsby[edit]

autobiography strongly discouraged by WP:AUTO and subject non-notable in any case Barnabypage 17:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Per nom. Clarityfiend 18:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Fails WP:BIO, and violates WP:COI. --Evb-wiki 18:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per WP:CSD#A7 — so tagged. The Sunshine Man 18:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- fyi - I've replaced the AfD tag, in case speedy is refused. --Evb-wiki 18:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Should have been originally tagged as speedy delete only. Clearly fails WP:BIO. -- MightyWarrior 20:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Funpika 02:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Hyrule[edit]

It is about an annual online event that is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Funpika 16:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm no fan of gaming-related articles, and this one needs a cleanup, but [11] there are a few independent reliable sources in among all the blogs and fora, so I can't really !vote to get rid of it. Adrian M. H. 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a few reputable sources that establish notability. Like this one: [12] -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 20:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above users -- this isn't my area of expertise, otherwise I'd add the sources myself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw After seeing the reliable sources I am convinced that the article is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Funpika 02:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs covered by the Foo Fighters[edit]

Delete - another list of covers. As with the article for Hendrix covers (deleted) and for other lists of covers, it is not notable that the band happened to perform a song in concert. Released recorded covers which are notable should be noted in articles for the songs or in the Foo Fighters discography. I added the released recordings section to that article (and it requires sourcing). This article should be deleted. Otto4711 15:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. A list of mostly non-notable covers (the covers that is, not necessarily the originals). Adrian M. H. 16:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and remove infringing information where appropriate. Krimpet (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid breathing[edit]

Disputed speedy delete.

At 15:21, 2 June 2007 User:ElbridgeGerry blanked page Liquid breathing and tagged it "speedy delete copyvio of http://web.archive.org/web/20050318045848/http://www.scienceweb.org/movies/abyss.html". But:-
- How much of page Liquid breathing is allegedy copyvio? Many people have worked on page Liquid breathing.
- Is any of it copyvio, or did the outside web site copy from Wikipedia?

Page Liquid breathing has existed since 02:19, 11 November 2003.

Anthony Appleyard 15:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um...keep? - no stated reason for deletion. Article looks quite well done so unless there's some glaring flaw that I'm missing, keep it. Otto4711 15:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Otto4711's reply was a reply to an incomplete version of my initial AfD as I was still editing it. I reverted User:ElbridgeGerry's blanking of Liquid breathing so people can see the text that we are discussing. Anthony Appleyard 15:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup copyvio and keep the article. There seems to be indeed a fair bit of copyvio in the article, especialy in the 'early experiments' and 'later developement' sections, but there is more then enough to keep the article. It does need some speedy cleanup of the copyvio information, but it has the potential for a fine article Martijn Hoekstra 16:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with cleanup - investigate copyvio and remove, but the page should continue to exist as it documents a notable concept in medicine. Freedomlinux 16:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the removal of copyvios. Otto4711 16:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with removal of copyvios if necessary. Article claims permission to use the disputed material. Cryobiologist 17:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Feel free to remove material which duplicates word-for-word (rather than simply repeats explanations) of that in other articles. THIS article has had much added to it which is not to be found in the movie article (some of it by researchers in this area, such as myself), and the movie stuff has been mostly removed. So improve, don't delete. S B H arris 17:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all of the article is a copyvio. Obviously, we need to remove the copyrighted material immediately. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and cleanup per above users -- has anyone ever used the term "snowball keep" before? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Malla nox 12:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamsaya[edit]

This article has been started and conducted with only one 19th century racist source. It alleges that the well known tribe of Awans which was as a major land owner tribe and some parts as an aristocratic ruling tribe, was somehow in subjugation to the Pathans in the NWFP, which is not only incorrect but derogatory. Please see the discussion page of this article for further info. The author only states one NON LOCAL source for the evidence of this assertion. The word Hamsaya simply means neighbour. This article serves no purpose and is actually an insensitive and offensive to entire tribe which runs into millions. Raja 14:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator.--Svetovid 15:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion - I usually don't bother noting the absence of an opinion, but I think most English language wikipedians would have trouble ascertaining the validity of the claims on both sides. Seems like a WP:V issue, if nothing else. /Blaxthos 15:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm finding it hard to assess this. One source that I picked at random seems to tell a different story about this term. I would probably opt for a rewrite, provided WP:V and WP:N can be covered. Adrian M. H. 17:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this really appears to be a dictionary definition. --Infrangible 13:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A term may be used in local lingo frequently , or even in English as spoken in local pidgins. But if it is not a part of regular English lexicon.It doesnt deserve to be here. For example : In India , people commonly use the term "patao" or even "pataoed" (meaning woo or wooed)in English but it isnt as universally accepted term as guru, avatar, juggernaut. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 15:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many words which are not used in the English language are nevertheless notable and are covered by multiple reliable sources. The criteria for inclusion in enwiki is WP:N/WP:V/WP:RS, not being "a part of regular English lexicon"; "not an English word" is not a deletion criterion. The question here is not whether this is a local dialect word or a widely-accepted term (and even if it were just a local dialect word, the best solution would be to redirect it to the widely accept it term); the question is whether this is notable and verifiable. cab 00:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Awan (Pakistan) and note there that Hamsaya is a name for the tribe which was also used in older literature in English but is not used today because it is considered derogatory. Request nominator to provide a source for the fact that it is derogatory. Deletion is not a good solution here precisely because this term appears in old books; better the reader be redirected to the preferred name of the ethnic group and be told that the old name is offensive, rather than ending up nowhere at all. cab 06:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hamsaya was never a name (old or new) for the Awan tribe, rather a derogatory term used at one time in reference to a section of the Awan tribe residing in the NWFP. This is not a matter of a ‘preferred’ name being used for the Awan tribe as this ethnic group has always be known by one name. i.e. Awan. And I am afraid that the argument that because what is largely an obscure term, appears in particular publications, during a particular period in history, is reason enough for its inclusion as a Wikpedia entry, is a poor one because the application of this term as outlined by the article in its present form, is highly misleading, inaccurate and because it is based on racist notions, does not even reflect certain realities in relation to the Awans or the actual application of the term itself. In fact, the Ferozesons Urdu-English Dictionary (Revised Edition), page 819, simply defines the term as:

“ham sayah, n.m. Neighbour”

If an entry on this particular term is to be included on Wikipedia, then the above – and variants on this definition – is the only definition that reflects a realistic, accurate and generally understood application of the term (as opposed to the bastardised definition limited to the Pathan community), both in the past and present. Furthermore, does this mean that Wikipedia is also going to serve as a Hindi-Urdu dictionary for mundane words used in everyday conversation?

As for proof that the term, as outlined by the article, is derogatory, please refer to comments I have reproduced below, that I originally left on the Hamsaya discussion page. You will discover that the author of the source that Intothefire pointed to in support of his article (S.S. Thorburn, a district officer of the Punjab who compiled the source material in question during the nineteenth century, 1876 to be precise, the title of the work being, Bannu: Our Afghan Frontier, and the section of the source material that has been highlighted, detailing various old Pashto proverbs which are quite frankly, flimsy material for a Wikipedia article), actually states himself that the use of the terms Hamsaya and Hindkais/Hindkis – terms which are interchangeable – are based on Pathan prejudices and jealousies and even during the nineteenth century did not reflect the reality of the situation vis-à-vis the Awan tribe; in fact, Thorburn states that use of the terms Hamsaya/Hindkais, as applied by the Pathan community at the time, cannot even be justified. Please also note additional reasons I have provided for the use of the term Hamsaya, as defined by Intothefire’s article, as leading the reader into making assumptions about the Awan tribe that are disingenuous and worse still, possibly giving the impression to some that use of this term (which as I have stressed, as outlined by the article, is problematic) is currently applicable:

Intothefire

You state that the source you use for the Hamsaya article is widely used on Wikipedia, yet you don’t seem to understand one simple point – the term as defined by your article is now redundant (not surprising, considering the age of the source material used), something that your article does not clarify. The source you provide a link to is a proverb, based on Pathan prejudices. Tell me, do you think that old derogatory proverbs coined by the English in regard to the Welsh and the Scots, should still carry any weight and relevance in this day and age? The word Hamsaya also has a variety of meanings and though you may claim that others can go ahead and include these definitions in the article, Wikipedia is not a Hindi-Urdu dictionary and to define the term as the Pathans used to, is inaccurate and misleading.

As I said, I have spent time in the NWFP and have to inform you that the term is no longer applied as your article outlines, ergo, your article is irrelevant as it does not recognise present day realities. A significant number of those belonging to social groups that were in subordination to Pathan groups, have now experienced a change in fortunes (as is to be expected over the course of time), yet another reason why the term, as defined by your article, is outdated and irrelevant.

I have demonstrated that I have no problem in admitting that there are Awans who were and still do belong to the poorer elements of society (true of all Punjabi Muslim groups of a generally accepted high social ranking such as the Awans) and as a result, found/find themselves in the service of others, but the spin your article puts on this is to give the impression that this is the general condition of Awans found in the NWFP and its neighbouring regions, which is complete and utter nonsense. Firstly, amongst the descendants of those Awans residing in the NWFP, who were in the service of certain Pathan groups in certain localities (such as Bannu) a significant number have experienced a change in their fortunes. In fact, the source you have provided a link to (not a Pakistani source as you claim, but one that actually dates to the time of the British Raj), at the time of its publication, i.e. the nineteenth century (which underlines that not only is the source of your definition limited and prejudiced, but it is also archaic), patently states in the words of its author, S.S. Thorburn, that the Awans who were classed as Hamsaya by the Bannuchis, as:

“Being better labourers, and more thrifty, they gradually acquired land and increased in numbers, which, naturally enough, has prevented them from being popular amongst the Bannuchis, or rather Pathan Bannuchis, as Hindkais are now, to all intents and purposes, Bannuchis themselves, having been settled from two to five or more generations in the valley. Their old masters are fond of ascribing to them all those vices which we know they themselves possess.” http://www.khyber.org/pashtolanguage/pashtoproverbs/classlocal-a.shtml

In other words, if you read that statement I have italicised, even during the nineteenth century, Thorburn comments that the connotations carried by the term Hamsaya during this period of time, were outdated and thus the term, a misnomer, given the change in status experienced by this section of the Awan tribe (Thorburn stating that this section of society should be referred to as Bannuchis and not Hamsaya/Hindkai). Furthermore, Thorburn clearly indicates that the derisory term is based on racist notions, more proof that the term is inaccurate (and note the use of the phrase “old masters” even during that period of time). Also note that Thorburn also makes the point that the Bannuchi Pathans are in no position to vilify others.

In fact, looking at the link to the source you have provided, Thorburn states in his introduction:

“Hindkais are roundly abused… because of their superior thrift and energy in cultivation… as far as I have observed, the Hindkais are most unjustly vilified. Probably motives of jealousy alone have warped the judgement of their former Pathan masters about them. http://www.khyber.org/pashtolanguage/pashtoproverbs/classlocal-a.shtml

Even the author of the source you have cited has stated that the manner in which the Pathans addressed those residing in their areas who were of non-Pathan origin (i.e. Punjabi migrants) was unjustified and that the prejudiced Pathan attitudes were the result of jealousy. Moreover, Thorburn has quite clearly stated that by the nineteenth century, when the source you have referred to was compiled, the groups that are the topic of discussion were no longer subordinate to Pathans (hence his reference to former Pathan masters), further proof that your article is irrelevant because hamsaya as defined by your article, is invalid, warped and unreliable.

Your article does not even acknowledge the present day status of the groups that Pathans referred to in such derogatory terms, nor does it make reference to the fact that the term is rooted in bias and that its use cannot be justified; if you had done so, you would have been forced to realise just how outdated the term hamsaya, as defined by your article, is. I gave three specific examples relating to the Awans, including one taken from an official Pakistani government source. To recap:

“Sayeds and Swatis, and to some extent Awans, are influential landowners; others are either tenants or tenants-cum-landowners.” http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y4856E/y4856e0g.htm

The above quote relates to Kaghan (NWFP), where Awans don’t even form a significant proportion of the population, yet a clear distinction is made between them and dependant groups.

“In Punjab and NWFP, the Kammis were dominated by other castes such as the Awans and the Kharals.” http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/ppa-national.pdf

The above is from a recent Pakistani government source – note it refers to the position of the Awan tribe in the NWFP as well as Punjab.

Even during the nineteenth century, the majority of Awans still managed to maintain a standing that often led them to being virtually indistinguishable from the larger Pathan community, a situation that continues to this day, hence the quote I reproduced:

“Next to the Pathans are the Awans. They are an agricultural tribe like the Pathans and have many characteristics in common with them.” http://www.opf.org.pk/almanac/P/provinces.htm

And as I stressed earlier, what really makes a mockery of the term hamsaya, as defined by your article and applied to tribes such as the Awans who either resided within the NWFP or neighboured (something that your article alludes to) the Frontier Pathans, is that in regions of the Punjab such as the districts of Attock (where Fatehjang is located) and Mianwali (where Kalabagh is located) that border the NWFP, Awans maintained and continue to maintain a dominant position despite the heavy presence of Pathans within these regions and across the border in NWFP. Again, to recap:

“Fatehjang and Kalabagh, which border the NWFP, are the residencies of Malik Mohammad Asad Khan (the current Nawab of Kalabagh) and Prince Malik Ata Mohammad Khan (hereditary lord and master of Fatehjang and one of Pakistan's most powerful feudal lords) and both men are of course, Awans. It should also be noted that both dynasties have retained their pre-eminent status in regions that are heavily populated by Pathans.”

I am sorry, but the above facts, make a mockery of the term hamsaya when used as a term to describe Awans living on the border of the NWFP as being subordinate to any group (as your article suggests), let alone Pathans. As I said earlier, you have created your article by taking comments relating to the use of the word hamsaya amongst nineteenth century Pathan society, out of context.

And contrary to your claim, the article cannot be “suitably amended and developed to accommodate a broader scope.” Firstly, Wikipedia is not a foreign language dictionary, and the word hamsaya, in reality, is nothing more than a Hindi-Urdu term with a variety of mundane, everyday meanings. Secondly, your definition of the term, as has been described, relies on a single, narrow definition of the term that is also happens to be racist and more importantly, erroneous and thus does not deserve inclusion in any article outlining definitions of the term, especially as the term itself, as defined by your article, is now obsolete and null and void, i.e. it does not reflect present day realties – in fact, even the author of the source you referred to states that the use of the term as a derisory reference to “Hindkais” was outdated in the nineteenth century. Lastly, when even the author of the source you provided a link to comments that the use of the word Hamasya as defined by your article, is unjustified, misleading, based on jealously and prejudice and outdated (even at that time it did not reflect the reality of the situation), then not only is your article irrelevant and misleading, but it also most certainly deserves to be deleted.

To reiterate, the article is inaccurate, anachronistic, skewered, and offensive to Awans because of the false impression it creates and thus serves no purpose at all. Malik Awan 1 00:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was This is still being openly debated on DRV. Please let that debate run. If we have two debates and potentially two different results all we will have is madness. If DRV overturns the deletion, then if anyone still wants it deleted they can come here. This is not a place to come for undeletions. -Doc^g 22:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Kach[edit]

Procedural note: This article was deleted by an admin as a WP:BLP/WP:DIGNITY violation, and this has been questioned at DRV. I have noticed that debates on this kind of thing at DRV tend to get distracted, and that the debate being here would keep the debate on the key issue: whether this article should remain or whether it should be deleted. I've chosen to run an experiment in this case based on the process I proposed at #WP:DIGNITY deletions. The article will remain deleted during the debate: the DRV statement (which I've copied) provides enough information for the debate to take place on whether the topic is appropriate, which is the only point that needs to be settled. I ask that this debate not be closed on procedural grounds. Thanks. Mango juice^talk 14:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Kach was a kidnapping victim and now the article has been deleted in the recent spate of BLP paranoia (see Talk:Michael_J._Devlin#Bad_move for a response to a particularly stupid application recently). The incredibly tenuous interpretation of WP:NOT-Newspaper is definitely vague enough to not warrant a speedy. I'm absolutely not a fan of how Wikipedia carries News events, favouring subtrivial worthless nothings such as Essjay and Joshua Gardner just because they appeal to the techidiots. I've held this view for a long time, here's an edit I made around 15 months ago berating Wikipedia's current events.

Yet this case is way more notable and covered in the mainstream press, generating more relevant hits in Google News than either Essjay trivia and Joshua Gardner rubbish. Her case involves various reported twists an turns, her name is widely known in the public sphere. Although the best place for an article on this case may not be in the form of a biography, a biography could make a very efficient catalogue of all the information. Wikipedia is for the reader first, it is an encyclopedia first. There is a chance that readers will come looking for encyclopedic information on this case, we can provide that, and this event being notable, we should provide that.

You can take a look at a snapshot of the speedied article at the Google cache, you may feel it isn't notable, you may feel it is, it could definitely have done with improvement. But what it isn't is an insta-delete with zero but one's input. When I joined Wikipedia and started voting at RFA, Adminship was no big deal, I just don't trust admins to delete anything they want under the new WP:NOT-Newspaper directive without community input. Restore the article, move it if you want, list at AFD if needs be, but speedy it ain't. - hahnch e n 11:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the article (which, naturally, should remain deleted as an intrusion on the privacy of a minor child and doesn't warrant a tabloid response) might I comment to your "started voting at RFA". "Voting" doesn't happen on WP about articles per se, each 'pro' and 'con' is taken into account in the final decision but isn't an absolute 'vote'. --AlisonW 16:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That you actually think the word "vote" is relevant at all in this discussion shows an absolute failure to understand the point being made. Tanya Kach is not a minor. Every major news outlet is not "tabloid". Privacy of a now-public individual does not trump Wikipedia's core goal of being an encyclopedia. Are you one of those who feel that all victims names should be castigated from Wikipedia because of some holier-than-media BLP paranoia? Should Shawn Hornbeck be a redlink instead of a redirect? We're here for the readers, not as some kind of futile information barrier. I've linked this discussion in the DRV nomination - Talk:Michael_J._Devlin#Bad_move, I suggest you read it. Incidentally, RFA is a vote, it has always been a vote, calling it a "discussion" is just a get-out clause so Bureaucrats can be elastic in their own judgments when closing decisions. The fact that in reality its still largely a vote lead to the ridiculous RFC style RFA we saw. I happen to call spades, spades. - hahnch e n 17:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore as EVENT rather than BIO and cleanup/redirect. After careful consideration of the merits, I believe that this definitely warrants inclusion. While WP:BLP considerations are important, I don't believe this warrants overly negative or defammatory information. I also don't believe that this is a case of WP:RECENTISM -- the story received significant media coverage, and it's highly likely (IMHO) that the story is significant enough that we'll have readers who are hunting encyclopedic content on this story. I have no objection to making this an article about the event, instead of a Biography of the victim, and redirecting Tanya Kach to the incident article. Come to think of it, would Tanya qualify under notability guidelines otherwise? Probably not. /Blaxthos 15:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore as event and not a bio. Not the average kidnapping story. The legal case was widely covered in multiple reliable and independent sources, satisfying WP:N. It is a very unusual event for someone to survive such a long captivity, and the case was widely reported. A simple Google search provides all the info anyone could want, so we would not be revealing otherwise secret or even hard-to-obtain info. She was individually non-notable before, during and after the ten year captivity. Since she is 25 years old, she is not a minor (nor could she be if placed in captivity as a tenager and kept there 10 years). Does she have to be the subject of a made-for-TV movie like Steven Stayner for the article to be kept? Edison 17:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blind AFDs are a really bad idea - If they weren't, we'd do it by default. We should just AFD this article as per usual or let the DRV run as intended. Only allowing admins to see the article really cuts out the majority of the editorship, and I really do not trust such an insular bunch to make community decisions such as this, it's not what adminship was for. The only BLP concern is the misguided interpretation that Wikipedia is some kind of guardian of privacy standing strong against the ravaging hordes of the press. Wikipedia serves the reader first, always. - hahnch e n 17:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aniother one in a long line to keep.--Lucy-marie 17:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:DIGNITY is neither a policy nor a guideline. It is an essay, and a pretty poor one at that. What the hell is it doing here as a motivation for an AfD? Beside that, the recent WP:BLP multiple farce has nothing to do with defamatory statements, It's about out-of-process deletions based on out-of-policy ramblings. Virtually any article here may now be deleted on a janitor's musing that its content may offend someone. This is literally the end of Wikipedia's consensus-based model. Why should we discuss this? Ask the doorman to take care of it. Stammer 17:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A debate on this forum can't overturn a deletion. I've closed the nomination asking the nominator to use the appropriate forum, but he has decided to let this debate go ahead, and I think that's okay.

If undeleted as a result of a debate here, however, the article will be deleted again. Whatever the result, this innovative attempt at resolution (which I certainly think wasn't such a mad punt as to be disruptive) will be entered into the arbitration on BLP as an example of the community making sincere and determined efforts to overcome shortcomings in deletion policy. --Tony Sidaway 20:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcomings in the deletion policy? The deletion policy works just fine when controversial deletions are submitted to the community before they are deleted, which is what the policy actually says should happen. What is actually happening is we are trying to overcome the shortcomings of admins who disregard the policy, while assuming good faith and not wheel warring. Not an easy task, let me tell you. -N 21:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These deletions are really getting out of hand. I can understand deleting the article about the Chinese kid who got his face photoshopped, but this deletion seems needless. Minor, short term events, such as this, might not be for Wikipedia, but if that's the case then lets transwiki it to Wikinews. If this information is encyclopedic, then we should include it, even if it might hurt someone's feelings. This stuff needs to be brought to AFD ahead of time. -- Ned Scott 21:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't transwiki to Wikinews, incompatible licenses. Corvus cornix 21:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I see. -- Ned Scott 22:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as this is a backwards way to approach deletion. Either have the cojones to speedy delete under policy and face DRV, or put the article before the community. I have to say that I consider the deletion of material which is openly covered in a special section of the subject's hometown newspaper is exceptionally ... well, I can't find a polite word for it. (I suppose if I link to it here I'll be sent to ArbCom myself?) --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mangojuice says it's an experiment, and I don't think it's a bad idea to just see what happens and get some input. Even if nothing is actionable from this discussion (right away, that is), it might help us to understand how we're handling the situation. I see no harm in this. -- Ned Scott 22:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and change title I have changed my opinion on articles such as this: I previously often said simply to keep, on the grounds that added public exposure via WP was trivial after widespread press coverage. But considering the way WP and Google are developing, I think we can provide the information without adding dramatically to the page rank by simply not putting the name in the title, and then using it only a few times in the article itself. I still argue that once even a non-adult victim of sex abuse has the name widely publicized, that there is no point in trying to keep the name out altogether--for one thing we can't, because some of the mirrors will retain it, and, for that matter, WP space is searchable. Even if we oversight all mentions and all links, the mirrors can keep it. So reasonable measures are indicated, but not vain attempts to deny what's in the world outside. All or almost all articles on living victims could probably be retitled, and then perhaps we'd have less reason for the continuing fights. I commend Mangojuice on the decision to experiment, because we were getting ourselves progressive deeper into an irresolvable situation. DGG 00:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as there is no reason to deelte. Then (and only then) rework to focus more in the incident (and quite probably change title), as there is reslly not enouigh for a traditional biographical article, unless there are additional sources (which i haven't looked for). DES ^(talk) 00:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a very poosr way to run an Afd, this article should not have been speedy deleted first. Blank the dispaly verion if you feel strongly, that will keep google and other search engines from indexing it. DES ^(talk) 00:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The wiping of the article before any discussion sets a terrible precedent and should be deplored. Nick mallory 01:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just had a look at the latest version using my admin superpowers, and while it's definitely in need of citations I didn't see anything glaringly wrong with it; the previous version of the article looks like decent raw materials. Furthermore, there definitely is nothing wrong with having an article or redirect at this title even if the contents are completely redone. So the current protected-as-deleted state is unacceptable. Bryan Derksen 06:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close and bring to AfD per normal articles. There is no need for Wikipedia to censor itself of items being discussed in reliable sources. If this would be more appropriate for Wikinews or if it smacks of recentism or systemic bias, then let us see it and decide on that. I think that if editors are uncomfortable having victims' names on Wikipedia, they should be uncomfortable having them in their local newspaper. --Charlene 07:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2005-06 ACC Men's basketball season[edit]

orphaned article that does not deserve an article of its own. Easily can be incorporated into article on ACC or other related article and then deleted. Postcard Cathy 13:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this doesn't need an entire article. /Blaxthos 15:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed doesn't need its own article. User:Dixonsej 17:55, 2 June 2007
Delete. Not reasonable as a separate article. Note that ACC refers to the Atlantic Coast Conference, a fact not mentioned in the article. See Category:Atlantic Coast Conference if you want to appreciate the heights to which promotion can be taken. (e.g. full articles on team mascots). EdJohnston 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only a table could be merged with acc. Team6and7 00:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Atlantic 10 Men's Basketball Tournament[edit]

prod removed; doesn't seem worthy of a stand alone article. Postcard Cathy 13:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this doesn't need an entire article. /Blaxthos 15:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems like a suitable article, if referenced to reliable sources it would be suitable. The Sunshine Man 17:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Atlantic Ten Conference should be sufficient for all but the most fervent completionists. Simply not enough content to warrant a dedicated article. Adrian M. H. 17:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Conference tournaments are frequently linked to in main pages for teams and championships won by players and coaches. It can be helpful for giving full information about those subjects to have the tournament fleshed out. matt91486 23:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed by matt91486. ~ João Do Rio 01:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed, as well as the fact that these pages can be developed. For an example, see 2007 Big 12 Men's Basketball Tournament. ~~It does need sources, though, but that merits an unreferenced tag rather than a deletion.~~ Strike that, it is referenced. Wrad 01:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per matt91486 and Wrad fuzzy510 03:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other keepists above. --Nricardo 22:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed by matt91486.-- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 20:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Owusu Bossman[edit]

prod removed without article being improved in any significant way. Edit summary says there are many google hits for this guy but one should not have to go outside wiki to determine wiki worthiness. Article should show wiki worthiness and this article does not and editor(s) don't seem willing to improve it to the point that it does. Postcard Cathy 13:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How is being the star player of a national U-17 soccer team and being a prospect for a Premier League team not demonstrating "wiki worthiness"? The statement is sourced by a FIFA article, which is referenced. Clearly meets WP:BIO via Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis and Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports. Also, the article was improved after I removed the proposed deletion notice- the original message was "there are many 16 yo soccer player; this doesn't tell me why he is any different than any other teen soccer players. Reading FC has no link so I have no idea if it is minor league team; the teen equivalent of little league or what. I even had to ask for citation on europort citation because we have no proof." I fixed the link to Reading F.C. to demonstrate it is a top-tier football club, wrote that he was the star player for Ghana's youth team, and provided a FIFA citation. There are articles about him as far back as December. --Wafulz 14:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standards for footballers are straightforward - the player must have played a full senior international or in a first-team match for his club team. Reading FC qualifies and so would an appearance for the Ghanaian team, but he's not there yet. Delete for now but that's no bar to recreation when he meets the standard. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these standards? I tried finding them, but didn't get anything. --Wafulz 14:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is what is being refered to. meshach 16:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant specifically for soccer. My comment quotes what you're linking. I know in the ice hockey wikiproject a top prospect is considered notable enough for an article, so I was wondering if soccer was similar. --Wafulz 14:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject simply doesn't meet notability guidelines. /Blaxthos 15:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed; does not currently meet the established criteria. Adrian M. H. 17:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. --Evb-wiki 23:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frappr[edit]

Result of last AfD was "keep, stubify, cleanup to remove "advert-ishness", and reference.". Total number of references added since then: zero. Cleanup tagged since January; total substantive changes since January: none. One spelling fix, two meta-maintenance. Seems that as long as we carry their directory entry, nobody cares enough to actually provide any evidence of verifiable content, or references from which we can establish neutrality and assure ourselves that the article does not contain original research. The originator and main editor has not edited since December 2006. It is hard to escape the conclusion that nobody actually cares about this subject. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article is WP:SPAM and fails WP:WEB.--Evb-wiki 13:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick glance at Google News proves WP:N (see [13] for starters), WP:RS are easily found. How does this fail WP:WEB? Poor article at the moment, but this in itself is not a reason to delete. Xarr☎ 15:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers . . . ." from WP:NOT#INFO and quoted at Wikipedia:Notability (web). Also fails WP:Attribution. --Evb-wiki 15:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is going nowhere. WP:WEB/WP:SPAM/WP:NOT - take your pick. /Blaxthos 15:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn (checked Google news). JJL 17:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not quite spam, but not notable enough and WP:NOT applies. Adrian M. H. 17:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's obviously non-notable. I've heard of it, but that don't make it notable. The lack of sources and lack of improvement since the last AfDs are telling. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite literally something made up at (after) school, however media coverage would appear to statisfy notability. --Infrangible 13:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep minimal sources, but you don't need massive amounts, remember? I've heard of this, many times. When I saw this AfD, my reaction was "wtf" - I couldn't believe this was nominated, it's very, very, notable. G1 gg y ! _{Review me!} 05:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not just about notability, though, is it? If it is notable, please demonstrate it, but WP:NOT still applies. Adrian M. H. 16:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was User:Krimpet/Image macro User:Krimpet/Image macro text User:Krimpet/Image macro image Krimpet (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Online Webcam Communities[edit]

Blatent advertising, could be put through under speedy GC11, but unsure so will leave to admin Willow177 13:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is merely a short WP:LIST of website that violate WP:WEB. --Evb-wiki 13:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sillyness. /Blaxthos 15:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft with non-notable content. If this stays, can you at least delete that image?! Adrian M. H. 17:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a pointless list and... I agree with the above, KILL THAT IMAGE! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anyone got a spoon? I need to get my eyes out. Whs itc hy 05:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfied to User:Paulasamson. Self-evident autobiography. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paula samson[edit]

Non-notable subject - no google hits support the notability of this article. There has been no response to a request for references. This article appears to an autobiography, which violates WP:COI. Evb-wiki 13:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop McCort Football[edit]

prod'd once already; went to prod again when I noticed. This article says absolutely nothing useful. There is more info on the football team on the HS page then there is here. Notability has been tagged already. This page is redundant. Postcard Cathy 12:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is utterly useless: it contains no information on the team, except a small infobox - if information included, but not limited to, at least a small bit of history of the club, the current players, and interesting facts. Also, the article does not meet WP:CORP guidelines - the article does not express any secondary sources and the article is not of national or international importance. Jh fireboy I'm listening 13:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A simple Redirect to Bishop McCort High School would do no harm, I'd say. --B. Wolterding 13:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, an easy way out of this would be for it to redirect to Bishop McCort High School. Jh fireboy I'm listening 13:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redirect not necessary... anyone who was looking for this particular information would more than likely simply go to the school article. /Blaxthos 15:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real context to the very limited info. Could redirect as an alternative solution. -- MightyWarrior 20:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Hershey[edit]

This is a promotional article with no encyclopedic value. The subject is not notable - he's just an "inspirational speaker" and a garden designer. It was previously speedied for non-notability but reinstated so the author could improve it - the evidence of notability is thin to non-existent but there is now an assertion, so no longer speediable. andy 10:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ugh, vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that Terry is not notable. He has been very influential in the Spiritual Gardening movement. I couldn't find a Wikipedia article on that and haven't had the time to pull together resources to make one but it is a valid, growing movement both in the US and Europe. It is important and noteable to a growing number of people. Terry himself is a TV personality within his niche and has a following. I'm still learning the Wikipedia way and trying to add to the article to make it better. Avibodha 01:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 12:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above comment confuses notability with popularity. They are not directly related and popularity is not used as a barometer for inclusion. Some of the existing sources are really too trivial. It is currently marginal, however, so I will have to opt for a weak keep pending improvement. Adrian M. H. 12:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think, though needs tidying. Been the author of several books which seem to have a reasonable, if not bestselling position on Amazon's rankings, and being a regular contributor to a TV show on an international channel would probably allow him to meet WP:BIO under "the person has demonstrable wide name recognition"; out of curiosity, I presume this isn't the person after whom Terry Hershey Park is named? That'd make it conclusive, but I can't find any reference to connect the two. --DeLarge 13:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Terry is a she ([14]). Stammer 13:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - are there any reliable sources that conferr notability? This seems awfully vain/crufty to me... Popularity != notable. After all, how big is the "spiritual garden movement" anyway? ;-) /Blaxthos 15:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not quite noteable for WP:BIO purposes. No real WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 20:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no way we can sort notability for inspiration speakers out except with references from RSs, and there aren't any. DGG 00:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I see, the sources discussing the subject are either related to the subject or trivial. I'm also not seeing any reliable third-party sources discussing the role of evangelical Protestant Christianity in putting plants into the ground. --Charlene 09:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kembra Pfahler[edit]

Unverified, fails WP:BIO. Prod removed without comment who IP dropped by to add a cross-reference to her brother. Deiz talk 10:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. feydey 11:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, In what way does it fail WP:BIO? To me, it appears to meet several of the criteria.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 12:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting, normally a closer doesn't check this but there does seem to be some sources here [15]. Needs to be shown these sources can be used to create a verifiable article. --W.marsh 12:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and a good catch, W.marsh. Pfahler is certainly well known within a certain set, although the band -- The Voluptuous Horror of Karen Black -- probably has better name-recognition. There are book sources as well. This article needs attribution and cleanup, not deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 12:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Probably more than enough sources to verify the article and it seems to sufficiently meet notability. Adrian M. H. 18:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by proposer, verifiability problems solved. Thanks and respect to all involved. --Tony Sidaway 01:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Herpin[edit]

This article has been around for nearly a year without any significant improvement. It's an orphan and until I stuck a proposed deletion tag on it had no references. The references it has now appear to be a website that offers up this story as a means of inspiring simpletons with blind faith, and another site that deals in tales of levitation, witchcraft, fortune telling and the like. Nothing reliable there. If a single reliable source cannot be found for this, we're better off without it. --Tony Sidaway 11:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have found a potential source, here. This page mentions up Al Herpin, and cites "Kevin McFarland, Incredible But True, Bell Publishing Company, New York, 1978." I'm going to see if I can dig up Incredible But True from the library today, though if someone beats me to it, I would be grateful. Charlie 11:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep - While admitting I might be falling victim to WP:THISISREALLYINTERESTING (joke), if this can be properly (read reliably) sourced then it really should be kept. If it's a hoax or urban legend then it should obviously go. /Blaxthos 16:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No reliable sources and suspicious lack of details. No description of any investigation of his claim, just that unnamed doctors didn't find a bed. Smells like a WP:HOAX. Won't lose any sleep if this is deleted. Reluctant keep. I still believe this to be a hoax, but it appears to be a notable one. Clarityfiend 17:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified basically -Doc^g 17:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails verifiability. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Far from being a hoax, this case got a fair amount of attention back in the day (i.e. before wikipedia and the internet). If anyone has access to the NY Times archives, the article can be immediately sourced from these articles [16]. --JJay 20:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has sat for a year without references. If someone comes up with one, fair enough, they can recreate it - or ask for undeletion, and i'll do it personally. But saying it could be sourced in theory isn't good enough, it hasn't been, for a year.--Doc^g
So what are you saying? That we should delete an article on a notable sleep disorder case because no one, including yourself, bothered to look for references. --JJay 20:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've too many articles handing about because someone could in theory, but probably won't in practice, fix it. I'm saying {{sofixit}}--Doc^g 20:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JJay. NY Times is definitely a reliable source. In the interest of full disclosure I'm the one who removed the PROD, which I did because a google search showed potential sources. As a general comment I think that when PRODding an article the PRODder should try an find sources instead of proposing it for deletion. Black Harry 20:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, source it from the NYT, please.--Doc^g 20:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think jjay and co have done excellent work in finding possible references in NYT, but I'd like to ask: have they sourced this or are they simply parroting sources from a secondary work? I mean, have you actually read those New York Times articles in paper, microfilm or electronic archive? If you have, I salute you and there's no problem keeping this. If the not, well it's borderline because there seem to be no reliable references online. I think there are problems with the tone (it represents anecdote as fact) but that's an editing issue and can be resolved by recasting. --Tony Sidaway
Keep--sources are present, I think its even possible that it's actually intrinsically notable. DGG 00:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, in my opinion, an article of this type without sources cannot reasonably be assumed to be sourceable. DGG 00:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As opposed to simply arguing about it, it took exactly two minutes to find the 2 New York Times stories in question and quote their lead paragraphs in full in the text. The full stories are behind the Times Select subscriber wall but as he's now the subject of 2 independent, verifiable sources it's a keep. Nick mallory 01:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Thank you. I withdraw my proposal for deletion and express my thanks to my fellow Wikipedians for the research. --Tony Sidaway 01:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete under WP:CRYSTAL Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UFO2000[edit]

No assertion of notability and no independent references (WP:N, WP:V) and has been tagged with such concerns since December. Prod at that time was removed with the belief that an external wiki and a directory listing was enough to show it's notability. Marasmusine 11:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 11:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability concerns, and the fact that it's still in development. Seems kinda crufty to me. /Blaxthos 16:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - seems obvious that it should be incorporated into the main X-Com article (it is notable only in the context of that game) Magnate 13:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian International College of Art[edit]

Appears to fail WP:CORP, non notable, created by username that suggests COI a year ago and little modified since. Orderinchaos 11:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos 11:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no reference to notability... seems like an advertisement. /Blaxthos 16:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm struggling to find enough to pass WP:V. [17] Just 910 hits with largely first-party refs. Adrian M. H. 18:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to me that not so long ago there was general consensus that post-secondary educational institutions are always notable. Has this changed? JulesH 20:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, if you can prove that consensus... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But if it is not verifiable, which seems to be the case, why should it stay? Adrian M. H. 22:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed with the general consensus, but is this actually a "post-secondary educational institution"? In Australia we have 38 universities and the TAFE system, this doesn't appear to fit under either. A page on a TAFE-level business college such as Alexander or Phoenix would almost certainly fail notability. Also note its webpage is at "aica.net.au", not "aica.edu.au" - it would appear to simply be a company which offers courses as I originally assumed. Orderinchaos 01:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I do not think we have ever decided on the basis that post-secondary institutions are assumed to be notable. I think we've assumed colleges and universities are notable. Personally, I would not consider that a junior college or a technical institute would be notable unless sources could be demonstrated--there is too much variation. This one might be, if sources could show it, but others will just be trade schools. DGG 00:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google News Archives shows some hits for this institution [18] but on closer inspection they are either advertorial, student profiles or short mentions of events at the college. I would support keeping if there was third party coverage from reliable sources but there isn't. Capitalistroadster 02:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom as WP:VSCA. As someone having a significant background in higher education, I have never heard of this institution before, and given the fact it has a .net.au means it's a company which does not qualify as an education institution in Australia (which has specific benchmarks for .edu.au domains). Thewinchester ^(talk) 02:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an academic institution, fails WP:CORP as a company. The tour stuff sounds bogus to me. Zivko85 23:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is definitely a nationally approved post-secondary college, or "Registered Training Organisation". Since the "ANTA Act 1992", Australia has a regulated system where institutions that used to be called "TAFE" must be registered as providing accredited courses. This allows any organisation to become a "TAFE", but the courses offered must first be approved and "uploaded" into the national framework in order that other institutions can also offer the same course, and students can migrate between institutions to complete their courses. AICA provides three courses at the Diploma level (RTO 2922; while those Diploma's are not part of a "training package", two of the accredited courses (39147QLD and 39148QLD) are also offered by other training providers. While this is low for a training provider when compared to the state subsidised TAFE systems, I think we would do well to draw the line in Australia at "nationally accredited org offering diploma level courses that are also run by other training institutions" -- that discards a very large number of institutions that only offer part-time Cert I-IV courses and shops offering courses that nobody else runs. RTOs 2921, 2923, 2924 and 2925 all fail that test. If others think it is worthwhile, I'm happy to use a larger and more random sample size to arrive at a more conclusive estimate of what percentage of RTOs would be discarded by that threshold. John Vandenberg 00:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being an approved institution under some Govt. Act does not confer notability by association. Using the logic of the above user opens the door to articles about every single small suburban hairdressing college, beauty school, trade union training company, or interest group providing such accredited courses being included. That's exactly what WP:CORP intends to stop by setting a reasonable bar for article inclusion. The article subject in question has not been the subject of secondary sources which meet the WP:RS standard. Could someone with Factiva access checks out the newspaper references that have now been cited within the article, and provide a considered opinion on if these are considered reliable secondary sources? Thewinchester ^(talk) 23:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My RTO threshold given above does not allow any RTO to be considered notable enough; I even gave a small sample of RTOs that would all fail. John Vandenberg 04:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why doesn't it have a .edu.au then? Checked Factiva - 8 hits only, all of which are in the Courier Mail or Gold Coast Bulletin. All of the CM articles are in fact ads, written in magazine sections of the paper, with very similar wording to each other and giving the phone number and website and not even trying to use journalistic language. Note that TAFE campuses are generally not notable (although can be), but TAFE colleges (i.e. multicampus) generally are. The fact few have an article to this point is neither here nor there. Orderinchaos 01:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This company does fulfil the requirements of qld.edu.au as it is registered with the Queensland Training Recognition Council (not difficult); access to .edu.au for RTOs is much more difficult, as the state government must approve the courses under the state act (the QLD list). John Vandenberg 04:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is an increasing number of accredited, private post-secondary institutions. As people have generally agreed that consensus exists about these education institutions, this college falls under that category. Recurring dreams 02:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Winchester Savin Me 06:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks to Orderinchaos, who forwarded me the full text of the three entries cited within the article from Factiva. I have since stripped these from the article as they are blatant puff pieces which obviously were the result of some media or other communications being released by the primary source. I will happily provide the full text of these articles on request should you wish to see them for yourself and dispute the primary sources claim. Thewinchester ^(talk) 09:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 - nominator is both subject and author of the page. Orderinchaos 11:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas_gorauskas[edit]

Jgorauskas 09:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Carlosguitar 10:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enabler[edit]

Literally a dictionary definition from a non-free dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I don't see this contested prod going anywhere. MER-C 07:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:DICDEF. Appears to have been transwikied to wikitionary already Willow177 13:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as transwiki'd already. Does this have to go through full AFD? /Blaxthos 16:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 LiveJournal#Account suspension controversy. The clear consensus is that there should be no article here. So I'm going to redirect this. There is near on a deletion consensus, but I see no presssing need providing it stays redirected. There's less of a consensus about where to redirect, so I'm content if discussion on the talk page results in a better target. If the redirect is undone, then the article should be deleted.-Doc^g 08:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warriors for innocence[edit]

This page fails notability guidelines web 1 and 3. Also fails a BLP check by maliciously labelling the group using a biased groups' definition of them. Article is related to recentivist activity at LiveJournal. Only sources used on the entry are from livejournal blog posts, and the only reference to them in a non-livejournal based link is a passing mention in a single news story on news.com related to the suspension of potentially pedophilic blogs on Livejournal.com. Non-notable website. Kyaa the Catlord 07:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: This was a contested prod. I placed a couple of maintainence tags on the article and am actively editting the LiveJournal article subsection in which this group is being portrayed as the root cause of the suspension of allegedly pedophilia related articles. Kyaa the Catlord 08:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll go on record as saying I don't like them, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a deletion criteria. I'm calling delete here because one, there is a good chance that these people are really not notable, and two, the page almost feels like it could be speedied as an attack page due to the biased tone - in fact, it almost sounds like LJ drama. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think that it fails either guideline, and it has the potential to be a fine article. --Apyule 08:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Web criteria 1: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial works whose source is independent of :the content itself. (WFI does not meet this criteria since it is not the subject of any of the non-trivial articles linked on the article).

Web criteria 2: The content has won an award... (WFI? No awards here.)

Web criteria 3: The content is distributed via a medium which is both well-known and independent, not including blogs. (WFI is a :self-published blog.)

Please explain how passing mention in news articles about LJ meets criteria 1 and 3, thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 09:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete and redirect to LiveJournal#Account suspension controversy - Although I did edit the article, it was only because the group's website contains malware which seriously slowed down my browser; if I would've surfed it using IE, I would probably be still cleaning up after it (thankfully I use Opera), so I put in a warning within the links section due to this. Otherwise the group goes beyond non-notable as just a fringe group, and the content in the article can easily be confined to the LJ suspension policy heading of the main LiveJournal article. Even then though, I'm still leery of including their link. Nate 09:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean redirect to LiveJournal#Account suspension controversy. -Tacubus 13:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to LiveJournal#Account suspension controversy The section covers what's in the article, and it doesn't seem to meet the criteria for notability. -Tacubus 13:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, looks like solid reasoning. The group itself has no obvious significance outside LiveJounal (and pretty limited significance even there, if you ask me). Guy (Help!) 13:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete All the sources (save one, which is primarily about the LJ incident and not this "group") are self-published blogtypes. At best, this fails notabililty requirements. At worst, it borders on NPOV violations and serves only to promote the agenda of the "group". /Blaxthos 16:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as per above. Qjuad 17:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Very minor notability. No 3rd party sources about group. Purely related to LiveJournal episode. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I think the article should not exist as a standalone, I should add a commendation for the nice work that user:CyntWorkStuff has done in improving the article. My opinion is not based on the quality of the article, just the underlying notability of the subject. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Not only is the subject non-notable outside the LJ issue, there is serious question whether or not it actually exists outside their own website. They are not registered as a company or non-profit organization that I can find. -- Kesh 22:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LiveJournal#Account suspension controversy. They are mentioned by several news sources, but they are only notable regarding this one event, and there's not much to say (that's notable) other than what's already in the LiveJournal article. Mdwh 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article about an organization, that just happens to be web-based, not an article about a website. WookMuff 02:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my comment above. It has not been established that the organization even exists outside its website. As far as we know, this is a couple of people in an apartment with an agenda. If they are a legitimate company or non-profit organization, they would be required to file in their state of operation. I've yet to find any evidence of that. We need to be able to verify that first of all. -- Kesh 02:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Apologies, new to commenting/editing on Wiki, and I had put my comments in the talk page for the articce rather than here. Copy-paste follows

Other than this one incident on LiveJournal, where only a small fraction of accounts were even affected, WFI seems to be a pretty small-time organization/blog no more worthy of being included in wikipedia as an individual article than any other small-time blog. Shall we start making individual articles for each of the affected journals and communities now?

Support the AfD request. Any relevant information can be included in the subsection on the LiveJournal article. Possibly recreate the article should they become notable. 206.255.127.192 00:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

206.255.127.192 03:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COmment - Kudos to CyntWorkStuff for the improvements. Though, I still don't think they're notable beyond this issue. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agreed. The article has improved even though they still don't meet our notability requirements. And about treating them under WP:CORP, honestly, WP:WEB's requirement's are much more loose and it still has not been fulfilled. Kyaa the Catlord 04:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the LJ article. That's about the only thing this group is really known for or associated with. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. WP:BLP may be a reason to edit the article but it isn't a reason for deletion in this case - the subject is not a living person but an organization, albeit apparently an organization with a very small membership (one or two). However, I'm not convinced this organization has established long-term notability. Certainly if they try to get Nabokov discussion groups, incest survivor communities, and teenage fanfic groups deleted in future on other websites, or if they decide on an all-out war against Romeo and Juliet, they may deserve an article in the future, but right now they're simply not notable enough. --Charlene 09:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Redirect where? The pertinent information is already handled on the LiveJournal wikipedia. Kyaa the Catlord 09:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Sorry about that: to the LJ article, and specifically the section about Strikethrough '07 (or whatever they're calling it there). --Charlene 10:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Anti-pedophile activism, SqueakBox 00:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why there? The group is clearly fringe and has only been involved with the subject of the LJ story. They hadn't been heard from before then. Nate 05:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to concur here, there's no reason for this article to even exist. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and perhaps redirect (even though I really don't think the article is particularly deserving of even that). The only reason the group was made at all notable is through the controversy with LiveJournal, which has been talked about in depth on that article. Even then, they only played a small role in the issue, LiveJournal and Six Apart caused the controversy all by themselves. --13² 22:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, devil's advocate here: I'm sure at the time it seemed like a good idea. =^_^=;; --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at the very least, merge with another article. I don't think the Livejournal thing is the last we'll hear from WfI, unfortunately. Shawn K. Quinn 06:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep... Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about sleep[edit]

Indiscriminate collection of data Corvus cornix 06:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it! maybe should be split, but i think it's useful.
Weak Delete Doesn't seem necessary, and it would also need to be split into several articles if it was kept. However, this could be usefull for people looking for songs for movies/productions/etc, so not sure. Probably delete. Matt - TheFearow 10:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the essay WP:LC that "a 'list of X' should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article." We don't have an article "songs about sleep", do we? And, if there's nothing particular to write on "songs about sleep", why should we have a list of them? --B. Wolterding 13:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is listcruft. Doesn't even get many internal links. There is plenty of precedent for this - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title includes a phone number (3rd nomination). Hut 8.5 13:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random intersection of concepts. There is no encyclopaedic concept "songs about sleep", so this list is arbitrary. Also original research: we'd need a reference for songs about insomnia being considered as songs about sleep by the relevant scholarly community (which is absent, since that community does not seem to discuss songs about sleep as a genre). Finally, we'd have to reference every one, to avoid original research at that level. I am not aware of any reliable independent source from which one could validate that any given song is about sleep, rather than just mentioning it - is "When you wake (you're still in a dream)" about sleep? Or about waking up? Or about something else, but using that as a hook? Plus, where's the Lord Chancellor's nightmare song from Iolanthe, eh? Guy (Help!) 13:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless listcruft (as are most articles that begin with List of...). /Blaxthos 16:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is not encyclopedic, just trivia. Useight 18:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one is definitely hard to define -- I mean, is "I Don't Want To Miss a Thing" really about sleep since it says "I don't wanna fall asleep"? Is "I Can't Sleep" by Clay Walker about sleep just because it has sleep in the title? What about "Dream Big" by Ryan Shupe & The RubberBand, seeing as dreams usually go hand in hand with sleep? Et cetera. It's just too broad. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already way too long, and missing clear cases like Silent Lucidity. A complete list would be too huge to be useful. JulesH 21:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zzzzz... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavel Vozenilek (talk • contribs)
Delete per Blaxthos. Sleepcruft?? --Charlene 09:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., and all. --JayJasper 21:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lia Lapithi Shukuroglou[edit]

The very impressive-looking resume of an artist.

The article was created by the SPA "Ishukuro" on 1 January. I noticed it and flagged it with LIKERESUME and UNREFERENCED the next day. User:KRBN prodded it on 23 April, with the somewhat ambiguous comment "Very bad style and not notable person without reference". Five days later User:Terriersfan removed the prod with the comment "Badly needs cleanup but enough here to assert notability". Not having noticed this earlier prod (Sorry!), I reprodded it on 15 May with the comment "three months have gone by, and there are still no references". Later that same day, User:DGG removed the prod with the comment "I see refs at the bottom".

So let's examine the refs. They are:

"For books [sic] reviews, visit MIT Leonardo Journal http://mitpress2.mit.edu/e-journals/Leonardo/reviews/feb2005/operate_mosher.htm"
The subject's own website

And that's all.

The first of these is presumably a list of the artist's book reviews for the Leonardo journal. It's likely to say little or nothing beyond this. (I don't know, because it has timed out every time I've tried it.)

The other isn't an independent source.

The artist has two books listed, complete with ISBNs. I'm willing to believe that these exist. I could cut the article down to to "Lia Lapithi Shukuroglou is an artist who has had two books published", and then list the books, but that would be an odd article indeed. Or I could spend hours googling around for disinterested info on this artist. But if Ishukuro can't be bothered, neither can I.

So I recommend deleting the article, without in any way prejudicing the fate of a later, entirely different article about the same person. -- Hoary 05:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is probably irredeemable. Oh, and not notable enough or sufficiently verifiable. Adrian M. H. 22:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment created by single-use account. --Infrangible 17:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That person is not giving any notability information. Also it is the worst styled article I have ever seen in wikipedia. --User:KRBN 20:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John M FitzGerald[edit]

Orphaned article about a non-notable poet. Vanity page, if you like that angle. Gump Stump 05:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability found in a quick Google. The same editor created only this article and one for Helene Cardona, his wife; she has a few minor film credits but also appears unnotable. For both, accomplishment does not equal notability. --Dhartung | Talk 07:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. /Blaxthos 16:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not really notable enough, I think. If he was a truly notable poet, would he have a day job as a lawyer? A few search hits, but most of them referred to other John M. FitzGeralds; not much that was obviously independent, either. Adrian M. H. 22:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You could probably count the number of poets in the last 200 years who didn't have a day job on the fingers of one hand. Notability is not the same as commercial success; if that were the case, Vincent Van Gogh would be non-notable. --Charlene 09:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I could name a lot of poets who make their sole living from their writing and performing. But clearly my rhetorical question appeared too literal for some. Adrian M. H. 16:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to future recreation should the subject become more notable in future. Achieving notability as a poet is difficult, and he's just not there yet, but he may be in the future. --Charlene 09:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Single-use account created only this article and one other Helene Cardona - may consider for deletion as well. --Infrangible 17:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 PopFusion number one albums[edit]

Article is one of several created by the same author that is un-sourced, un-encyclopedic, and wildly ignores the Manual of Style. Zero articles link to it, and the article's category is also up for deletion. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article on generic seasonal spacefiller of no apparent importance. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. If that website wants to keep a statistics or history of number one albums, fine, but there's no reason to include that in Wikipedia. --B. Wolterding 14:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a directory of nothingness. /Blaxthos 16:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure if WP:NOT#DIR is directly applicable here, but I think it has insufficient importance for a dedicated article. This data is best kept in the articles of each artist/album. Adrian M. H. 16:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Amerling[edit]

Proposed deletion tag removed without comment, so bringing here for discussion. This is an author with one novel, printed through PublishAmerica, which, despite its fervent denials, appears to be a vanity press. He and the novel each have about 190 Google hits; of the ones I looked at, none appeared to be valid reliable sources to help him meet biography guidelines. The page has one link to a local newspaper story. Creator of this page is User:Amerdale, so I suspect a WP:COI is involved as well, and this is probably a promotional attempt - also note that links to this series of articles have been added to a lot of other articles. I'm also bundling in his book and the main character of his book into this discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages, as noted above:[reply]

Delete all. Even if one discounts the obvious WP:COI problem, the only third-party source for any of this is a local newspaper that, presumably, will print almost anything with a supposed local interest. It all fails WP:N and WP:V. Deor 05:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all WP:COI WP:N WP:V (take pick) /Blaxthos 16:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ROTFLMAO. And PublishAmerica claim to have standards. Delete all before I'm tempted to read more of that synopsis. JulesH 21:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Writer of a non-notable book published on a vanity press; has no other known achievements. For those wondering whether PublishAmerica is really a vanity press, see Atlanta Nights. --Charlene 09:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete PublishAmerica is not vanity press, but a POD publisher. Also, this is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia, but it is obvious from contributions made by User:JulesH that this user has major negative opinions about PublishAmerica and therefore, this user's comment should not be taken into consideration. Finally, as for User:Charlene.fic's accusations that PublishAmerica is a vanity publisher because of the Atlanta Nights article, it should be known that this article is outdated as PublishAmerica does now sell to major bookstores and they do carry PublishAmerica books.User:Amerdale 15:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whether or not PublishAmerica is a vanity press is, of course, a matter of opinion. However, they have been described as a vanity press in a number of reliable sources including the Washington Post. I don't think it is therefore a stretch for the nominator to say it "appears to be a vanity press". Yes, I hold negative opinions of the company. This stems from discussions I have had with ex-employees of the company and with authors who have previously published work with them. They do not have editorial standards, so I see no reason we should consider one of their publications for an article unless it shows it has surpassed (by a wide margin) the average dreck they produce. And if you have a reliable source that shows that major bookstores now stock PublishAmerica books, please add it to the PublishAmerica article. I have seen no such source, so I must conclude that they do not, as was the state the last time this subject was discussed by a reliable source. JulesH 17:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Deor summed it up well. To the article's creating editor, a well known bit of advice: "comment on the contribution, not the contributor". Adrian M. H. 16:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - self-published book with no indepenndent coverage of teh book or author. -- Whpq 21:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Airplay Download Chart[edit]

Article is one of several created by the same author that is un-sourced, un-encyclopedic, and wildly ignores the Manual of Style. Zero articles link to it, and the article has no categories. Kralizec! (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Article that claims that its subject is "part of" something redlinked does not inspire confidence. No reliable sources provided. Deor 05:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete bollocks. How can a chart be an "airplay download" chart anyway? - fchd 07:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete twaddle Guy (Help!) 14:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously WP:BOLLOCKS. Airplay download is obviously contradictory, and the fact that it's part of a redlink doesn't help. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total crap, in every sense. Fails N, V, NOT, etc. Adrian M. H. 22:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Note to nominating ed: It doesn't matter if it is an uncat'd badly styled dead-ender, because at least that is easily fixed.[reply]
Delete - Nonsense, how can you have an airplay download chart? You can have an airplay chart that covers what songs are being played on radio, or a download chart that covers songs bought and downloaded, but you cannot have the two in one chart as they are completely separate things. Ben W Bell talk 09:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 08:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Garcia[edit]

This subject is non-notable. There are thousands of minor-league baseball players. This one does not stand out above the others. Fbdave 05:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Drafted by the Red Sox, which is good, but he hasn't even hit their dugout, as near as I can tell - and if he's still in the minors...well, good luck on getting to the big leagues, kid. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until notable. JJL 17:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Come back when you've stayed in the majors longer than the time it takes to have a cup of coffee.Blueboy 96 22:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't even stood next to the coffee maker yet. Fails WP:BIO. --Charlene 09:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it might be possible to have a notable minor-league career, but I don't see that here. Gimmetrow 02:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air banding[edit]

Original research. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, even if Scrubs references it. -- Merope 05:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unattributed article, fails on Manual of Style and per nomination. Carlosguitar 11:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At 0524 on 2 June 2007, the article's author wrote the following (without leaving a signature) on the talk page: "keep the airbanding wikipedia page!" Nyttend 12:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, per nomination Nyttend 12:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ATT. /Blaxthos 16:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we have a guideline for "something I saw on TV"? Original research and neologism. Adrian M. H. 22:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Air guitar. Non-notable, OR. Bearian 01:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps redirect to Airband, the section of the VHF spectrum used by aviation? --Charlene 09:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only source is a joke on a TV show, and yet the author(s) go into great detail about the origins and nuances. --Infrangible 17:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it would be possible to write an actual article on this but it needs better sources. Also, airbanding was not introduced in Scrubs, but mearly mentioned there, it has been around for some time
Merge(or Redirect) with Air guitar, the most notable of the air instruments. Paulbrock 19:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zinneke parade[edit]

This article makes no assertion of notabilty and offers for WP:RS. JodyB_talk 04:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sole source is their website, which is "under construction". Come back when you've finished constructing it, guys, and get some other sources as well while you're at it. Totnesmartin 20:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant advertorial. Adrian M. H. 22:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Charlene 09:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, a colleage made this article on my account, i will urge her to improve the article. for the moment, i gave it stub status, i hope you all agree. --Rotor DB 23:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of arrested Bengals[edit]

This article has no point. It is simply here to poke fun at the Bengals. That makes this article content not suitable for an encyclopedia and thus not suitable for Wikipedia. Cincydude55 04:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not in the scope of an encyclopedia. The list with its notes seems to be a copyright violation of this list. Tim Q. Wells 06:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikied to a more appropriate wiki: http://sportsargumentwiki.com/index.php?title=List_of_Arrested_Cincinnati_Bengals --Korranus 06:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a copyright violation. Unless you pointed to this article, which is about to be deleted. And even so, their licensing is Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5., not GFDL. Corvus cornix 06:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't need to point to our article. The GFDL only requires that the five most significant editors be listed, and that the copy be licensed under the GFDL. --Carnildo 07:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of that was done. Corvus cornix 07:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I can't do anything about it now. Feel free to contact their admin. --Korranus 07:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unclear on copyvio or attack, so I'm not going to go speedy, but the list really doesn't seem to serve a purpose other than...well, making a list of sports players for a particular NFL team that have been arrested. I mean, why? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean that this article is a copyvio, I meant copying it to sporstargumentwiki.com is a copyvio. Corvus cornix 07:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I saw the article's title, I thought it was an attack page against people from Bangladesh :-) Nyttend 12:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn't the 'List of non-arrested Bengals' be shorter? :) DarkAudit 13:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. There is no encyclopaedic subject for members of this arbitrarily chosen team who have been arrested, and of course it also violates WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and probably several other policies. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Attack page.Blueboy 96 16:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Arrests are a matter of public record. While I may (and do) believe this article should be deleted, let's not characterize it as somthing it's not. /Blaxthos 16:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nomination. This is not at all encyclopedic. Montco 17:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 22:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Chris Henry (wide receiver)~~ (sorry, I couldn't resist :)) DarkAudit 22:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as attack page, so tagged. Obviously nothing to keep here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this should be only in the team's page or preferably only in the player's article--JForget 01:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an attack article, the arrests are part of the public record and the number of Bengals arrested has been commented upon by a number of sports columnists. That doesn't mean this is an encyclopedic subject, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopedic. If kept, change title immediately to List of arrested Cincinnati Bengals per WP:BIAS. Bengal is an extremely heavily populated region of south Asia, and "the Bengals" is sometimes used to refer collectively to the nation of Bangladesh and the Indian state of West Bengal, which together have a population of over 230,000,000 people. I would say the homelands of a quarter of a billion people are somewhat more notable than some American sports team. --Charlene 09:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Just so you know the "Bengal" in Cincinnati Bengals refers to a bengal tiger.--Cincydude55 19:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Which is in turn named after Bengal. --Charlene 17:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I only said that because many people were getting confused with the ethnic group and the animal.--Cincydude55 17:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-This is probably not worth its own page, rather it should be transferred over to the regular Cincinnati Bengals' page.
Delete unless you can write on article on Bengali peoples predisposition to getting arrested. Bulldog123 02:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Band Red[edit]

This article fails WP:MUSIC and fails to assert any notability. No WP:RS to establish notability JodyB_talk 04:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing notability requirements. /Blaxthos 16:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure blatant vanispam and non-notable to a self-acknowledging extent (they haven't even played their first gig yet). Adrian M. H. 22:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 07:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 07:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. For one thing, I'm getting a disconnenct between a lot of the comments and the actual article; the comments address an earlier, much different version of the article which dealt with mythology and so forth. That part is now gone. It's well and good that articles are improved under the threat of extinction ("Knowing that one will be deleted in the morning", to paraphrase Mark Twain, "concentrates the mind wonderfully"). It is hard to achieve a consensus on a moving target, though. I'm not complaining; it's good for articles to be improved, and this one has. It now has references, for one thing.

There were a lot of commentors. I quick count gives me 15-9 in favor of Delete, which is kind of a supermajority. Hmmmm. Supermajority or no, I don't see a clear consensus on this version of the article. No prejudice against an immediate renomination, where we can discuss this more stable version; this would probably be preferable to going to deletion review, if anyone is unhappy with the close. Herostratus 15:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cradle of Humanity[edit]

Original research --Akhilleus (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I dimly remember being altogether surprised at this article when I was new on Wikipedia. I'm a conservative Christian, always have been, and it's still something altogether new to me. Look at the end: if I believe Eden to have been at Al-Qurna, why would I include Yemen but not Azerbaijan? It has to be OR. Nyttend 04:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite significantly: see the next few comments between Reddi and me. Nyttend 22:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are a student of history, have you not heard this term? This can't be a serious vote ... is it? 05:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes, I am a history major — see my userpage, a student at a conservative Christian school (for proof, note that I've taken many pictures around the area) — and a Bible minor. I read extensively. I have never run across this term except on its Wikipedia page. Since it seems that the nominator and I are the only ones wanting to delete the page, you'd better come up with some references for it. Nyttend 12:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you taken any classes about prehistory, eg., before written records? Conservative Christian schools may not introduce this topic ... J. D. Redding 16:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Aha, I see what you mean: either I skipped a lot of the article when I came across it some time ago, or a lot has been added. What I remembered of the article (I didn't look at it much now, because I thought I'd read it thoroughly before) was that it was an article strictly about a specific religious viewpoint, not including the nonreligious viewpoint that forms the majority of the article. Now that I read it again, I see that there's a lot more. That's why, by the way, I brought in the history and Bible: if the article were as I thought it was, a discussion of a religious concept alone, I would expect to have had this topic mentioned in my classes. Nyttend 22:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great. I glad you stated that .... happy that you though t alil more on it. I agree that it needs some editing ... a few sources ... and cleaning out the use of excessive tagging ... but glad you changed the vote. Sincerely, J. D. Redding 23:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs a little cleanup for NPOV, and some better citations for verifiability, but I've heard the term used before. Admittedly, a long, long time ago, and it was in reference to the scientific inquiry as to where modern humanity first arose from. I may go searching for sources this weekend, when I have more time. -- Kesh 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Further debate down the thread has convinced me that this article is a POV fork, and essentially unfixable. It needs to be deleted, and maybe someone can write a new article later on the actual topic at hand. -- Kesh 02:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known term in history. Needs copy editing and NPOV'ing really. J. D. Redding 05:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC) (ps., see g.books full viewhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">@ "all books" ... at first, I have to admit, I didn't thnk this was a serious AfD ...)[reply]
Comment by nominator. This article is disjointed and appears to discuss several things: 1) where homo sapiens first emerged, 2) where biblical literalists place the Garden of Eden, 3) where civilization first arose, 4) various mythological locations for the creation of humanity or the center of the world. The article calls all of these things the "Cradle of Humanity", or at least asserts that other people have called these things the "Cradle of Humanity". The article cites no sources of any kind, either secondary or primary, save one passage from Genesis and some vague references to Darwin. I believe the Cradle of Humanity article arose out of a mistaken attempt to create an "NPOV" article that covered any place that had a claim to be the origin of humanity/civilization, despite the fact that most of these places aren't called the cradle of humanity. As it stands, the article is a mishmash of original research. Google searches do get a number of results for the phrase "cradle of humanity", but none of those are about the term itself. Most of the time the phrase refers to East Africa as the place where modern humans evolved; sometimes it refers to the Fertile Crescent as the place where civilization first arose. We already have a nice article for the first, Olduvai Gorge. We have a good article for the second, Fertile Crescent. If this article is about either one of those things, we can turn it into a redirect (or we can redirect to Cradle of Humankind). If it's about the use of the term "cradle of humanity", we need to get some sources that discuss that topic specifically; if no such sources exist, then the article should go. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a known term in the history field. It's also used by several non-historical sources. It is completely acceptable to delineate several things that are related to the same notion (Scientific, religious, etc ... that's what is great about NPOV'ing things). I would contest that the fact that most of these places aren't called the cradle of humanity. Aren't by who? And if you can answer that, then there are sources for the article ... J. D. Redding 05:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC) (eg., Religiously ... I would believe ... it can be seen that the cradle would be Eden (for abrahamic religions).)[reply]
- Oh yea ... just because an article doesn't have references, does not mean that it should be deleted. JIMO. There are sources ... have you looked for any? J. D. Redding 05:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep. I already mentioned Google searches. I don't think there are any sources that are specifically about the term; if you find some, I'd like to see them. Please note that this article has existed since January 2004, there have been complaints on the talk page since 2004 about the lack of sourcing, and no one has brought forward any sources yet. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just came across the article ... I just wouldn't be so speedy to delete ... in the long now, things will get fixed. As to the "cradle would be Eden", just a quick scan of the g.scholar items show that they are specifically about the term. J. D. Redding
      - No, a quick scan of the Google Scholar results shows that the phrase "cradle of humanity" is an incidental reference in articles that are about something else. E.g. this is about the geography of the Kharga Oasis, this is about the development of culture in East Africa and its contributions to world history, this is about the development of historiography in the 19th century, this I couldn't access, but has something to do with Percy Bysshe Shelley, and this, a 384 page book, uses the phrase once, to affirm that Afica is where human evolved. Those are results 1-4 and 6 from the Google Scholar search you linked to; I skipped #5 because it's from 1890 and its table of contents talks about Hamites, Semites, Japhethites and their dispersion. None of them are specifically about the term "cradle of humanity". --Akhilleus (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The one you skipped looks like a religious thing. BTW, another applicable term for trying to find sources would be "cradle of mankind" (which is similar to the title of this article). J. D. Redding 07:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - To clarify a bit, it's obvious that a lot of people call the Garden of Eden the "cradle of humanity" or similar things. That doesn't warrant a separate article on cradle of humanity, place where man was created, the center of civilization, or whatever; it might justify a redirect. What we need are sources that focus on the notion of "cradle of humanity" itself. That's my opinion, anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes it's obvious ... that is why copy editing is needed. But don't totally remove references to the other concepts. The topic is notable for an article; not a redirect ... J. D. Redding 05:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable since it's a common term used by many people. Source it appropriately and it should be just fine. --Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 07:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware that my not having heard of it doesn't mean that it's not a common term. However, if it's a common term, it shouldn't be that hard to find references that this page needs and that are badly missing. Nyttend 12:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source, it's a term I've certainly heard of (in my case, most often in the context of the Tigris/Euphrates confluence in old Mesopotamia). Strong keep, actually; I'd consider this a much more significant and encyclopedic article than the vast majority of WP's pop-culture pages. Some sources to start with: "Could Asia have been the cradle of humanity?", Boston Globe, July 2005; "Oldest human skulls found", BBC News, June 2003; "Africa, the Cradle of Humanity", Humanist Perspectives, issue 156, Spring 2006, "Asia, the Cradle of Humanity", National Geographic, August 2001; "Tanzania, Ethiopia origin for humans", BBC News, April 2003; "Africa: Birthplace of Humanity", Dr. Leonard Jeffries, africawithin.com. However, I don't think we need to capitalize "Humanity" -- we're not talking about the proper name of a specific place, so Cradle of humanity seems more compliant with WP naming conventions. --DeLarge 12:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding those articles, but in some "cradle of humanity" does not occur; in the others, it is just an incidental reference--for instance, in this Boston Globe article, the phrase is in the title and nowhere else. These articles use "cradle of humanity" as an equivalent for "location where modern humans evolved". Why, then, should Cradle of Humanity be separate from human evolution or paleoanthropology? The "evolutionary view" of Cradle of Humanity has tremendous overlap with paleoanthropology. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cradle of Humanity is about a specific time and place ... human evolution is a more general survey ... paleoanthropology is about a broad academic field. Different concepts = different articles. J. D. Redding 18:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all those words and not one source! Maybe redirect to cradle of civilization. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article covers prehistory beginnings and the start of humanity/mankind. Cradle of civilization covers the start of recorded history and foundation of civilization ... 2 different thing in the field of history. J. D. Redding 16:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Forgot to say ... Be Bold ... anyways ... started to put in references ... J. D. Redding 17:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- J.D., if you think this article is supposed to be about the start of humanity, how is it different than paleoanthropology? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's talking about an academic discipline (a field of study) ... this is about the topic of the beginning of humanity before writing (eg., prehistory). This article may cite paleoanthropologists, but it is not about that field. I don't see how that is a difficult concept to grasp. J. D. Redding 18:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fewer insults, please. Paleoanthropology is indeed about an academic field, and the history of that field is a history of attempts to locate the beginning of humanity. If you read paleoanthropology there's a lot of overlap with cradle of humanity, and if paleoanthropology were more detailed (it says very little about modern paleoanthropology) the overlap would be even more extensive. What's the rationale for a separate article? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't think I was insulting you, sorry if I did ... I don't want people to take things so personally ... as to the problems with the paleoanthropology article, please improve that article. Again, this is about various research ... this is about the topic of the beginning of humanity before writing (a topic of history) ... paleoanthropology is about a field of study ... different concepts = different articles. J. D. Redding 18:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If Cradle of Humanity is supposed to be about human prehistory, what material should it contain that paleoanthropology and human evolution do not? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is supposed to be about a specific and concise part of human prehistory. The others is about the field of study. The last is more broad and general survey (and takes in account of many things that history itself is not intimately concerned with). Do you understand that? J. D. Redding 19:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Which "specific and concise part", exactly? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That would be the "specific and concise part" of paleoanthropology interested in the specific region where humanity first arose as a seperate species. Liken it to the Cretaceous period of history: it's a specific section of time which is covered by palentology, but palentology as a whole isn't about just that period. -- Kesh 21:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, so we're talking about a topic within paleoanthropology? Shouldn't Cradle of Humanity just be a section of paleoanthropology, then? And is the paleoanthropological interest in the region where humanity first arose usually classified under the rubric "cradle of humanity"? From my reading, it doesn't seem so: the books on human evolution I've looked at so far, e.g. this, this and this, use the phrase one or a handful of times in the entire text. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        By that reasoning, Cretaceous should only exist as a part of the Paleontology article. I believe this topic is significant enough to warrant its own page, though the current one needs rewritten and possibly renamed. The term, as you note, has not been used often, but it has been used to identify this concept. Would you care to suggest an alternative title for the article? -- Kesh 00:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It a concern to history. A topic within history. The points to redirect this and fact tag the hell out of it wears on me, personally ... off for a bit, need a rest for this. J. D. Redding 23:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notwithstanding the delete votes of those who think the earth is only 6,000 years old. ;-) /Blaxthos 16:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs some work, but doesn't appear to be fatally flawed. As for the phrase 'Cradle of Humanity', it's not uncommon (though I don't have the advantages of a Bible school education).DuncanHill 23:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additonal comment by nominator. As Kesh notes above, the term "cradle of humanity" isn't used often in scientific discussions of where modern humans evolved. As some further proof of this, here's a 2001 article (pdf) that don't use the term, a Smithsonian Institute webpage on the same subject: [19], and another page at actionbioscience.org: [20].

As these pages show, at present there are two significant theories about where modern humans came from--the multiregional hypothesis and the Recent_single-origin_hypothesis, also known as the "out of Africa" model. It's impossible to talk about these hypotheses without discussing fossil and genetic evidence--in other words, discussion of where modern humans first appeared cannot be separated from a discussion of when and how they appeared. Therefore, if the subject of cradle of humanity is "where humanity first arose as a separate species", it will inevitably have substantial overlap with human evolution, paleoanthropology, multiregional hypothesis and recent single-origin hypothesis, and in fact there's substantial overlap between these articles right now.

So, I think Kesh's suggestion above for a rename has considerable merit. A renamed article, perhaps called origins of modern humans or origins of homo sapiens, could incorporate multiregional hypothesis and recent single-origin hypothesis. Such an article could be a sub-article of human evolution. This article would have the advantage of a clearly defined subject, with ample reliable sources. In contrast, while it's easy to find sources that use the phrase "cradle of humanity", sources that discuss the usage and meaning of the phrase are difficult to find. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC) See new comment below. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: This whole article is just a POV-pushing fork to make the creationist view look equal to the evolutionary. Stick with non-broken articles like Recent single-origin hypothesis or Human evolution. As an aside, the evolutionary view presented is around 40 years out of date. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Please explain how it's a "POV-pushing fork"? Historcally, the creationist view has been equal to the evolutionary. Say 100-150yr ago, evolution was a fringe since, now it's mainstream. The history of the subject is important. The Topic in general is important too (especially to history). So please explain how it's a "POV-pushing fork"? J. D. Redding 21:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Besides the minor signs of POV: linking Darwinism instead of Evolution or Human evolution; a See Also containing only links to strict creationist articles, etc - it also has severe Wikipedia:Undue weight issues, treating the creationist theory as the exact equal of the evolutionary. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- aside from being poorly written, poorly organised and poorly sourced, I fail to see how the creationist view sheds any light on this particular issue -- this should be a science-based article. Not every subject covered on Wikipedia needs to note the "creationist view"; although someone's feeling spunky, why not edit the Boat article to explain that Noah's Ark was the first boat. Can't help you with cars, trains and airplanes, though. Jim62sch 10:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a anti-creationist vote? What happen to POV? Historically, the creationist view was significant one in science. Is there a ignorance of history here? ... anyways," poorly written, poorly organised and poorly sourced, is not a reason for deletion, cleanup yes ... but not deletion. J. D. Redding 20:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The scientific side is a fork of Recent single-origin hypothesis or Human evolution, and has inaccuracies that are best sorted out in a scientific context rather than a definition of a vague term. The creationist side could appropriately be merged into history of creationism. .. dave souza, talk 12:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Might be good to reduce parts of it (eg., cleanup/rewrite issues) and {{main}} it ... but it's not a fork. JIMO. J. D. Redding 19:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Dave Souza and Adam Cuerden. Compare with Origin of life. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced POV fork. TimVickers 13:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that? Please expalin ... J. D. Redding
  - The article claims to review the current ideas on the origins of humans, however the creationist viewpoint is given equal weight to the verifiable scientific viewpoint. This is a clear violation of the NPOV policy. TimVickers 21:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dave Souza has listed the two article that this is redundant with, Recent single-origin hypothesis and Human evolution. Nothing to do with cleanup. POV fork. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Think you missed the intro part that states "All human cultures contain concepts about the origin of mankind, and through religion and mythology have attempted to anchor these ideas through reference to historic times and places, known to them." J. D. Redding 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD is not for clean up. --Nricardo 22:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dave Souza has listed the two article that this is redundant with, Recent single-origin hypothesis and Human evolution. Nothing to do with cleanup. POV fork. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Think you missed the intro part that states "All human cultures contain concepts about the origin of mankind, and through religion and mythology have attempted to anchor these ideas through reference to historic times and places, known to them." J. D. Redding 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with editors above - just because the article needs improvement does not mean it should be on the AfD list. Heliumballoon 15:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dave Souza has listed the two article that this is redundant with, Recent single-origin hypothesis and Human evolution. Nothing to do with cleanup. POV fork. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Think you missed the intro part that states "All human cultures contain concepts about the origin of mankind, and through religion and mythology have attempted to anchor these ideas through reference to historic times and places, known to them." J. D. Redding 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now that I understand better what's going on, it's clear that the scientific section is a POV fork, and the creationist section adds further undue weight to that POV. The way to "improve" a POV fork is to delete it. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a fork. There is sources and it is an important history subject. J. D. Redding 19:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - J. D. Redding (User:Reddi) is changing the article quite a bit, and seems to think that the article is supposed to be a comparison between evolution and creation. How is that not a POV fork? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No ... I am trying to change it to be more of a historical article ... not the evolution vs creationism bullsh*t that usually goes on with topic like this. J. D. Redding 20:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - History, as an academic discipline, doesn't deal with human evolution. Paleoanthropology does. Why do you think any creationist stuff should be in the article at all? I notice that someone deleted that section, and you restored it. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        History is the continuous, systematic narrative and research of past events as relating to the human race; as well as the study of all events in time, in relation to humanity. J. D. Redding 20:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article falls into the venue of Wikipedia:WikiProject History. A project that seeks to provide a concise and accurate record of notable facts and data, organizations, individuals and events in history, including background and their current status. J. D. Redding
      - Despite the definition you've provided, the academic discipline of history doesn't deal with human evolution. It's the province of paleoanthrolopogy (a field within anthropology). This isn't a history topic, and you still haven't explained why the creationist stuff is in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Contrary to the facts? ... You may not accept that history does, but historians do. Paleoanthrolopogy is a specialized subfield in historical research, but it is not the only field that studies this ... and interdisciplinary approaches are applied to the subject. J. D. Redding 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So, you're saying that if I went to my local research university, I'd find paleoanthropologists in the history department? Is that where I'd find other physical anthropologists? (Hey, why's the creationist stuff in this article?) --Akhilleus (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You can try to twist the argument any way you like but .... paleoanthropology combines the disciplines of paleontology and physical anthropology. Biological anthropology (or physical anthropology) is a branch of anthropology which is in turn the comparative study of the physical and social characteristics of humanity through the examination of historical distribution, cultural history, acculturation, and cultural relationships. The "creationist stuff" in this article is because historically, if you don't understand (or simply ignoring it) is that this was a theory to explain the cradle of humanity. I think the prior ... I will give you the benefit of the doubt in good faith. Paleoanthropologists will not be in the history department (... I not a academia specialist, but I think that will be in the anthropology department most likely, but will work with historians) ...J. D. Redding 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Based on your comments that the creationist view is only significant as a historical curiosity, I have renamed the final section "History", which fits the focus of this section on discussing such historical viewpoints. TimVickers 21:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok. I think that was good .. I thought thatyou were trying to merge them. Sorry. I put in Historical views are the top of the secion J. D. Redding 21:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC) (will crosspost this to the talk page too with a diff link here.)[reply]
      - Of course, all these changes are making the article more redundant with human evolution, except that more air time is given to the creationist stuff. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If it is allowed time, it will be different than the human evolution article, as stated before ... this is a specific time and place thatis being looked at .. the other is a more general article. The topic is notable on itself ... "Cradle of humanity" -wikipedia 53,300 results. 621 booka at this result or 248 scholar articles at this result. J. D. Redding 21:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If this is history, it's incredibly shoddy – skipping the long history of biblical ideas to go to early scientists, and making the unsubstantiated statement that "earlier views of the contemporary scientific establishment that the Cradle of Humanity was to be found in Asia" pre the 1850s, when the the scientific establishment was defending direct creation of humanity – is there some source saying Eden was thought to be in Asia? Then a fork of the Recent single-origin hypothesis which mentions Lucy only in the context of some 1999 French article asserting Afarensis did not represent the origin of man, and other references including a BBC article which makes no mention of Cradle of humanity – is this a history of the term, or a ragbag for an inaccurate history of ideas on origins, or is about origins which by definition are prehistoric? Unless, of course, you're taking the Creationist line that origins are indeed historic. Which brings us to the last section, presenting the old ideas of where Eden might be as a modern idea before wandering back to the 19th century. What is this article intended to do? ... dave souza, talk 21:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not intended "to do" anything but provide for the information relevant to history, world history, and the beginning of humanity. As stated in the intro. J. D. Redding 22:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Cleanup, from what I have seen, is not a reason for deletion. J. D. Redding 21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So what is this other than a POV fork? ... dave souza, talk 22:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You personally can call it a "fork"; though it is not. Have you read the various comment by the various people on this page? I think it's been plainly stated by me and others. J. D. Redding 22:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If this is a neutral, POV-free article on origins, why does it only contain Christian mythology and badly-explained evolution? There are qquie a lot of other religions out there, you know. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Cleanup is not a reason for deletion. As to your other point, the other religious concepts should be dealt with. It's half and half now about what to do with the article (undecided; Dels/Keeps) ... anyways, if it gets deleted, atleast there is undelete and all this can be worked on and dealt with in a NPOV fashion at a later date. J. D. Redding 17:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Delete Per Adam Cuerden and Jim62sch. It is poorly written, but that can be fixed. It is unreferenced, and that can't be fixed, because it will have to use non-scientific Creationist pseudo science articles to reference it. It is a POV fork from decent articles. I'd say merge to something else, but when I look at other articles like human evolution, this article doesn't even deserve a footnote. If this travesty of an article needs to stay, the rename it to Creationist Perspectives on Human Evolution and be done with it. We'll change the lead to indicate what science says today and let the Christian theories of this POV fork rule the day. Orangemarlin 13:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleanup is not a reason for deletion (ala., your "poorly written"). The unreferenced part can be fixed; many articles are tagged as unreference; not a reason fo deletion. This is a historical subject. J. D. Redding 17:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC) (PS., seems if POV editors are removing any references to non-scientific sources; something a historian would not do ...)[reply]

You are spamming this RfD with the same stuff over and over again. If you had read what I and others have written, we don't care that it is poorly written or poorly referenced. It is a POV fork, and cannot be referenced. That it is poorly written and referenced only makes it mean that it is a poorly written and POV fork not worthy of keeping.Orangemarlin 19:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this more, your responses seem to make me feel that you own the article. Why aren't other editors interested in this article? Why does it read like original research? Orangemarlin 19:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not because it is poorly writted, poorly cited, and suffers from OWN/POV problems - all of which are painfully true - but because the main concept is so vaguely defined. Is this an article about the evolutionary origin of mankind, or the origin of human civilisation? It seems that any precise definition of the term "Cradle of Humanity" would clearly show the article to be redundant and/or a POV fork from existing articles, as per Dave souza, Samsara, Akhilleus etc. Wikipedia should not be a platform for such woolly thinking and imprecise concepts (pace Time Cube, haha). SheffieldSteel 13:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a clear and precise item in history (something that modern culture lack indepth knowledge of ...). It's about : Where did mankind start; not civilization (that's covered elsewhere). J. D. Redding 17:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC) (PS., seems if POV editors are removing any references to non-scientific sources; something a historian would not do ...)[reply]

So, it's not about civilisation, nor is it about human evolution. It seems that this article can only be defined in terms of what it is not, and it seems increasingly as if "what it's not" is growing to encompass more and more wikipedia articles. ~~If, for example, this article is about where mankind started, why is it not called "cradle of mankind" rather than of humanity? Oh, that's right, there's already an article of that name.~~ The only thing that this article definitely is is a POV fork. SheffieldSteel 17:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wooly POV fork per SheffieldSteel. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think Adam, Dave and SheffieldSteel sum it up pretty nicely. Guettarda 17:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rewrite or else delete This sort of material is not on Wikipedia already? I find that hard to believe. I do not like the title very much either. --Filll 19:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the earliest version of this article is very instructive. It started as an incredibly POV creationist rant that was amateurish and replete with mis-statements, obnoxious claims, and just general nonsense. To try to build a reasonable argument on this awful foundation is just ludicrous. The smartest thing would be to fold any useful information in here that is not somewhere else in Wikipedia into the appropriate articles, or else just go to a sandbox and build an article on this subject from scratch if one does not exist. --Filll 19:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A sure sign that this article is in trouble is the lack of mention of the Leakey's work, or of Mitochondrial Eve or Y-Chromosonal Adam or of a large number of similar things. I think comparing various origin theories with the current scientific understanding and having a careful history of scientific theories would be useful and interesting, but this article has a long long long way to go before it reaches that level.--Filll 19:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Filll makes many good points above, this certainly seems very redundant. Possibly protect and redirect to a more appropriate page? David D. (Talk) 19:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment First D.Redding, you ought to just make a comment section to respond to what are, in general, the same comments from nearly everyone. Let's start right at the beginning. If "Cradle of Humanity" is a regularly used description, I'd think a 2006 reference would be useful, rather than one that is 130 years old. But after that, this article becomes a mishmash of science, philosophical musings, and the history of this so-called cradle. It moves back and forth between a mythical treatment and scientific treatment. I can find better scientific articles on Wiki. I can find better historical ones. And frankly this qualifies as nothing more than a paragraph or at best a subsection of broad articles. So I amend my delete to say that why does this article need to exist? Orangemarlin 19:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as OR/POV fork. heqs 08:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term itself seems notable, and neither of the two articles which this article is supposedly a POV fork of mention the term at all. The content of the article may poorly relate to the title, and may indeed make the whole thing look like a POV fork of other articles, but that sounds like a reason to delete everything that isn't obviously related to the topic until the article is a stub, not to just delete the topic. Homestarmy 15:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I accept this article needs cleanup. This article is not a POV of any single individual but a very large group of people. It has been proved beyond doubt that mankind did not come out of thin air so why can't people let keeping this article.Sauron 15:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fails WP:BIO – no secondary sources. KrakatoaKatie 17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Berger[edit]

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Subject has published a small handful of articles in some journals of low to middling prestige, but the same could be said of most tenured college professors. Douglas has received zero coverage in secondary sources. Note: a related article is being debated for deletion a little further down the page. Ford MF 04:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Page lists 33 publications in journals from the extremely well known (Science) down to a number of well-respected Japanese-language journals. I don't see what more is necessary to establish a scientist's notability. JulesH 17:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Coverage in secondary sources; there is none. Notability is not inherited. He might have published in notable publications, but that doesn't mean he is notable. Ford MF 17:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Such coverage is rare for a researcher is an unglamourous field like clinical psychiatry. However, repeated publication in well-known publications such as Science (journal) and the American Journal of Psychiatry is, in my opinion, a notable achievement in itself. Being published in such selective publications is a significant achievement in itself; doing it multiple times is more than enough to justify the existence of an article, IMO. JulesH 20:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. If you look closely at both of the American Journal of Psychiatry references, you'll see they're both published in the magazine's letters column. They are not articles. In fact, 1/4 of the citations given are just letters to the respective journals. The citation from Science is 1) 2 pages long, 2) 11 years old, 3) something on which he is only a co-author. The citations look more impressive than they are; they're pretty much all for trade journals like "European Eating Disorders Review". It's basically just a CV, not an article. Ford MF 22:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would seem to me that you couldn't get this many articles published if you weren't regarded as an important figure by independent academics in this field, or if you did, all those articles would make you important. Wikipedia:Notability (academics): "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable...2: The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field." It seems to me that this passes the notability test. Nyttend 22:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not to sound like a dick, but you are perhaps unfamiliar with how academia works? Publish or perish. Having obscure trade journals publish your essays is de rigeur for pretty much anyone with that sort of job. It is NOT unusual. Just perusing the CVs of random professors at the local college, you can see how even the most minor and non-notable of academics often has a ridiculous number of publications to their credit. It is not (necessarily) proof that that person is regarded in any way as important in their field. Just a few samples of non-notable people with CVs matching or exceeding Berger's who work just across the street from me: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] Ford MF 22:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore aside from getting two letters printed in American Journal of Psychiatry, and co-writing a two-page article ONCE for Science, none of the other sources are "notable", despite assertions here to the contrary, i.e. there isn't a wiki article for a single one of them. By my reckoning, this guy fulfills NONE of the criteria for WP:PROF. Ford MF 22:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles in Major contributions to the field of psychiatry alone make this person notable. The "prestige" or "notability" of the journals used as references is irrelevant and purely a matter of opinion. Lists of other persons that don't have articles written about them are not good arguments for deletion. The fact that a related article has been nominated for deletion is not relevant here, and the nominator here has voted for deletion of the other article. This could be marginally construed as a conflict of interest. The nominator needs more familiarity with "how academia works" particularly as pertains to the field of psychology. Secondary sources would certainly add to the artcle, but are not absolutely necessary for its existence. Further it may be decades after the death of the subject that secondary sources become available in large numbers. Some may exist now and are just not in the list. I certainly wouldn't go out on a limb and claim they don't exist. Further, the non-existence of wiki articles about the referenced journals is also hardly relevant. There are uncountable subjects in very specialized fields that there are no wiki articles on. Authors in specialized fields probably spend a lot more time working in professional, peer reviewed journals than they do writing about journals for wikipedia. As to WP:PROF, an easily applied criteria here is "The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known." Aspenocean 00:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The "prestige" or "notability" of the journals used as references is irrelevant. Uh, it's kinda not, if you're arguing that those publications alone are what make the guy noteworthy. Take for example two fiction writers: one's published about two dozen short stories in Playboy, the New Yorker, GQ, Zoetrope, and similar publications &c. The other has published twice as many stories in local literary zines and college digests with a circulation under 1000. Which one is notable? The mere fact of publication--in any form--does not confer notability. There are clinical psychologists who have written entire books all by themselves, on notable publishers, who are not themselves notable. This guy doesn't even qualify as a wikipedia footnote. Ford MF 16:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment and as far as "how academia works", you can find at least fifty people as notable as this guy teaching at even the crappiest, most podunk college campus. Ford MF 16:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment and since you're bringing up WP:COI (which I think you need to read through more thoroughly if you think voting on two related AfD constitutes conflict of interest), it's worthwhile to point out that this article was created by the same single purpose account as the related article on one of Berger's theories, an editor who has ONLY edited the Berger and Berger-theory article, so I don't think it's totally unreasonable to wonder if this isn't a vanity create by Berger himself. Just because someone says their contributions to the field are "major" doesn't mean anything. Ford MF 16:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also you haven't actually explained what makes this guy any more significant or well known than any other academic in his field. Ford MF 16:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Again, the notability of the references is purely your own opinion. Fiction is not at all the same as non-fiction. Again, just because some other person doesn't have an article here doesn't mean they or this guy shouldn't, and the relative crappiness or podunkness of the institutions they might work for is also irrelevant. And since you want to further comment on WP:COI my exact words were "could be marginally construed as." You are not just a voter, you are the nominator here are you not? Also it is not required for me or anyone else to explain to your satisfaction why this guy is more notable than some person who is not and consequently has no article written about them. The significance of the body of work is self evident. Aspenocean 01:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not saying anyone else's article (or lack thereof) should be used as proof that this guy shouldn't get one, I'm saying if the threshold for professional notability is this low, virtually every aged college professor, from Yale on down to humble CUNY schools, ought to have a wiki article too, which is clearly an absurd statement. Also, Afd is a debate, not a vote or a straw poll, and I'm not aware of any requirement that says I must refrain from participating because the AfD was my idea in the first place. Ford MF 04:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Call it whatever you want; I've made my recommendation on a course of action to be taken and I've given my reasons for it. You may "not saying anyone else's article (or lack thereof) should be used as proof that this guy shouldn't get one," but you keep bringing up other hypothetical subjects for articles in your arguments. It sounds like that's what you're saying in your nomination and several comments including the one above. Afd's don't exist to "set the bar" or create precident. Each one has to be considered individually. Aspenocean 10:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at best gut it until it is little more than a stub. This is little more than a résumé. --mordicai. 15:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a CV designed to create notability and possibly work. It was created by one account, that is traced to Japan, and this guy's practice is in Japan. It is written in similar format and tone to his personal/work page listed as a link. Off topic question, don't biographies usually have a DOB?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.105.113.184 (talk • contribs)

Delete per Mordicai Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 04:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhills Christian Fellowship[edit]

Yes, it's a big church, but it doesn't deserve its own article. The article gives no indication of its having any significance outside of its own affairs. If this were a denomination of this size, it would be otherwise, but independent churches have to be judged somewhat differently, or every single independent church would be sufficiently notable. Nyttend 04:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. No independent published sources. I found no published information about them in OCLC, First Search, Academic Search Premier, EBSCO Religion and Philosophy Collection, or Thomson-Gale Infotrac (all databases). --Bejnar 05:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I hope they keep doing well, but they don't seem to fall into the notability realms, per nominator. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.--Svetovid 15:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't see anything notable. /Blaxthos 16:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A church (or rather network of churches) of 10,000 sounds notable to me, particularly since it is still under 15 years old. The fact that it has not appeared in academic databases prepared in the West proves nothing. It just means that the academics have not thought fit to research it. If there is a problem, it is with the lack of references to external sources, but the solution to that should be to tag it as inadequately referneced. Peterkingiron 23:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, the problem is not that it is inadequately referenced, although that is true, the problem is that it is not notable. The distinction may be subtle. They are not notable because no one in the Philippines (or elsewhere) has seen fit to write about them, other than reprinting a few news releases. Philippine journals are indexed in the sources that I mentioned above as well as a large number of non-academic publications, including titles like Manila Times, Newsbreak, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Philippine Times, Philippines News, Philippines Post, Sun Star, Yehey, Asia Image, Telecom Asia, AsiaLaw, Business Traveller Asia Pacific Pacific Shipper, Christianity Today Anglican Journal, United Church Observer, Presbyterian Record, Catholic New Times, Conscience, Newsweek and USA Today. I pulled up over 300 articles about churches in the Philippines, but nothing on Greenhills Christian Fellowship. Greenhills Christian Fellowship is not a member of the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches, although the Conservative Baptist Association of the Philippines is. The Conservative Baptist Association of the Philippines only mentions Greenhills Christian Fellowship by providing its address as one of the CBAP churches. I don't think that Greenhills Christian Fellowship is significantly independent. --Bejnar 17:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phase 100[edit]

This page appears to be spam. There are no reliable sources from multiple non-trivial sources which would demonstrate notability. JodyB_talk 04:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Products aren't inherently notable. WP:SPAM /Blaxthos 16:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable advertorial. Adrian M. H. 17:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not spam—MXR's been out of business for years. Still, unless the someone were to add considerable content (with sources), there's not much of a point to it. Closenplay 18:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would not hold that guitar pedals are individually notable. The company that made them might be, but given that they are long since extinct even that is debatable. A1octopus 18:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination was not intended to result in deletion. Discussions about what to do with the significant number of stubby Ancient Roman personnages might be a topic for a Wikiproject? Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice 19:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attius Insteius Tertullus[edit]

I'm nominating this not so much I think it should be deleted, but as a way to encourage people to think about an issue this article is only a first example of: articles where there is little hope, as current knowledge stands, that it will ever grow much beyond this brief account.

I won't make any argument about verifiability -- the The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire not only is a reliable source, it is an excellent source. If it states Tertullus existed, then he existed. However, I think the existence of this article does introduce -- but in a new way -- the old, much discredited concept of notability. In the final analysis, this is an orphan article, & probably will never be linked to; all this person truly is known for is a single inscription erected to him in southern Italy, which records some fragments of his life. Are we all comfortable with the creation of thousands of brief articles like this, destined to float forever in that twilight world of stubs, ignored by all except a vandal & whoever happens to discover this vandalism? Or should we draw a line here, & encourage people who write articles like this one to instead merge the content into the relevant article -- unless it can be shown that there is good reason to havea separate article about this person? I'm looking for a discussion here, not a chorus of "I agree, keep/delete". -- llywrch 04:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know anything about this article, but Wikipedia shouldn't be disrupted to make a point. This isn't a valid way of trying to get this message across, regardless of whether such a discussion should be begun. Nyttend 04:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are many people from Antiquity and the Middle Ages who may be known only from a single inscription (how about Narmer - is there more than one?) or a single mention in some document but who still clearly had positions that presumably made them important in their own days. The same thing is very likely true for many more recent individuals from cultures without a written tradition, where the only contemporaneous written sources mentioning the notables of a certain period may come from the notes of European travelers, missionaries or traders. Despite the lack of available sources, I think people like that should be included somewhere. In some cases, it may make more sense to do so in the form of a couple of lines in a list or combined in some article on a larger topic ("Early kings of X") rather than in individual biographical articles, but I still think they should be included. Until such a merger into a larger topic is performed, I see no reason not to keep this as it is. Pharamond 05:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He satisfies WP:BIO. A Roman senator and other notable offices to boot. Clarityfiend 05:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article satisfies WP:BIO, WP:N and WP:RS. As for your other point: I'm looking for a discussion here, not a chorus of "I agree, keep/delete". Sorry pal, this is the Articles for Deletion page, not somewhere to debate unrelated policy issues. This is not the place--or the manner--in which to address your concerns. Ford MF 06:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator admits that this article clearly meets Wikipedia guidelines, as the subject is notable and well sourced, so this nomination appears to be a clear abuse of the AfD procedure. As the nominator seeks opinions about this then here's mine, this is an entirely ridiculous nomination and shouldn't be repeated and the discussion he seeks is pointless and unwelcome here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia unlimited by the constraints of paper so arguing that more obscure items should be deleted or merged en mass is as wrong headed as can be. It's also a slap in the face to the hard working people who create these perfectly reasonable articles in the first place. Nick mallory 07:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as admitted by the nominator. Should be warned about violating WP:POINT, and shouldn't waste our time. :-) /Blaxthos 16:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hasan Kamrul have graduated from Jahangirnagar University in 2007 and secured first class third position in his M.S program on Sedimentalogy & Basin Analysis. After graduation he was joined as a geologist (Operations) in an Australian Company for mineral operations in Bangladesh for commercial views on development. Basically he is a columnist. His write up has been published in national dailies in each month. He writes on Energy & Power sector and other geology related topics like environment, earthquake, sea level rises and its effect etc. He is very innovative person on literature and his first book will publish in this Ekushey Book fair. Several poems and literatic topics has been published in the national dailies on Literature page. He is also a critic person of the politics and literature.

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enhancement Modes in Power Rangers[edit]

Fancruft. This is better suited to a Power Rangers fansite/wiki than to a general encyclopedia. Vassyana 04:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was contacted in the construction of this page and I am appalled at how the page has become. The information on this page is either much better suited for description in the relevant articles or simply something that is not something that its own article (and several redirects) requires.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seriously, is this really encyclopedic? Of course we can have far more articles than paper encyclopedias, but can you imagine an article like this in anything from Britannica to World Book? Nyttend 04:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft. Tim Q. Wells 05:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all this doesn't seem encyclopedic. It should either be deleted or merged. Mattl2001 05:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all above. JJL 17:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of mistakes in Warriors (Book Series)[edit]

This appears to be completely original research (who's to say what is a mistake and what is meant?) and is not very encyclopedic. Metros 03:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. Printing errata? WP:POINT? Ford MF 03:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's also just a list of trivia. Useight 03:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mixture of typos and oversights, at best. If we start admitting articles about trivial errors in printing and filming, where will it end? Deor 04:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really not useful, and it seems to be a collection of indiscriminate information per Metros. Look at the last entry: "no mistakes, because it's not yet published"! Nyttend 04:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encylopedic knowledge nor relevant knowledge. Mattl2001 06:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless trivia. -Tacubus 13:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR (could be userfied). JJL 17:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP is not for lists of errata. IPSOS (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only useful in the parent article, if it is really necessary but not IMO--JForget 01:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivia, original research. Moreschi ^Talk 17:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP IT!!!! It might not be useful, but people sometimes thing its fun to look up mistakes in books. I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.201.18 (talk • contribs)
- Comment Please take a look at WP:ILIKEIT to see why something being "fun" to look up isn't a reason to keep an article. Metros 00:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was was speedy delete Renfrew's Jews as an attack page or at the very least offensive junk. As for Renfrew Museum, I've redirected it to Renfrew, Ontario since it might be used as a search term and I've added it to my watchlist. Pascal.Tesson 05:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renfrew Museum[edit]

While I believe the original creation of this page, as a one-liner by Jethero, to have been in good faith (probably), it still failed WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY. "Renfrew Museum" and "Ontario" yield only 89 unique ghits, most all of them passing mention at best. I say "probably" because the image used to illustrate the article (uploaded by someone else) somehow doesn't even mention that house is a museum? It asserts only that it's a photograph of the "Bonnechere River in Renfrew, Ontario, Canada", which makes me think maybe that's not even an image of the museum. So I think it's worthy of deletion under those criteria already. Additionally, since its creation the article has been beset by a number of editors, both registered and anon, adding patently ridiculous, hoaxy, uncited material, namely the SPA Renfrewash and TheCheat13, whose only edits outside this article have all been vandalism. Mostly the editors have been asserting, without any citation, that the house was built after WWII as the headquarters of the Nazi party in Canada. I suppose crazier things have happened, but this assertion is supported by exactly zero hits on Google, and thus smells like hoax, and one that, via TheCheat13, is spreading. Ford MF 03:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it's an article created by TheCheat13 to support the ridiculous and entirely unsourced assertions in Renfrew Museum:

Speedy delete --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Llama (notable list)[edit]

WP:NOT#IINFO. A new phase of indiscriminate information. Masaruemoto 02:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A llamo list. Clarityfiend 03:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate jumble of info. Ford MF 03:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the original folks who moved it out of the Llama article. I thought it was not good info there but had some merit as a stand alone list. It has not been maintained or policed. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 15:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft. --Korranus 04:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as llamacruft. (Seriously, the article name is not anything that would be searched for, and the "What links here" links are not helpful.) Deor 04:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like it was a trivia section removed from Llama; however, moving it to a separate article just makes it even more trivial. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By the title, it is a list of llamas that is notable. But the paradox is that the list is not notable. This might be able to be merged into Llama under a header for llamas in popular culture, but beyond that, no. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The original edit summary makes it sound like the article was created with content from Llama because editors there agreed that it didn't belong as part of the main article. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then perhaps "Llamas in popular culture" would be an appropriate name for such a list. Even so, I question notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, listcruft. Hut 8.5 09:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could be moved into the Llama article as an "In popular culture" or whatever they are called section, at least some of it. Various bits could be merged into more relevant articles. Matt - TheFearow 10:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic trivia. Popular culture references aren't automatically notable. --Charlene 10:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe we need "Wikipedia:Notability (Llamas)"! Adrian M. H. 17:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Llamas in popular culture and keep DHowell 03:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert Fennelly[edit]

Non-notable effects animator. Has worked for Disney, but so have thousands of other non-notable animators. Article was created by User:Colbertf (the subject). Was prodded for lack of notability two weeks ago but Colbertf removed the prod. Masaruemoto 02:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if created about self and non notable. JoeyETS 02:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn self-created article. Ford MF 03:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN autobio. Adrian M. H. 17:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starcraft II Confirmed Units and Structures[edit]

This article was recently forked off the main Starcraft II article, after the creating editor had content removed per a prior discussion on the talk page. This article is, apparently, supposed to be some kind of list of units and structures in Starcraft II - however, since the game is not out yet, they are only "confirmed" units, so far. However, this is something Wikpedia is not - namely a guide to an unreleased game. Article was previously prodded, but the notice was removed without comment by an anonymous user. Haemo 02:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a crystal ball. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sorry TomStar but even CAPSLOCK will not make this speedy-deletable since it does not match any of the criteria. The article should be deleted of course and I'd be surprised if anyone objects. Pascal.Tesson 03:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal balling article that will become instantly useless once firmer info about the game is available. Ford MF 03:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:NOT, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SNOW. The article is a content fork created expressly because speculation/listcruft of this nature was excised from the parent article. There's not a snowball's chance of this surviving AfD, due to its speculative nature (the units are not "confirmed" by Blizzard, and may not be in the final game) and zero verifiability. -- Kesh 05:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I do not agree speedily of this nomination. Some units and build can be confirmed and verified by seeing StarCraft II's official videos. However the game are still under development and things may be changed drastically, but I do not believe that will happen. Carlosguitar 05:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete* Every unit and building in this list has been confirmed by Blizzard except for the Succubus.

Comment Wikipedia is not a unit list or game guide. It also violates many of wikipedia guidelines. Btw i don't think IP users can vote. You need to register. --SkyWalker 15:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt til we have a full list. I want to see Starcraft 2 as much as anyone, but take the speculation to one of the many many video game forums. --Korranus 06:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOT. Salt to prevent the many recreates i can see from such an article Willow177 13:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt mmmm starcruft. /Blaxthos 16:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete As per above. --SkyWalker 08:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've nothing else to add, I agree with the above. Especially the salt. JMalky 15:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Do we really need to know that stats of every new unit? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information darthsuo 15:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For reasons stated by TomStar81 and Kesh. Dodo48 21:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the units and building info can be built on the facts of blizzard word, videos, starcraft 1 info but renamed to StarCraft II units and buildings Agentheartlesspain 23:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think the information in there should be added to the main article on Starcraft II Observer31 02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note; this material was already extensively discussed on Starcraft II, and roundly rejected as speculative, indiscriminate, and generally un-encyclopedic. This page was created specifically because that material was rejected on the "parent" page, in order to circumvent this consensus. I would strongly oppose any attempt to merge this material to Starcraft II. --Haemo 03:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Adequately covered in StarCraft II, considering the pre-alpha state of the game. Can't have an authoritative list at this point. MrZaius^talk 09:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just keep on updating these info to make it more accurate. 210.213.80.254 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC) — 210.213.80.254 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Accuracy will come in due time. Add links showing where this information comes from. I'd say keep it because a lot of people are starving for accurate information and this is IMHO pretty accurate. jfyelle 16:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC) — jfyelle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep but no Merge There have been many recent contributions to keep this site page very accurate, despite the fact that most of this IS covered on the regular Starcraft II page, this page was just created to help straighten out and organize the Starcraft II stuff since something like this was something the orginal Starcraft game didn't have, mostly because the website covered it all. The page can get a LOT more discriptive later on once more and more units are revealed and confirmed. The page despite having the deletion icon on it has come a long way from when it started off. If the game happens to get sided like Ghost did I dont mind the deletion though. User:Retloc 5:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - It is simply a sorry excuse for a list. Poorly written, no sources, complete Original Research, speculation based on fan sources, repeat of information previously listed, and simply bad grammar + formatting. Putting that aside, the article itself is pointless, and completely violates WP:NOT, WP:CRYSTAL, and possibly WP:TRIVIA. Serves no use whatsoever in an encyclopedia as it cannot be properly sourced. Suited for a fansite, and nothing else. I'm actually surprised this kind of discussion has gone on for so long.....— Floria L 10:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Floria L. I don't disagree with unit lists, but this 1) is speculative, 2) could easily change, 3) information on an unreleased game, and 4) while I don't disagree with unit lists, unit stats for games should be kept for fansites and the official site, even after the game is released. bob rulz 04:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - OR, Fan, Crystal Ball, NOT: Game Guide. --User:Krator (t c) 12:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete we don't have such an article for completed games, why should we have it for games underdevelopment. --Voidvector 02:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold For Swank[edit]

Not finding any reason to believe that this band is notable; quick google search doesn't turn up any third-party sources. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr 13 02:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:BAND. Ford MF 03:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BAND. Completely original research. Most likely WP:COI. --Evb-wiki 05:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Evb's comment. Created by an SPA, so may well be autobio. Adrian M. H. 18:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the rest. Closenplay 18:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G12 Not only not notable but so many advertising links in the article that I think a speedy is order. A1octopus 17:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turn It Up (remix)/Fire It Up[edit]

No indication as to why this is significant or worthy of an article; no sources, no nothing. Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr 13 02:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero assertion of notability, zero sources. Ford MF 03:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. /Blaxthos 16:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 17:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andretti Curse[edit]

Original research. None of the sources talk about the actual topic of a curse. JLaTondre 02:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon's Barno's sources (see below), I now think this could be re-written into a legitimate article. It does need a complete re-write to be based upon sources instead of the current OR. I still question the notability, but I won't argue that point. -- JLaTondre 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Andrettis haven't won the Indy 500 as often as the writer believes they should have. I guess they don't make curses like they used to. Keep. The newspapers have picked up on it, so I guess it's marginally notable. Clarityfiend 02:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:OR. -- MarcoTolo 03:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as original research. What curse? Ford MF 04:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Conditional keep as well, based on the new refs. If the editor integrates the sources listed below and cleans and trims the article, I think it will be sufficient. Ford MF 03:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep potential source is Here. Also, I've heard this term used alot, similar to the curse of the bambino Black Harry 04:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Potential source" as a single posting on a message board? I don't think so. Delete as unreferenced cursecruft. Deor 05:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a google search turns up 44000 hits. Black Harry 17:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it turns up only 649[34]. Searching without the quotes returns many pages that are unrelated to this term. -- JLaTondre 20:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I don't generally use quotes when I do google searches. BH (Talk) 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "potential source" is inappropriate, as is the topic. /Blaxthos 16:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep -- If mainstream media beyond tabloids (cnn, sun herald, etc.) are at least referring to this alleged curse, I would say the concept of the curse is widespread enough to pass notability. Obviously, this is an unscientific concept (and thus can't be proven and is complete fiction, IMHO), so the article needs to be significantly trimmed (read: a lot shorter) and be written from a neutral point of view. Most importantly, it needs to be confined only to what is contained in reliable sources. Clean it up. ;-) /Blaxthos 02:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but put any usable info in the articles of each person. Nunquam Dormio 17:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A largely OR expansion of a theory (if that's the right word) that is common knowledge in motor racing circles, but not generally written about in a non-trivial manner. Yes, Michael Andretti has never won the 500 in x attempts, but this is covered in his and the other Andretti articles. Adrian M. H. 18:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~changed below. The theory is common knowledge in the racing world. Black Harry draws a good comparison to the Curse of the Bambino. I believe that this article could easily be sourced with reliable sources. I don't see why this theory needs to have an article at this time. I will mention this AFD at WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing. Everyone, please refrain from using the insulting "cruft" term as what is cruft to you is probably gold to someone else. Royalbroil 05:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a keep to me. Also should be noted that I'm not a racing fan at all, but I've still heard about this topic. BH (Talk) 05:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Change to Keep based on the length of the Curse of the Bambino article. The Andretti curse is the most notable curse in auto racing (in my opinion). For background, I have been urging contributors (including Barno) to help me get the Mario Andretti article up to "Good Article" status. The curse didn't fit well into Mario's article, and a separate article on the curse seems like a better way to deal with the topic, especially since it involves the whole Andretti family. "Mario is slowing down!" still rings in my ears. Royalbroil 04:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are several articles that should link to this article if it is kept, including several Indy 500 articles, Mario Andretti, Michael Andretti, Jeff Andretti, Marco Andretti and possibly John Andretti. Royalbroil 01:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or, failing that, merge to Mario Andretti, as most publications of this topic focus primarily on him and secondarily on his family. Several references are cited in the article so far (either focusing on this point or mentioning it as more than a passing note), and dozens more books and magazine articles can be found that give it significant coverage. Volume of Google hits isn't a meaningful indicator or notability, but the quality of many of those hits shows it to be widely noted. Barno 17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although it would make an interesting newspaper article, my comment for this is, isn't calling the fortunes of the Andretti families cursed rather POV heavy, as for the fact driver's misfortunes is part of the package in motorsport, witness those who have been competing for years and never seen one single podium finish. Also I don't like the fact this article attempts to say because the rest of the family failing live up to Mario, they are cursed, even in this modern era of tight schedules and watertight contracts which prohibits drivers competing in other series other than the one they are contracted to, its like calling Vanina Ickx cursed because she has not won one single Le Mans 24 hours race unlike the six won by her famous dad, Damon Hill who has only won one F1 title and not three, as well as either the Indy 500 or Le Mans unlike Graham or Kyle Petty because he didn't win one single Winston Cup titles, let alone seven of his father, as well as a long list of racing offsprings who can't live up the name of their famous father. In all this article expects too much out of the Andrettis. Also isn't Marco very much too newish to have this cursed tag written on him. Willirennen 18:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After giving it a thought, I would like to retract my nomination for the fact I have never been familiar with this sporting curse thing, as well as, purely this nomination was made by a non-American, I do understand that this would be an American thing, witnessing the Curse of the Bambino. Willirennen 21:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New sources: Here are some reliable sources, not cited in the article at this time, which feature (not merely mention as a trivium) the Andretti curse by that name: Chicago Tribune article [35]; Cincinnati Enquirer article [36]; CNNSI.com [37];South Florida Sun-Sentinel [38]; Newton Daily News [39]. This should be sufficient to refute the claims of "original research" and "sources don't support the topic". Previous !voters should review and reconsider, please. Also, some comments have said (perhaps reading only the article's first paragraph which doesn't make the point, or reading the full article which needs to make it more clearly) that merely "not winning" is unremarkable. In fact, several of these Indy 500s were lost when Mario was leading in the final laps and a small part broke, and Marco lost the lead on the final straightaway. Many of these were with cars and teams so good that experts gave Mario a 20% chance of winning (when three percent would be expected in a 33-car starting field). This is the most noted "curse" or "repeated heartbreak" in motorsports, far more notable than, for example, "Mark Martin drove for Roush for umpteen years without quite winning a NEXTEL Cup championship." Barno 00:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, with these new refs, I think the entry is redeemable - but it needs some significant work to remove OR and POV problems in addition to legitimate citation and general cleanup issues. Changing recommendation to a cautious keep. -- MarcoTolo 00:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that editing is needed for these reasons and to clarify the basic premise. If kept, I will work with the article's creator Afterburner33 and with Royalbroil (who is working on Andretti articles) to address these concerns. Barno 00:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The true nature of the concept is loss of Indianapolis 500 races that the multiple Andrettis in question "by rights should have won." Given that that identifies a rather large quantity of possible theorizations, the "actual examples" would be leading an excess of 85% of all laps the given Andretti ran in whatever year, before retiring with 50 or less miles remaining (1987, Mario; 1992, Michael), retiring from a 500 while leading (1989, 1995 and 2003, Michael in all three cases), having the race briefly be given to you by official decision but later having it taken back (the special, and "dirty," 1981 situation, Mario), or being passed for the lead and ostensibly win in the latter stages of the event (1985 and 1993, Mario; 1991, Michael; final straightaway, 2006, Marco). Such moments are in turn similar to what happened to Earnhardt at Daytona in the 1990s. As soon as an Andretti actually wins in such fashion instead of loses, the information should be merged into the articles on the drivers themselves, and this article dissolved. --Chr.K. 04:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an Andretti racing family article, or the Indy 500 article. 132.205.44.134 23:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object to merging this into the Indy 500 article because I think that curses, rivalries, etc. should not be placed in the article about a race. What precedents are there for racing family articles? Royalbroil 03:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't all that many racing families that I can think of... so if you look at instead the profession-family article, and there are several for politics. ...Racing families... Brabham (size: 3 people)? Unser (3)? Petty (4)? Villeneuve (3)? Allison (3)? (assuming size greater than 2) 132.205.44.134 21:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am impressed with your knowledge about racing. I can think of several more racing families, but that's not my point. I don't know any racing families that have a family article (besides some grouped as a family on disambiguation pages). I remember seeing discussions on XfDs where family categories and articles were deleted. Some of these discussions were about racing families such as the Wallaces and Earnhardts in NASCAR. Royalbroil 01:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but don't merge it to Indy 500 as that curse could possibly extend to the 24 Hours of Le Mans which is worth mentioning, between his comeback attempt in 1995which , which he achieved 2nd place to his final attempt in 2000, Mario failed to achieve his dream of winning the race and also that infamous 1982 DNS by him and Michael which I have the source article and will add on soon, thats if you don't mind having this article to stray away from being Indy-centric. Willirennen 00:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have only heard the Andretti curse applied to Indy, but it is possible that it may have been extended to his futility at Le Mans. Mario raced several years at Le Mans after his retirement in an attempt to put a win at another major race on his resume. Use your best judgement. Royalbroil 01:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Manning and Evangeline Williamson[edit]

Strong Delete. Duplicate article created to circumvent the potential deletion of another (Tangeline) of the same intent. —WikiTweak 02:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also strong delete. Content fork of an article which seems headed for deletion anyway. Ford MF 04:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above. Maxa megalon 2000 05:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Soap Opera Guide. At least we're not being called 'racist' in this one. DarkAudit 13:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - closing admin should discuss re-creation/bad faith with the creator. /Blaxthos 16:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with everyone else. Dixonsej 18:19 2 June 2007
Delete. Soap opera characters are not innately less notable than Pokemon, Star Trek, or other characters simply because they're popular with a section of society that doesn't often edit Wikipedia, but I don't see any reliable non-trivial independent third-party references to this supposed "supercouple". --Charlene 10:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Article is attempt to circumvent deletion of another article with same content. --Wingsandsword 13:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is all this? I created this because of you so please don't turn it around and be rude, thank you!--Migospia †♥ 03:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC) You guys say one thing and then do something else, not nice! =/--Migospia †♥ 04:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please get over yourself You do not own either article. The creation of this article was not necessarily in good faith, because it's a copy-and-paste job of the other article also up for deletion. The article could have, and probably should have, been speedy deleted for that reason alone. DarkAudit 04:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please I do not like being treated the way you treat me so please just learn to deal and play nice, did I ever said I owned the article no? And how was the article not created in good faith? Because it was, how dare you assume what is good faith or not, to me a lot of people like this couple and I after seeing other soap couple pages on here I thought this would be perfect for Todd and Evangeline, I did work hard on the article and you make it seem like I am the only one in the world that wants this article and etc which is not true, I would never make a page just for me or not to be a good reference source or encyclopedic article for other peoples viewing that is not what wikipeida is to me so please don't accuse me of this you don't have to try and start fights and hurt peoples feelings all the time you know you can try, I mean come on at least TRY to be polite, assume good faith, be welcoming, not to personally attack, show etiquette, don't be a dick, but also importantly please show WikiLove! and but I really do not have to explain myself to you because you are VERY rude and mean and I do not want to have to talk to people that talk to me the way you do

And yes of course this was a copy and paste job but with editing for the Tangeline article I did it because WikiTweak stated that in the Tangeline article and so reading with the deletion process, I changed the name-“Tangeline” is a fan base tagging; - So with reading the deletion steps and that being at the time the only reason I thought what I did was good and out of good faith. But please when you go to deletion debates and delete articles or wherever try, at least try not to keep insulting them and belittling them, focus on the deletion article and facts surrounding. but its over its going to be deleted so please stop trying to accuse me and none things --Migospia †♥ 05:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Stop it. I warned you in the other AfD not to make accusations of racism. You did not, and then tried to claim that you weren't. You purposely tried to circumvent Wikipedia policy by posting two copies of the same article. And then you continue to throw a tantrum over what you still seem to consider to be 'your' article. I am not trying to be purposefully mean, but I have to be blunt. You created an article of questionable merit, compounded that by copying it, threw around very serious accusations at other editors, and still seemingly refuse to take responsibility for your own behavior. You need to calm down and realize that having articles go through the wringer is part of being a contributor to Wikipedia. They can't all be gems. This isn't a gem. DarkAudit 00:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be created if people really think it's useful. W.marsh 17:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Hobo[edit]

A non-notable comic strip that ran in the school newspaper of Murray State University. Was previously nominated for deletion over a year ago, where the result was no consensus, although the only "keep" argument then was that "all factual information needs to be represented" (?!). Tagged for lack of sources over a year ago; still none added, so time for deletion. Masaruemoto 01:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A university strip that led to two animated TV episodes that aired exactly once? nn with or without sources. Clarityfiend 02:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion made on the old AfD seems the most sensible to me: "Merge and redirect to Murray State University. A small blurb on it in the Publications section, with an external link to a place for more info on the series, would be sufficient." Ford MF 04:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either Delete or Redirect to university page, weakly toward redirecting. Nyttend 04:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaka122 20:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC) It should be integrated into the publications section of the Murray State University page and then the page should be deleted.[reply]

Redirect and merge anything that turns out to be verifiable. Adrian M. H. 18:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Integrate and delete per Yamaka122. Closenplay 20:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Verifiable sources are severely lacking, and probably won't be found for this topic. Even if so, I do not feel this should be integrated or retained because it is not necessarily noteworthy for Wikipedia. --Antcjone 21:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need to redirect (filling student newspaper articles with information on non-notable student comics is a bad idea). --Dragonfiend 05:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misanthropology[edit]

Entirely OR -- no basis for any of the claims made in the article--it is entirely an obscure neologism, not a real area of scientific study Nick^talk 01:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete As per a nominator. The "study" of misanthropology does not exist. It isn't entirely OR because it is mostly based upon one clever usage of the term by a literary critic in a journal essay from 1996. It still isn't notable in the least, and if one googles the term several different "clever usages" come up and none of them have any serious relevance to the social sciences even though the entry creator keeps linking the entry to others like Psychology, and Sociology.PelleSmith 01:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nick and PelleSmith. Ford MF 04:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PelleSmith. The term seems to be more of a sniglet. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per above, I am not sure a literary journal is a valid source to cite the for an anthropological field. --Infrangible 13:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whilst I do not have access to the literary journal article myself, the terminology does seem to be somewhat of a neologism. Furthermore, it seems that the references given are not sufficient to justify this as anything but original research. I was also unable to find any serious reliable sources for such a "proposed study" when trawling through the Google results. Will (aka Wimt) 02:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on my experience in the field, and a google search just to be sure, I can't find any evidence that the Carpenter book the author cited led to (or reflects) any widespread use of this term in anthropology, either. WP:NOR, WP:NOTE. Zenauberon 05:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music featured on Nip/Tuck[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Music featured on Nip/Tuck

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics. The songs have nothing in common beyond happening to have been played on an episode of a TV show. As with similar lists for shows including The US and UK versions of The Office, Skins, and others, this should be deleted. Otto4711 01:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's very difficult to get more loosely associated than being background in the same television series. --Haemo 02:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly indiscriminate listification. Ford MF 04:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless listcruft based on a loose association. Strives for inferred notability, which doesn't cut it for me. Adrian M. H. 18:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text KEEP: This list was useful and it hurt nobody by being there. Why not put it back?

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

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

The result was a clear consensus to merge, so please be bold and do so. This is not a binding result, nor does it require an AFD nomination. — CharlotteWebb 02:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joker (1989 Batman character)[edit]

There are two articles about this character

The Joker is one of the most popular Batman villains, but there are two articles about this character: one refered to the comic incarnation, and the another one is about the Joker depicted in Batman.

Merge Joker (1989 Batman character) needs to be merged to Joker (comics). His info must be incorporated to the Batman (1989 section) of Joker (comics). David Pro 00:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge making two articles about a same fictional character is not good. David Pro 00:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, I assume you didn't mean to "vote" twice. --GentlemanGhost 19:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Information about the character should go into Joker (comics) and information about casting, production, etc. should go into Batman (1989 film). (The little tidbit about Nicholson's character being one of the AFI's "50 greatest villains" should probably go into both.) --Hnsampat 01:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as mentioned above. Useight 03:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, wha-- There are two articles? That's a terrible idea. Merge. Ford MF 04:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Yeah, there are continuity divergences between the movie Joker and all the other Jokers in the comics and on TV, but that doesn't mean it rates a separate article. --Dhartung | Talk 07:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They're not the same, the 1989 article discusses the notable peculiarities of the Nicholson character. If this is deleted, the important paragraph "Characterization" and the included parallels with Francis Bacon and the Futurist Manifesto, would be lost.--BMF81 17:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That "Characterization" paragraph sounds like original research, as it speculates upon hidden meanings, personality traits, and psychoanalysis within the Joker character. It might not be, as sources are cited, but it's difficult to verify those sources given that, even though this is the English Wikipedia, all the sources are in Italian. All of the other paragraphs are either already covered in Joker (comics) or Batman (1989 film) or are pure plot summary. We don't need a separate article here and Wikipedia is not the place for people to post their own psychoanalyses of The Joker. --Hnsampat 18:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information to Joker (comics). --GentlemanGhost 19:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per the precursor discussion at Talk:Joker (comics)#Merge of Joker (1989 Batman character), Merging this article in with other information is desirable, but an alternate destination article is suggested due to the file size of Joker (comics). - J Greb 20:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and gut. This is way too much content to merge into an already lengthy article. Doczilla 23:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as many suggests, seperate it in sub-sections per the years of movie
Merge anything new that isn't OR into the main Joker article. There's no need for this version to have a separate article when none of the other adaptations of the character have articles. Plus this sets a bad precedent that could result in more "split" articles. 23skidoo 02:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Joker (comics) & Batman (1989 film) per User:Hnsampat. At some point, relentless subdivision starts hurting articles: you are looking at it. --mordicai. 15:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 18:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Nevzorov[edit]

Russian politician, member of the state Duma, it says, and founder of a school or horsemanship. Only trouble is, it's unsourced. Also a near orphan (Tambov Gang links to it). We're short of articles on the Russian Federation, certainly, but what's the use of this? I suggest that this article either be properly sourced, and stubbed down to what is sourced, or else deleted. --Tony Sidaway 01:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a deputy in Russia's state Duma (equivalent of parliament), he is notable per WP:BIO. Couldn't find very many decent references of him in English; there's however a ton of them in Russian, e.g. [40] ikh (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the trouble, I suppose. We could stub it right down to "he's a deputy in the Duma" but then perhaps we should just have a list article with the names of all the deputies.

I've listed it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia in the hope of getting more input. --Tony Sidaway 02:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd better post it to Portal:Russia/New article announcements. But as far as I can see, you get enough input here. I would consider unilateral trimming of this article by you highly inappropriate, although I think that third party sources should be used here rather than Nevzorov's own website, and I have changed the article accordingly. Colchicum 11:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article is a summary of the official biography at the school he founded, I changed the link directly to the biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ikh. Nick mallory 02:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, even if English language sourcing is problematic for now. Ford MF 04:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs better sources, but the guy is (or used to be) far more notable than the article suggests (e.g. "A staunch monarchist, in 1991 Nevzorov was second only to Boris Yel'tsin in Russian popularity polls." [41]). His program "600 seconds" has a rightful place in the history of Russian media. Stammer 04:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC) He was a pretty rabid anti-Semite too, as far as I remember. Hopefully he has calmed down. Stammer 05:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.He is well known in Russia TV personality and journalist.Biophys 05:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ikh and Stammer. Maxa megalon 2000 05:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Funny how people post articles for deletion due to the lack of sources. The guy used to be quite famous in Russia. Nowadays, you won't hear a thing about him, not sure why. KNewman 06:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately if there are no sources there's nothing reliable to write about him. Unless we get more sources, I'll have to stub this right down to "Russian Deputy" or something. --Tony Sidaway 10:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So 8 editors (so far) think it should be kept as it is but you think all the content should be removed anyway, despite it having over a dozen sources in English and Russian? Nick mallory 11:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of airport circulators[edit]

The article is very unorganized should be replaced by a category list. Each "airport circulator" system has its own article already, therefore the tables and details on this page are unnecessary. –Dream out loud 00:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually I think a list is more useful than a category here, if only as a repository of info and redlinks for the circulators that do not already have their own articles (and maybe don't deserve them). Without the list, those not notable enough for their own articles vanish. Ford MF 04:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (categorize) No need to have a list when each individual circulator has an article. Categorize. /Blaxthos 17:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think you need to look more closely at the article. Each airport has its own article, but that's not what's being listed. It's a list of airport circulators, the transit systems, only about half of which have their own articles. Ford MF 17:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since not every circulator has an article. --NE2 18:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What's up with all the list-haters? --Nricardo 22:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while there are still red links then convert to category. However, one might question whether the "airport circulators are indeed notable, as distinct from the airports they serve; if they are not, then the redlinks can be converted to links back to the parent airport and the article deleted. On the other hand, even airport circulator is a red link. Perhaps this article should be moved to become that (missing) article. Peterkingiron 23:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename as airport circulator and tranform into a proper article.
- This article does not explain what an airport circulator is. Until that is first done, the list is meaningless. Are a Moving walkway, Escalator, lift or the bus that takes you to the plane airport circulators? TiffaF 06:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Crossing Friends[edit]

Article about a club or group that does not assert significance. Additionally, not written with citations or in an encyclopedic manner. HeartiesYo 00:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. CSD A7 and so tagged. Mwelch 01:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Delete. Peacent 06:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References and Similarities within Pirates of the Caribbean Films[edit]

I'm as big a fan of Pirates of the Caribbean as anyone, but this article is the very definition of fancruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, no matter how nifty that information is to us fans. The timing of this article's creation is also rather curious, as I truly doubt this information would be considered noteworthy in its own right if the movie trilogy were not particularly popular right now due to the recent release of PotC3. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keel-haul (i.e. DELETE) - This is not only totally indiscriminate and unorganized, but is 100% fancruft original research. Arrrrrrgh, make this one walk the plank, matey! --Hnsampat 01:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Pirates of the Caribbean films or the specific movie articles, and either delete or redirect this page. ikh (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Avast, ye swabs!...er, Delete as fancruft. Eddie.willers 02:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pirates of the Caribbean films, perhaps as a new "trivia" section? INBN 02:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Walk thee Plank as per ye olde tome of what this 'ere encyclopedia is nary to include. Yarrr! --Haemo 02:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no merge; original research is original research, whether it's in its own article or part of another. Masaruemoto 03:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR, listcruft. -- MarcoTolo 03:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR, without any kooky pirate jargon. Ford MF 04:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, cruft, etc. Maxa megalon 2000 05:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the Pirates Wikia, where this belongs and will find an audience. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom-—arf! 07:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Lmblackjack21 10:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and trivia. Much better to do a quality version of Recurring themes in Pirates of the Caribbean films. Alientraveller 14:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is not in any sense encyclopedic content. It is only a compilation of personal observations, which constitutes original research. Save nothing, either. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Harrrr as fancruft Martijn Hoekstra 16:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft like this makes me wish we had an appropriate CSD. /Blaxthos
- I understand the sentiment... I wouldn't go so far as to say it's worty of CSD, but I definitely wish that the whole "anyone can remove a prod for any or no reason at all, and it can never be replaced" thing was changed so at very least, removal by an anonymous IP with no other edits and no edit summary given wouldn't count! That's exactly what happened here. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 17:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yo Ho Ho - Delete I agree with Cap'n Blaxthos. JodyB_talk 17:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I think this article should be merged into the main article of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End.12.192.135.136 18:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arrrr, Delete, me hearties -- there be no reason to keep it. (Yes, that be lame pirate speak.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deep-Six or Commandeer (delete or merge) This thing is fun, but not quite up to wiki's standard.Darkfrog24 02:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
stab it all we need now is krimpet to close it, and then it'll be a laugh fest. Whs itc hy 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Flood[edit]

Delete - a previous round of AFDs tended to establish that WWTBAM contestants are not notable for having won a million dollars unless they are the first of a particular series to do so. Additionally, the obsessive level of detail of his appearance brings this very close to if not over the line of point seven of WP:NOT#IINFO. Otto4711 00:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Flood's win was significant in the Australian series' history. Channel 9 slur campaign makes Flood's win notable. The sequence of questions is of interest in the context of quiz shows with major prizes. Point seven of WP:NOT#IINFO refers to works of fiction and is irrelevant. Grimhim 01:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-fiction items can certainly have plot summaries written about them, and as such are subject to the same policies as any other plot summary. Otto4711 02:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Apart from being on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, he was also the star of another quiz show called the Master on Channel 7. [42]

The stuff about the questions that he answered can go. Capitalistroadster 02:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been referenced and cleaned-up. Recurring dreams 03:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable enough with the references already in place. Ford MF 04:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tendencies of other AfD don't really establish anything. Even if you listed all million dollar winners in this series how many would there be? A tiny number compared to the number of people who participate. He is particularly notable because of the documented public controversy over allegations of cheating remeniscent of quiz show cheat Charles Ingram. No detail needs to be removed from this article. It is well formed, and the argument in the nomination as to "point seven" of WP:NOT#IINFO does not apply here. Non-fiction doesn't have a plots or plot summaries, only facts and summaries thereof. Aspenocean 02:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like the idea of precedents - if he's notable on his own merits and the article meets basic Wikipedia criteria, the article stays. Orderinchaos 03:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely a non-notable game show contestant. He appeared on the show and he won; end of story. All content in this article would be better placed in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? or The Master (Australian quiz show). What next, a controversial contestant on Bert's Family Feud? -- Mattinbgn/^talk 07:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it is worth, this article - Rob "Coach" Fulton - was for reasons that escape me kept per this discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob "Coach" Fulton. Its a quiz show, not a Nobel prize! -- Mattinbgn/^talk 07:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as much as I think being the victim of one of Australia's "current affairs" programmes isn't something particularly unusual, I think that that added to the fact he was the star of "The Master" (not a contestant, but the star), is good enough. Lankiveil 09:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, although I think all the references are really about the shows he was on at the time, rather than being about Flood.Ga rr ie 21:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it were just the WWTBAM win, I'd tend towards deletion, but as the star of The Master? That makes him certainly notable enough. --Canley 01:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per ors. I have to go with the crowd on this one, two significant involvments with two shows, well documented, supported by WP:RS, and it meets WP:BLP. I can see no valid justification for this article being deleted. Thewinchester ^(talk) 02:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable per WP:BIO re The Master. Orderinchaos 03:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Australia has only two winners according to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?; I see no reason why we should be deleting well sourced material about a contestant who set about winning the show. He has been interviewed on TV many times since due to his efforts. John Vandenberg 23:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy KeepPer Thy Master Savin Me 05:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is winning one million dollars on a game show any more notable than winning a lottery? -- Mattinbgn/^talk 06:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is how. I cant speak for other countries, but in Australia it is very rare for someone to be able to win this game due to its difficulty. It requires skill to even reach the last few questions, and IMO winning can be roughly compared to winning a national championship of some sort (cant quite think of the correct "sport"; something along the lines of Chess or Go). John Vandenberg 08:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: notable contestant in the show, only the second millionaire in Australia, plus another notable role in The Master. RaNdOm26 10:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I went ahead and boldly Redirected to List of minor characters of Scrubs, so there's no real reason to keep the discussion open. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Tracy (Scrubs)[edit]

A minor character on Scrubs. Her mention in List of minor characters of Scrubs pretty much covers all we know about the subject. Gpollock 02:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable minor character. --Hnsampat 02:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn character article that breaks NPOV. INBN 02:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. -- MarcoTolo 03:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Her reference on the list is sufficient. Ford MF 04:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant with the list. Fails to show that she's notable enough for her own article. Charlie 04:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly redirect to the list article. No need for an AFD when a redirect will do. Otto4711 14:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bold redirect made; shall we close the AfD now? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already on minor characters page--Jac16888 14:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Core Issue-Defense Paradigm[edit]

This looks like either a original analysis essay or a novel synthesis. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The content needs trimming down, but the work seems to be based on an article published in the Psychiatric Times along with some additional material from a self-published document by the same author, which (as it was written by a previously-published professional researcher) is also a reliable source. JulesH 21:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 03:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. It seems all mentions of this "paradigm" are from a single author, David Berger, and his website JapanPsychiatrist.com. Article was created and written pretty much exclusively by Menicos, a single-purpose account whose only edits are this article and the creation and editing of the Douglas Berger article (which I think also requires deletion). The previously mentioned Psychiatric Times article, also written by Berger, which is the only non-trivial, non-self-published source given, contains some of the same ideas but in no way mentions anything called "Core Issue-Defense Paradigm" or similar. Ford MF 04:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, a psych theory needs to be used and cited by others to be notable. This isn't. --Bejnar 05:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fordmadoxfraud. Recreate if it ends up being used by others. JJL 17:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A decent article on a contemporary psychological theory. Very much in line with other contemporary theories. The single-purpose account argument can hardly be relavent here and does not assume good faith. 'Psychiatric Times' is not a vehicle for self-publishing by Berger. Journals in the field of psychology are generally peer reviewed, and articles included in them are not there for the same reasons that an article might show up in something like 'The Enquirer' or 'Cosmopolitan'. If a psychological theory needed to be cited by others to be notable we would know almost nothing in the field of psychology. Theories are usually named by the person writing the initial articles, and are then discussed by professionals and used as the basis of other theories. Most of psychology is theoretical, and practitioners have to apply theory on a case by case basis as seems useful at the time. Doesn't need trimming. More likely it needs more wiki or web links to other theories so people will better understand it in context. Aspenocean 23:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't say the Psychiatric Times article was self-publishing, I said it does not EVEN ONCE mention "Core Issue-Defense Paradigm". It's not a real citation. Ford MF 16:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. As far as your suggestion of "more wiki"...well, "Core Issue-Defense Paradigm" yields only ten unique ghits: one is wikipedia, the other nine are either self-published on Berger's website, mirrors of that site, and the home pages of the place Berger works at. Linking it to other theories when there are no secondary sources to base that on is clearly original research. Ford MF 16:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment An article doesn't have to mention a theory by name to provide background to the concepts leading to the formation of that theory. It is a real reference. The number of google hits isn't terribly important, particularly in such a specialized field. As I said before, these things show up in professional, peer reviewed journals. The two other references listed were not written by Berger and are not trivial. Aspenocean 00:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Further See Also sections that relate to the article are not original research, and I don't think articles should be re-listed for deletion when they have not been voted for deletion in a previous nomination as this one has. Aspenocean 01:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two other non-trival works cited do not mention the "Core Issue-Defense Paradigm". This article is an attempt to create a label for a pre-existing body of work which already has more than enough labels. --Bejnar 20:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seán Mac Falls[edit]

A rather uncritical piece by an an on with no other contributions - in other words, almost certainly an autobiography. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tag for POV cleanup. Pushcart Prize nominees are notable. Has had work published & reviewed in multiple reliable sources. See the link to the Amazon review page [43] deleted by the nominator immediately prior to nomination for excerpts of reviews from the Sunday Times and Harold Bloom. Seems to meet any reasonable definition of notable. JulesH 21:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 03:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, as per JulesH. Ford MF 04:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus and improvement. Peacent 16:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playground song[edit]

A playground song is - wait for it, this is a real revelation - a song sung in the playground. Add a bit of original research ad personal opinion, and hey presto! an article. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, doesn't look like it could be sourced easily. JulesH 21:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. Do we have a category about "children's folklore" or something like that? I believe this sort of thing could be sourced. --Metropolitan90 23:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is certainly stubby in its current form, and a better title might be found, but the topic is undoubtedly encyclopedic. With some judicious cleanup and expansion, including a good bibliography of relevant studies—like Iona and Peter Opie's classic The Lore and Language of Schoolchildren—it could be a good article that might spawn an interesting set of related articles (parallel to the ones already included under "Examples"). Deor 14:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 03:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Deor beat me to referencing the Opies' wonderful Lore and Language. The article's not great now, but I do think there's room to grow here and a genuine child-folklore article might emerge. Ford MF 04:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly legitimate topic which needs expanding, especially as there may well be songs, playgrounds and even children outside America...I did some research, found there are children outside America and added some famous British playground songs. Nick mallory 08:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could do with a bit of wikifying, the lead is pretty long, but is a decent article on a noteworthy topic - I remember half those songs from when I was younger. Matt - TheFearow 10:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course, clean-up would be nice but there is potential. Perhaps include a listing, or examples? I think a second on paragraph on paodies should be expanded because it is unique to this topic outside of the songs being found elsewhere. Jakerforever 14:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 17:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zain Mahmood[edit]

Article does not establish notability of subject, beyond two movies that he wrote. No references or sources, no biographical information beyond year of death and how he died. Ozgod 04:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His work is mentioned in Malaysian Cinema, Asian Film: Border Crossings and National Cultures and more sources for the films have been added. A tag asking for sourcing or, gasp, looking for a source or two yourself might have been more appropriate. Nick mallory 07:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When running Zain Mahmood through Google I only recieved ninety results [44], including other people with that name. The article makes no assertion to his notability beyond the four films he has directed. Being mentioned in a book does not always constitute notability. Had he had a section or two, or a mini-autobiography, that could be a foundation for an article. Being mentioned in two notes on a film and having a listing on IMDB is, arguably, not enough for notability. --Ozgod 12:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Marginal notability; where is the non-trivial coverage? Adrian M. H. 18:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm inclined to enforce the notability guidelines less vigorously with these types of articles where english language sources are harder to come by. He was involved with several significant Malaysian movies, including one that that was banned by the government. So, I have to believe sufficient sources exist - even if we can't get to them with a google search. What we do have is well sourced, so no policies are violated.--Kubigula (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Merge still possible as an editorial decision, of course. W.marsh 17:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFRE-FM[edit]

This is a campus radio station. I can't find any evidence of non-trivial coverage of it outside its own university. Suggest merge to the university, or transwiki to the student union website. Virtually all of this is generic, indistinguishable from any other campus radio station. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep FCC-licensed stations in the US are generally considered notable when listed by their call letters. I don't know if the same would apply to Canadian stations, however. DarkAudit 13:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it is a licensed broadcasting station (see Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission), then it is automatically notable. The station has notable alumni. The radio station is a separate corporation from the student union for a number of reasons. --Eastmain 16:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete aricle states that the station is only 1 watt, with that low power the station would not be able to be heard much off campus.--Tdl1060 17:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the university. The article claims they received a government license in 1970, but a search of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission website only turned up reference to an unrelated TV station with those call letters, CFRE-TV (IND) Regina, Saskatchewan [45]. The Canadian government does license low power FM stations for local communities, so it is not impossible that they were given and do have some sort of license, but it would be up to a proponent of keeping the article to find it and add a reference. Edison 23:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, or merge and redirect to University of Toronto at Mississauga. Even if not licensed, the existence of two notable alumni helps to bolster a claim of notability. Non-trivial independent sources seem to be lacking be on the internet, but given that much of the notability for this station would have been established in the 1970s, I think it is likely that off-line sources could be found. DHowell 02:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, a a Google books search reveals that this station was listed in 1985 and 1987 in the Canadian Almanac & Directory. DHowell 02:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. --JJay 02:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Eastmain I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that - I've never seen anything that says that - but then again I don't read too much about radio guidelines. That being said, it does fail the basic notability principles - so here a merge is the best option.--daniel folsom 02:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per EverybodyHatesChris 02:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per what?--daniel folsom 21:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

^{Superscript text}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Cronenberg's Wife[edit]

Reposted article about an "anti-folk" band, by a single-purpose account. Now, folk bands are pretty close to invisible on the Interwebs and don't get a whole lot of attention in the music press either. Apparently there are 22 listeners to this on last.fm. Sounds like vanispamcruftisement to me. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Fails WP:BAND. Closenplay 13:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 17:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND by some considerable margin. Adrian M. H. 18:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Keys (Killingholme)[edit]

Article does not assert notability of pub, despite having been tagged and the author notified. Looks like a nice enough place, but not especially notable. (Author disagrees here, I have asked him to contribute to this discussion). Fourohfour 13:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The establishment is the only public house in the area of Killingholme. That makes it sufficently notable, in my opinion. However, should this article be deleted, the category of 'Pubblic Houses in Lincolnshire', as well as all of its contents needs to be removed. One of my main reasons for starting this article was to try and expand upon a category. TomGreen 13:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Numerous pubs (indeed, probably the vast majority of village pubs) are the only ones in their area. That does not make them notable. Reasons a pub might be notable would include: significant historical associations; architectural significance; 'extremes' (e.g. the biggest, smallest, oldest, etc.). Barnabypage 11:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertions of notability. --Javit 10:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vorlin[edit]

An international auxilary language that does not meet the notability guideline. All references in the article are self-published. Although the article attempts to assert notability by noting the author of the language was the editor of a journal, the journal is almost completely ignored by academics (3 ghits on the title among edu sites). [46]

The best reference to either the journal or the language that I could come up with is from the journal Language Problems & Language Planning, Volume 27, Number 2, 2003, pp. 155-192. Three lines in a 38-page paper describing scholarly resources in interlinguistics say:

From the newsletter published in 1991 on the project for a planned language called Vorlin by Richard Harrison (Orlando, USA), the Journal of Planned Languages was born. From 1992 to 1996 some 24 issues appeared.

This reference is not enough to pass WP:N. Delete Aagtbdfoua 14:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A couple other comments. First, note that articles archived from the "Journal of Planned Languages" are archived at www.rickharrison.com, which emphasizes the self-published nature of these sources. Second, this article has been previously prodded and recreated. - Aagtbdfoua 14:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Nonnotable made up language. Lacks references showing it is of significance to other than the creator of it. Edison 17:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AFD tag did not appear to have been placed on article itself; I have done this now. (Note: I am *not* the nominator). Fourohfour 18:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Thanks for catching that. - Aagtbdfoua 19:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. The whole project has the air of self-publication. This article was deleted by prod in January 2007 and then re-created. EdJohnston 20:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No nontrivial mention in reliable third-party sources to establish notability. -- Schaefer (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Information System[edit]

Unreferenced since June of 2006. Also marked as an orphan since October. I think it is an odd-ball term that should probably be a redirect to some other page, but I don't know exactly which one. BirgitteSB 16:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect somewhere per nom. JJL 17:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think there's anywhere good to redirect it to, because the term could be used for so many different things. JulesH

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

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

The result was: This was a talk page moved into article space. I have moved it back where it belongs and redirected "Children's Authors" to Children's literature. Punkmorten 17:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Authors[edit]

This doesn't appear to be an article at all. I'm running through AfD rather than other processes because of the template that claims there has been an AfD. Erechtheus 16:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per WP:SNOW. As indicated, it isn't even an article. I assume it was made in error somehow. I don't see the need for a separate article on children's authors in any event--there is already Children's literature. JJL 17:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus - Keep. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lúpin[edit]

Apparently there isn't a nerd in Argentina who has not heard of this, and there is a handy link if you want to buy it. What there is not, is a reliable independent source. Guy (Help!) 19:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I smell a hoax -- I'm quite fluent in Spanish, and I doubt that "Lúpin" is really Spanish for "looping" (unless it's some sort of weird Argentine slang -- Argentinian Spanish is bizarre). Either way, the lack of reliable sources is telling. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above and the nom. When you think about it, the article probably also befits the non-notable criteria as well. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 23:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You folks are confusing me. The subject is clearly not a hoax, as the link to its page attests. I presume it's as notable as any other comic. When an article on a real and notable subject has flaws in tone, sources, etc., I'd say the solution is to clean it up or ask for a clean-up, not suggest deletion.

I'm working on other things at the moment, but I've found a neutral source (in Spanish) that backs up some of the statements in the article. When I get a chance, I'll revise it (if no one else has). I'm sure all the above responders understand this, as you also had things to do instead of improving the article yourselves.

By the way, the article says Lúpin "is 'looping' spelled in Spanish", not translated into Spanish. —JerryFriedman 02:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has some sources now. —JerryFriedman 04:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Forty years old. Notable within its national nerd & pilot community. --Nricardo 22:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least as notable as several other publications in Wikipedia. --Mariano(t/c) 13:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A 40-year old comic is notable in its age, also external reports are very likely to exist, if only to commemorate their anniversary.--Kylohk 12:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep using POPUPS! (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) Yechiel Man 07:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Srikeit 09:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Hopley[edit]

Wikinews is that way. Tis is a news story masquerading as a biography, with the clear intent of promoting a racist political party's agenda. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - the article needs to establish notability; being victim of an unsolved murder is not enough. But if it could be expanded to demonstrate the notability of the murder (which presumably is the only notable thing about the individual), it should certainly be kept. Barnabypage 20:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Victim of a notable murder [47].Romper 22:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - racist attack and murder, similar to S.Lawrence and A.Walker killing, ignored by the national media:

'Racist attack' victim critical

The hidden white victims of racism (The Times)

An extensive search of national and regional newspaper reports, however, shows that cases involving black and minority ethnic victims are widely reported, while there is an almost total boycott of stories involving the white victims of similar attacks.

Tottenhamlad 22:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason not to have this article; it meets the requirements at WP:N, although it should probably be renamed Murder of Gavin Hopley. BNP reaction stuff should be removed unless it can be sourced to secondary sources, but the sources above are ample for the murder itself. JulesH 12:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely not a biography, and I don't see why we need an article on every murder that makes the news. The POV-pushing in the article doesn't help. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep this is a murder article in the same league as Stepher Laurence. It is just the other way round so the aricle is as important as the Stephen Laurence article which nobody whould ever delete, also I think trhat the current binge of lets delete murder articles when it is cliamed they are news stories or biographies is counter-producteve as wiki is not paper and there is no limit to the number of articles and all fullfil the notability criteria as they have multiple secondary sources.--Lucy-marie 18:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The very fact that it has been ignored by the national media shows it isn't suitable for inclusion. Wikipedia is not for righting perceived wrongs, or a soapbox for the BNP. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'comment the main reason it should be in on here is becausxe it was ignored.--Lucy-marie 10:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete please not sure why this was on wikipedia instead of wikinews yuckfoo 02:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is a wikinews item. --Fredrick day 10:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the individual concerned is not notable, however tragic and regrettable the circumstances of his death may have been. The event appears to lay claim to notability though the cross-reference with the BNP, which I believe puts in firmly in Wikinews territory, with no predjudice to an appropriately brief mention in a relevant section of the BNP article. If this were kept it would be far more appropriately titled Murder of Gavin Hopley a la Murder of John Monckton and others reflecting that the event, not the deceased, is notable. Deiz talk 10:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deiz. ElinorD (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a WP:coatrack--Doc^g 09:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please expand You say this is the "coatrack" could you please elaborate on your reasoning.--Lucy-marie 09:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters Game[edit]

This has already been deleted twice as advertising and here it is again in all its completely unreferenced fannish glory, replete with original research and not a single independent source to show notability (on the plus side, loads of fair use images and plenty of GameGuides stuff - OK not so much a plus as a minus) Guy (Help!) 20:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an ad at worst, a user's manual at best. Barnabypage 20:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a user manual; no attempt to indicate notability. -- MightyWarrior 20:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete spam-cruft--Doc^g 20:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already transwiki'd it to GameInfo, so yeah, it doesn't really belong here. The images have been transwiki'd as well, and are probably orphans after this. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 20:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. it's a notable borwser-based game. it's not an ad, nor a user manual. there is an independent source now. The game is more popular worldwide,than say, Popomundo, among other browser games in this wikipedia. Jordz 12:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was that the article should be kept and improved. Malla nox 13:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitz Radio UK[edit]

The subject of this article is a non-notable internet radio station which has received several minor press mentions. In my view, it violates WP:CORP. The main author of the article is involved in a rival internet radio project, SixHits Digital Radio, which makes it slightly questionable under WP:COI. There is no reason for the article to stay; none of the events described are particularly notable. Digital Spy Poster 20:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion removed. You're the only one against this, i believe you to be involved with Hitz Radio UK. Provide evidence IfYouCanSoCanI 20:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article contains some hard facts and interesting information. I see no need for deletion! Wouttonio 23:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC) — Wouttonio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy delete - The topic may merit an article, but this smacks of a hatchet job. In particular, it makes completely unsubstantiated serious allegations (of copyright and trademark infringement) against an existing business and, by implication, a living person. Deletion notice therefore restored. Barnabypage 20:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All "Allegations" are backed up. Article was created by an administrator who as you can see from his past articles, is a specialist. IfYouCanSoCanI 20:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC) — IfYouCanSoCanI (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - surely the question of whether a page was created by an administrator, a newly-registered user or Lord Lucan is utterly irrelevant. Digital Spy Poster 20:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is too well referenced to be false, lots of seperate users and IPs have edited it. "Digital Spy Poster" has been adding deletion tags all week! Rysin3 20:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The author of this article is not nor has been involved with the Sixhits Digital Radio project. This article is documenting a well known, ongoing situation of how easy breaches of copyright and press attention on false claims is affecting the media industry per-se. Kevincoy 20:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC) — Kevincoy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - I believe this article should be kept on wikipedia as it is a factual entry with backed up evidence. 81.99.80.245 20:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC) — 81.99.80.245 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - If, by the main author, you mean the person who created this article - then you are wrong. He is not involved in another internet radio projects. I too believe this is a request by someone involved with Hitz Radio - with claims such as "There is no reason for the article to stay; none of the events described are particularly notable." - They are very notable, for the fact many media groups have been tricked into running stories on this station. Everything on here is factual, referenced & proven. One only has to look for other public discussions regarding Hitz Radio - anything that doesn't say the sun shines out of Hitz Radios' arse is deleted. Kev Akas 22:26, 2 June 2007 (GMT) — Kev Akas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - Kev, I can guarantee to you that I'm nothing to do with Hitz Radio. I'm not posting this stuff under my usual Wikipedia name because I'll get the unpleasant types who've been on Ryan Dunlop's back for months (Rysin 3 in particular seems to have nothing better to do) on my back. I happen to think Dunlop's an idiot, but I wouldn't wish these internet hatchet jobs on him forever and a day. Digital Spy Poster 21:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please try to be a little more civil when commenting, i wrote one article and followed the story when I had time, I feel i had more of a reason than most, i met up with Ryan Dunlop and he wasted my time. If you've nothing to do with Hitz Radio UK, some people would say you have nothing better to do, adding all these delete templates to articles. Rysin3 22:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Speaking to EstEffect (who is offline due to ISP issues) he has stated this fits a lot of guidelines, notability etc... as it has been featured in the national newspapers etc... - he stated we would put this up for un-deletion should be be able to get online, but is not in a position to do so currently.Kev Akas 22:43, 2 June 2007 (GMT)

Comment - Dunlop's claims are verifiable as they've been reproduced in the press, but there are long passages countering those claims in the article which cite nothing other than blog posts and forum discussions, some of which aren't even visible to the public. Blogs and forums aren't valid citations on Wikipedia. I'd like to see the article reduced to just those points which have been raised in the press, with a short mention of the fact that there are doubts over it, with perhaps a link to James Cridland's blog. Digital Spy Poster 21:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - agree generally with the above. Per my earlier comment, the subject may well warrant an article; but as it stands the article is dubiously sourced, and seems to be largely devoted to casting doubt on the claims of this Internet radio station. I remain deeply concerned about the completely unsubstantiated allegation of illegal behaviour, not least because it potentially opens Wikipedia and/or individual editors to claims of defamation. As a more minor point, I suggest that being mentioned in (UK) national newspapers is not in itself a certain indication of notability. Barnabypage 00:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about the completely unsubstantiated allegations of legal behaviour? PPL and MCPS-PRS have confirmed in e-mails to me that HitzRadioUK does not carry any form of legal licensing. Furthermore, investigations of his servers have found that they carry a potential maximum of 120 concurrent listeners. Furthermore, a simple Alexa search has proven that his site and station do not have anywhere near the website hits he claimed.

Keep The site has had full newspaper stories written about it in national papers. Several non-trivial references means it meets the notability guidelines. The issue with the article is that it needs serious cleaning up, but that's an argument for cleaning it up, not for deleting it outright. Polenth 02:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well referenced and sourced of a large scale internet radio station. Seems good to me. Ben W Bell talk 09:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either Delete or Prune viciously. We should probably have an article on this subject. This isn't the article we should have. It's full of original research and original synthesis of published information. Given that this original research is about a living person and his business ventures, it should be deleted and purged ASAP. That said, the station does appear notable based on the coverage received in a variety of newspapers. JulesH 12:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Digital Spy Poster - please go forth and read the Notability text that you are citing as not being part of this page. It is notable due to the significant primary and secondary sources that were involved. These sources are UK and/or Scottish national media with a significant number of readers, listeners or viewers. They are also cited and firmly reliable.

RE: BLPC - NPOV is surely satisfied. References to specific names that are not part of the references in primary and secondary sources have been removed. Specific date of birth removed to protect privacy. Several words have been changed over edits, example "clearly not true" deleted, false to unlikely, did not have to uncertainty, a different name to slightly different, copied from to suspected to be similar to, suggestions over something rather than clearly blaming. Besides the changes to words and sentences, many sentences have been totally deleted to protect privacy and delete rumour and unverifiable and uncited sources. The main person in question is named as it is in the various primary, secondary and tertiary sources cited. Other names have been removed, so has the primary persons date of birth. I contest that the latter edits, on the whole, satisfy NPOV, BPLC and NOR. All are referenced and cited. Some are from tertiary sources in regard to the primary subject's internet forum postings. However at least 2 of these are also corroborated by a statement on camera in the STV news report, which is a verifiable PRIMARY source. As for the point about forum sources. Some of the forum sources as mentioned above have been corroborated on camera. So therefore they validate the forum posts by Mr Dunlop. As these forum posts are validated in that fashion, they also provide proof of copyright infringements by association in the same forum posts. I'm referring here to Sky News and having an Ofcom license stipulating taking the news from them. As for other copyright infringements, I have copied "The King" show webpage prior to the photo images being taken down. These images and other names are specifically talked about in the ELE website. If anyone can suggest a web host in which to display and link to as cited proof, then I can do that. Anybody that would still like to contest any information here, please go ahead and suggest changes that would make it, in your opinion, adhere to any policies. Remember that anything, either adding in evidence or contrary to it, should be cited and referenced by primary or secondary sources preferably, as already seen in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.107.123 (talk • contribs) — 81.97.107.123 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you read most of the arguments for deletion, you'll see that notability is not the primary concern here. The problem is verifiability and original research, particularly synthesis of sourced statements to advance a point. Take, for instance, this paragraph:

Hitz Radio UK has also breached trademark and copyright for it's show "The King".[32] This is a regular programme on the station, in which a presenter impersonates the late Elvis Presley. The station's website includes photography of Elvis Presley and text saying that "The King of Rock 'n' Roll hosts his very own show's on Hitz Radio UK" and, "The King's official home on the radio". By including such photography, names of "The King", "The King of Rock 'n' Roll" with immitation and making other remarks, they are infringing further copyrights held by Elvis Presley Enterprises.[33] As of 30th May 2007, the Elvis Presley photography has been removed.

The two sources cited merely show that the station did indeed use the name "the King" for one of its shows and that Elvis Presley Enterprises claims intellectual property rights over a variety of things related to Presley. This is not the same thing as breaching trademark and copyright, but more to the point, nobody else has claimed that the station breached trademark or copyright here. Showing that he used any other trademarks or copyright material is not enough. You must cite this claim to a reliable source that states these uses to be infringing, if you want to claim they are. This paragraph should come out until somebody else mentions it. And it isn't the only such example. It's just the first one I spotted while rapidly scrolling through the page.

Some of the acusations are cited to message boards, which are almost always not reliable sources. Others require the viewer to make a judgement themselves to verify them (e.g. the accusation that he is using a free web design template without following the conditions of use on it). Another example:

It is unclear as to how [Dunlop's listening] figures are derived. Rajar, who is the UK radio industry's main listener statistics provider, base figures on concurrent figures over short duration.[8]

This is a textbook example of synthesis. It implies either one of two things not supported by the sources: that Dunlop claims to have used the same technique as Rajar or the fact that Dunlop's figures are produced using a different technique somehow shows dishonesty. You need to cite these opinions to someone who holds them, not to the facts that you used to develop them yourself. JulesH 08:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the debate here appears to have finished, can an admin please consider closing this early, as I am repeatedly having to examine the article and remove inadequately sourced information due to BLP concerns. JulesH 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment It is far too premature to suggest that the debate as a whole is finished. There has been 3 months of drawn out media reports on this subject. There's nothing to suggest that there will not be any more, especially with regard to any expansion plans mentioned in some of the media reports. Maybe the admin can delete the previous versions of page edits. It seems that if people cannot delete the whole article, because either a) it is poorly referenced, b) NPOV is not adhered to or c) there's original research, then it should stay.

It is outside the scope of BLPC when all else is satisfied, that the reliable sources of information give the reader a somewhat automatic assumption to form a bias. That is not any editors fault, if what remains cannot be deleted. It is only the already present well cited and reliable primary or secondary sources that lead the reader to form any bias. I agree that further edits should be closely monitored, especially if further primary or secondary sources present themselves.81.97.107.123 20:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep - has been the focus of multiple press articles published in independent press. -- Whpq 21:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the points illustrated above, numerous sockpuppets not withstanding. RFerreira 05:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick palomar[edit]

Contested prod. Nominating for deletion on grounds that the article seems to be a hoax. It's not a case of notability concerns; the artist does not generate any Google hits, barring the Wikipedia article. There are no websites that mention him. He isn't mentioned in any blogs. His records are not available for sale on any website and his works do not feature on any playlists. I should also note that the edits that removed the prod tag also changed the references, after I had questioned the validity of one on the talk page. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 20:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction I challenged the validity of one of the references in the original prod tag and not the talk page. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 21:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the references seem bogus, as I noted in the talk page; two of them do not mention him and the third book (which I couldn't check) is credited to an author who wrote a review of it. And absolutely nothing on Google on him or any of his family members. Sci girl 22:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a Hoax - I am aquainted with this man and can vouch that all of the facts on this page seem to be legitimate. The only reason that i can come up with that he is not generating any google hits is that he has been out of the industry for a good amount of time. Because he lost the rights to his music and has been more concerned with helping bring his uncle to health than put out new records his records havent been available in stores for years now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.15.231 (talk • contribs) *
- Comment Unfortunately, a lot of the information, presented as fact in the article, seems highly dubious. For example, searching for the Wimbledon School of Praise and Gifts on Google produces no results for a seminary or any other educational establishment. The "Security in Christ" musical tour produces no results. The record company, which only folded in 2001 according to the article, produces no results. The links provided with the article either don't work, link to a page about Leeds in general, or go to the home page of sites that have no mention of Derrick Palomar when searched. Nothing in this article seems verifiable at all. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 20:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if not a hoax, the article provides no evidence of notability. Peterkingiron 23:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable or hoax—either way, it goes. Closenplay 01:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 is a standard murder, we have a lot of them. Nothing special about this one, even if it occurred in England, where crimes like this are lower in numbers. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Rachel Moran[edit]

A murder case. Sad. The murderer is one of four hundred untariffed prisoners, so even that is nothing unusual. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing in article suggests particular notability of individual or crime. Barnabypage 20:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very sad, but it is a news story. There was nothing notable about the victim, except that she was murdered. And the case itself was not a particularly notable one. ElinorD (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Per WP:NOT"Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Also, there is a new provision there that says "News reports. Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to appropriately contextualize events. The briefer the appearance of a subject in the news the less likely it is to create an acceptably comprehensive encyclopedic biography. Even when news events themselves merit an encyclopedia article of their own, additional biographies of person(s) involved may not be necessary as they could largely duplicate relevant information. Timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews." This should apply as well to nonliving crime victims, as expressed in the essay WP:NOTNEWS. Arguing for "keep" is the fact that a book about the murder (written by her mother) has achieved sales since its publication this past March to gain a rank of about 200,000th in sales (out of 4,000,000 books for sale) on Amazon, and the fact that it was written up in sufficient reliable and independent sources to satisfy WP:N. I think the balance is in favor of deletion. Edison 22:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it appeared in two major news sources over a period of time--and it did -- one dates from the arrest, one the conviction--there is no possible basis for removing it. This is not a BLP with respect to her. It is with respect to he murderer, but he was convicted, which settles the issue. As long as we have the rule that 2RS=N, then that's the rule. Frankly, I don't personally like the rule--it seems to ignore common sense altogether in both directions. But I'm getting to see that simply following it would solve a lot of problems. The outcome would not always make sense, but outcomes based upon feelings of those at AfD on a particular day don't necessarily make much sense either. Either there is consensus on the rule or there is not. I think, all in all, there is still consensus--there certainly hasn't been consensus about any of the attempts to change it. I'm not saying there should be, but there is. There were some questions on my afd whether I would decide against consensus, and I said I would not. DGG 00:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most murders will have some press coverage; that does not mean they are in any way automatically notable. Coverage in reliable sources is a necessary, but not sufficient, for notability. This murder seems entirely mundane. --01:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment most murders only get coverage in local papers. This one attracted national attention. That seems enough for me. JulesH 12:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. newsworthy, but not notable. To answer DGG, 2RS=N is a threshhold, not a rule. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete against the guideline because the guideline is unworkable as currently formulated; she meets the threshold, but so does nearly every other ordinary murder victim and murderer (if caught); you'll likely heavy coverage of the crime when it happens (more sensational in England with fewer murders than in LA, but you'll get it here too) and again when the culprit is caught (or a year on when the police do a "help us" segment in the papers/tv, etc.). WP doesn't = WikiPoliceblotter. Carlossuarez46 05:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article desereves to bekept as It made national news and not all murders make thae national news so it was a notable event. The nature of the murder make the event notabele and the article is in the process of being expanded. I say allow the article to be expanded and the re-evalutate at a later date after expansion and the clouser of the AfD to allow for the expansion to take place.

Comment Struck through, two !votes from the same editor. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have undone the strike through, and changed the second "keep" to "comment", which seems a more appropriate change. There is no evidence that this user has changed their mind about the content of their first post. JulesH 08:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've reverted you, you should not change other people's posts other than to strike them through. Should the editor in question wish her first comments to stand rather than her second, she is welcome to strike through the other instead. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't feel striking through another user's original commentary when they clearly meant to merely add additional comments is at all appropriate. AFD is not a vote, so I don't see what difference it makes that this user apparently didn't vote twice. JulesH 17:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD is not a vote, but !voting twice is not acceptable behaviour and neither is repeatedly removing valid strikethroughs. Kindly stop. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the strike through, and instead added a note to the second comment, similarly to how one might tag a single-purpose account. Hopefully this will satisfy both our concerns. JulesH 17:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, it is not. I have already stated above, it is up to the other editor to clarify their comments, not for you to do so on their behalf. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've yet to find anything on Wiki that states that it's acceptable to strikethrough another editor's comments. As this is not a vote but rather an effort to build consensus the "keep" should be immaterial; the reasoning behind the "keep" is what is relevant, right? I've removed the strikethrough based on my understanding of the AfD process. If you can point me in the right direction to better understand your perspective that would be appreciated. Drew30319 20:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest you raise any such issues on an editor's talk page in future, before unilaterally undoing their actions. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:N. Isn't a memorial. Isn't a biography, so the content quoted above from WP:NOT doesn't apply. I see no reason not to keep this article about a verifiable event. JulesH 12:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does meet noptability, this is not a biography it is a murder article and there is no memorialising in the article. The article should also stay as wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and the is no limit to the number of articles so this article should stay as there are no real grounds for deletion.--Lucy-marie 18:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Note that this user has already contributed to this debate above.[reply]

Delete No assertion of anything that makes this murder notable. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently notable per WP:N. Drew30319 19:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Virtually all murders, victims, and murderers are notable per WP:N and therefore the guideline is incomplete and shouldn't be followed blindly. Carlossuarez46 04:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Then suggest another criterion to follow. I propose that a murder that receives coverage in national news sources is notable, whereas one that receives coverage only in local sources (which is true for the vast majority) is not. JulesH 11:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment How about "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article" as stated above.. Edison 13:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then what does? What objective standard should we be using, rather than coverage by reliable sources? JulesH 17:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Per a drawn-out discussion at WP:N, the guideline has been amended to make clear that a temporary news burst does not make something notable: WP:N#Notability is not temporary. In any event WP:N was not meant to trump the general WP:NOT. Carlossuarez46 20:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As stated by others we don't have other objective standards. The one objective standard that I'm aware of is the coverage of the subject of the article. Based on that alone I feel that this is a Keep. I've read other's question "will they care in 100 years?" That's a slippery slope and my guess is that most pop culture could fall into that category. Drew30319 01:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Murder of a pretty young student? Of course it is in the newspapers. Not encyclopedic. We need to use judgement and stop counting sources - letting routers do out thinking for us is harmful.-Doc^g 08:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even at the risk that the kilobytes consumed by a neutral, verifiable article here will bankrupt the foundation with the few fractions of a penny it costs to retain this article. Meets inclusion standards and we can generate an acceptable article here. It's not our job to inject our own biases and try to correct supposed biases in the press. At least they have journalism degrees. --W.marsh 19:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Closer - please not socks and duplicate !votes.--Doc^g 08:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is my understanding that suspected "sock puppets" are to be entered here: [Suspected sock puppets]. This discussion does not appear to be the appropriate venue. Drew30319 20:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your understanding is incorrect. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 no non-trivial, independent sources. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SixHits Digital Radio[edit]

This is a sparsely-referenced article about an internet radio station whose notability cannot be verified (WP:CORP). Two of the station's presenters, Kevin Coy and Michael (Meic) Young are the main authors of the article. No external press references for SixHits can be easily located. Digital Spy Poster 20:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - we're listed on the Octoshape wiki, we're a fully licensed internet station and if we get on DAB we'll be only the second internet-to-DAB station in the UK; we're the only UK radio station carrying live US baseball; we're a philanthropic organisation giving young people from disaffected backgrounds the chance to get on air - a legal alternative to the scourge of pirate stations. Michaelyoung83 21:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This has been added for deletion for reasons other than the content of the article, the Hitz Radio UK situation. Digital Spy Poster is wasting our time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rysin3 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a policy-based reason to suggest it's kept - something not based on "I don't like the editor who generated the AFD?" --Fredrick day 23:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sixhits Digital Radio is a limited business registered at companies house (06198007), and holds an OFCOM DSPS licence (number DP-111). Kevincoy 21:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC))— Kevincoy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Ofcom DSPS licences can be obtained on payment of the correct fee by anyone, provided they satisfy certain basic criteria. There isn't any barrier to entry with those licences as there is with FM licences. It isn't an indication that the station is able to broadcast on digital radio platforms. Being a limited company is similarly not proof of notability. [48] Digital Spy Poster 21:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Michaelyoung83 is repeatedly removing the AfD template from the SixHits article, as well as blanking its talk page. Digital Spy Poster 21:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Digital Spy Poster is subjecting a legitimately created and acceptable article to a malicious attack. I am entitled to remove a tag which has no precedence despite DSP's personal vendetta due to his/her/it's apparent personal support of HitzRadioUK, who have critics resident in our company.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelyoung83 (talk • contribs) 22:09, June 2, 2007— Michaelyoung83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- wrong - if you remove the afd tag you are likely to be blocked. --Fredrick day 22:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~*delete~~super strong delete NN as it currently stands, the sources presented are awful - I would be willing to reconsider if better sources are presented. --Fredrick day 22:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll need to do some more reading before adding a !vote here, but we have serious WP:COI issues. Michaelyoung83 and Kevincoy are employees of this station, and single-purpose accounts who have only edited this article and Hitz Radio UK. Further, accusations are starting to fly, rather than people accepting good faith. I suggest everyone WP:CHILLOUT and debate this calmly. -- Kesh 22:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Defence I have used Wikipedia before for other edits under the username [[Mocyoung [49]]] but a defective memory and a change of email address left me without a password.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelyoung83 (talk • contribs) 22:38, June 2, 2007
  - Thanks for clarifying that. Also, please remember to sign your comments with four ~ signs! -- Kesh 22:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a further note, everyone should consider the primary issue at contention for this article per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Entertainment:

Internet radio stations are notable if they can demonstrate a clear and verifiable cultural notability or influence. CBC Radio Three and WOXY, for instance, are clearly notable, but your own personal Peercast stream with three listeners is not.

Our primary consideration here should be notability of this station and verifiability of such. -- Kesh 22:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

does it exist? yes it does. Does it have a clear and verifiable cultural notability or influence - I'd say not. all of the mentions of this station seem to self-generated and the usual NN collection of forum postings. --Fredrick day 22:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our cultural notability is based on three unique premises. One: we are the only UK based radio station broadcasting regular live baseball. As such, we are serving an audience of fans not previously served by any British radio broadcaster. This has already been referenced on Channel Five [[50]] and has the support of 8 IL clubs, the media director of MiLB and the president of the International League. Two: we are a fully licensed internet radio station. In the age of Shoutcast and various other online streaming companies, anyone can set up an illegal station. We have spent money and put effort into obtaining all the necessary licenses we need. We also have taken the first step into becoming only the second UK internet station to move onto the DAB platform, with a second step deep in planning and preparation mode. Three: in the face of a closed media run by corporations, and also tower-block and underground pirate radio stations, which allegedly serve audiences ostracised from society, we give the ordinary talented young men and women of the UK the opportunity to broadcast on a professionally run, regulated radio station from their own houses and/or studios. This includes adhering to Ofcom Codes of Conduct and similar regulations. Therefore we are providing a service in teaching young people the ins and outs of radio broadcasting, whilst introducing them to the world of media in a developing and nurturing manner.

This is the crux of our argument for the keeping of our entry. If necessary, I will add all the relevant details to the article that may be needed for its survival. With regard to external sources, it's not like we've been trying. We have issued regular press releases, and it is obvious from our baseball and football projects that communications with external individuals and organisations have paid off, as well as providers of our competition prizes. This is a young but alive and breathing radio station which has a lot to offer and, given the chance, a lot to prove. Therefore, as an individual and not as an employee, I believe it merits inclusion. Michaelyoung83 22:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

show don't tell - this is really really simple - no matter how many posts you make to this AFD unless multiple independent sources are added to the article, it will be deleted - it's that simple. If you are unable to supply such sources, tell us now and save us all the trouble. Your licence just proves you exist, it does not prove you are notable. The fact that you have plans to go onto DAB does not prove you are notable - actually being on DAB might, the fact that you think are doing something wonderful by helping young people does not prove are you notable. Forget any of the following as sources - press releases and forum posts. so it's not "if necessary" it is "this is ABSOLUTELY" necessary - forget press releases and forum posts as sources, they don't cut it - if you (the organisation) wrote it - it doesn't cut it. Multiple independent sources. --Fredrick day 23:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Channel Five mention isn't really an independent source. It's just an email being read out by a presenter. If I phoned a radio station, requested a song and had my name read out on air, I wouldn't then be able to start a Wikipedia article about myself using a recording of the mention as proof of notability. Digital Spy Poster 23:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Very Weak Keep There is some (very minor) notability through the baseball deal, and it seems possible the station may become more notable. It's a poor article, probably violating WP:COI, but doesn't do substantial harm and might be useful as a basis for a better article in the future. Barnabypage 00:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement - this article is being updated on an ongoing basis - edits were made today to flesh out the content and improve its informative nature. Speedy deletion is not necessary. It does not do harm (as the HitzRadioUK one may do), nor has it attracted any major attention before tonight, due to DSP's persistent attempts to get rid of it. An apparently over-zealous Wikipedia fascist who hides behind an anonymous name who rightly is suspected of being a sympathiser to a station which is the complete antithesis of ours, has somehow managed to force an article which has had no complaints about it whatsoever in the time it has been online into becoming a debated topic. Leave it alone, give us time to flesh it out, and it will earn its notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelyoung83 (talk • contribs) 00:49, June 3, 2007
- Do not make personal attacks against other users. -- Kesh 01:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no apparent notability, and all the sources quoted appear to be either of the blog/youtube type or listings in directories which merely state this station exists. Existence does not equal notability. If it gets the DAB licence, and is covered by suitable reliable sources, it may obtain notability in the futur. For now, sorry, it is quite a way off. - fchd 07:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - DAB licence number DP-111 is held by Sixhits Digital Radio Limited. DP-111 Licence page Kevincoy 09:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting a DAB license is a matter of paying a fee - it means nothing at all. Actually broadcasting on DAB would. --Fredrick day 09:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Which is what the company is in the process of doing. Launching an independent station, onto a corporately owned Multiplex is not something which can be done overnight. The mere fact that we are in talks to gain carriage on one of two multiplex's with GCAP Now Digital is in itself something which we feel particularly proud of. Just out of interest, and in the spirit of open debate, what exactly is classified as proof of "Notability"? Kevincoy 09:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Multiple independent references in sources such as those mentioned in WP:RS - so national newspapers, Magazines etc (note - someone reading out an email you sent them would not pass mustard). Blog posts, listings and forum posts don't cut it. I think I've mentioned this three? times now? --Fredrick day 09:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Barnabypage, there is room for improvement in the article, and given time and space to do so, will be achieved. The ultimate issue here appears to me that the deletion of this page has only come about because the author of another questioned article was assumed (and still is) to be connected with this station. This is false. Because of this, the article about Sixhits Digital Radio is in jepoardy. As was mentioned before by Kesh for us to prove notability, the station has to "demonstrate a clear and verifiable cultural notability or influence". It has most certainly done this with its prospectus, annex to DP-111, acquisition of US baseball coverage, live every night for the first time on UK radio, other sports projects, and the fact that young poeple, who would not necessarily get the opportunity to learn about broadcasting in such a hands on way, now have that chance (on a full time station, not taking anything away from RSL's). The difference between this and other online stations which are licensed, is our ability to be able to move forward from broadcasting via the internet, to launch onto the DAB platform, and with tentative discussions expected to start early next week regarding a possible trial broadcast on BSkyB's Digital Satellite platform. All of this clearly shows the station has notability. Agreed, external links to articles elsewhere about the station are lacking, but this is something that can only be addressed over time, and not something that can be magic'ed up overnight. From my personal opinion, instead of attacking the page, which is an entry intended to be informative and a reference tool, why not help in editing it so that it fulfils everyone's personal views on what is and what isn't notable? Kevincoy 10:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts - all you seem to saying is "no sources exist", AFD isn't a vote, if proper sources are not added to the article because they don't exist, then neither will the article. Discussion of X,Y and Z that might happen in the future mean nothing. Oh and stop attacking the editor who created the AFD, personal attacks weaken your case and can lead to blocks. --Fredrick day 10:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has most certainly done this with its prospectus, annex to DP-111, acquisition of US baseball coverage, live every night for the first time on UK radio, other sports projects, and the fact that young poeple, who would not necessarily get the opportunity to learn about broadcasting in such a hands on way, now have that chance (on a full time station, not taking anything away from RSL's).

Unfortunately, none of these qualify as reliable sources to indicate notability of the subject. It's not a matter of "everyone's personal views" on notability, it's Wikipedia's rules. If you can't provide verifiable sources to prove notability of the subject, the article is to be deleted. It can't be improved if you can't satisfy those three rules. -- Kesh 16:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page references an entity which does exist and provides an informative reference of it's origins. The basis for removal seems to be more personally based than anything else. There must be thousands of entries on Wikipedia that would all seem to fall within the boundaries that are described for it's deletion which would lead one to question why this one has been chosen for deletion. Why are no suggestions being made for it's continued inclusion? JfK-UK 09:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)_{users only edit is to this AFD --Fredrick day 09:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)} (UTC)_{Is that relevant to the validity of the article?} JfK-UK 16:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice Of Further Listing By External Source MediaUK, an independent media directory, has listed SixHits inamongst its UK radio station listings. [51] This has now been added to the SH Wikipedia page.

means nothing - it's a listing service (which is not classed as a suitable source) and is editable by anyone. Let's try this again multiple independent sources. --Fredrick day 21:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually it's not editable by anyone, it's an independent company run by James Cridland and he is the one who approves the details put out on it. Certain criteria have to be fulfilled and not every radio station is added willy nilly. Add this to our Octoshape listing and our VirtualRadio listing and that is three separate external independent sources of the radio station.

Wrong wrong wrong - those still just prove that the station exists, that's it - we all accept the station exists, we don't accept it's notable. Listings do not provide notablity - they provide evidence that something exists and do you really think you are the first person to try and use MediaUK? the first NN radio station to roll up at wikipedia? no and no. I think I will have to change to strong delete - the fact that people connected to the station can only provide weak and poor sources says it all really. --Fredrick day 21:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. No media coverage of this, only directory entries, affiliates press releases and self-promotion show up on a google search. Yes, it's a real radio station. No, not all radio stations are notable. We need to see third party reliable sources about this station before an article can be written. Of course, if the statement about switching to DAB broadcasting is correct, there will undoubtedly be some coverage when this occurs, and the article can be reinstated then. JulesH 11:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd be in support of the reinstatement of the article if the DAB broadcast goes ahead. Until then, it's really just another internet stream. For what it's worth, I think it's a pretty professional-looking operation as far as internet stations go, but it's really not notable enough for Wikipedia. Digital Spy Poster 20:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources verify that the station ecists, but that isn't in doubt. Needs independent coverage where it is the primary focus of the article from the press. That may occur if and when they go DAB, so no prejudice against recreation when notability is achieved. -- Whpq 21:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 01:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impellitteri[edit]

Lots of florid praise, but - amazingly - no sources. That is really unusual for an article on a band, isn't it? Oh, wait... Guy (Help!) 21:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I can find a couple of reasonably reliable sources The Shred Zone, but I'm not totally convinced - needs more sources. --Haemo 00:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Chris Impellitteri is legit; that is, however, one seriously unsourced article, particularly considering how long he's been in the biz. Closenplay 21:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't find sources...hmmm. Let's try some of the guitar oriented data bases out there...

Here's one [52], another [53], here's a nice one that covers the whole band [54] etc. etc. etc. 'Nuff said? Hamster Sandwich 22:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq war memorial[edit]

Contested prod. This is a memorial about 5 soldiers of a brigade in the Iraq war. There is no assertion of the notability of either the brigade or the soldiers. The editor who removed the prod thought that since the soldiers died in combat, they are notable. I don't think this is automatic. -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I originally nominated this for deletion because, as the nominator noted, "there is no assertion of the notability of either the brigade or the soldiers"--Thomas.macmillan 00:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while the sacrifices of American soldiers deserve to be immortalized, an encyclopedia is not necessarily the place. Not all war memorials are notable, prima facie. --Haemo 00:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 01:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. With all due respect, there are already and will be more such memorials in numerous localities across these United States. In all probability the only one that will be notable is the one that will be erected, perhaps decades from now, in Washington, D.C. --Dhartung | Talk 06:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do you know how many soldiers die in combat per year? It's simply not part of our mission to cover them all. We have a policy for notability, let's stick to it.—greenrd 01:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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