Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 21

< June 20	June 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy deleted as non-notable bio. Capitalistroadster 02:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nijel Walls[edit]

Appears to be about a 15 year old and how good he shoots basketballs. Not notable. I added a {{db-bio}} to it which was removed. I've never brought an article for AfD before so I'm not sure if this is what I was supposed to do. daveh4h 23:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Fails WP:N, this should be speedied Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, clear speedy. Note to nominator: in cases such as this it is fairly safe to reinsert the {{db-bio}} notice if it is removed without comment by an anon. -- Ekjon Lok 01:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - Just added the tag Corpx 02:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep — Caknuck 19:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyi-Leo[edit]

I listed this for speedy deletion as an ad (the "Registered" mark is a giveaway), but the CSD tag was removed by another user without comment, so I bring this here. Corvus cornix 23:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reason the registered mark was included is because the name of the dog breed "Kyi-Leo" appears to be registered by the original breeders ... Mrs. Linn - for the sake of securing the name from other uses. However, since there is no alternative name for the breed I had to refer to its actual name and decided that including the registered mark was only appropriate ... not an advertisement in the least. Since it is the name that is registered and not the breed itself, how then do I refer to the breed without the legalities involved? --Davmid055 00:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot a online sources are available and it could easily be argued that all dog breeds are inherently notable if they survive beyond the initial ancestors. CIreland 04:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Many notable products have the R tag. (In spite of the behavior noted below)DGG 05:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the ed. who introduced this page has been trying to speedy other articles in apparent response to ~~revenge for~~ it being first speedied, and then listed here. I've removed the tags and given him a strong warning. since modifed DGG 05:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note In response to the allegations that I was posting speed deletion tags out of revenge for having my article posted for such, I honestly wasn't. I read through the deletion policies thoroughly and read that we are encouraged to "Visit a Special:Randompage and jump into the rabbit hole!" to get involved with Wikipedia. So I did, and found articles that blatantly meet the speedy deletion criteria. It was nothing to do with revenge and I was only trying to get more involved in Wikipedia by bringing to attention some other pages - nothing to do with my own. I apologize if this was inappropriate but I do not believe I was doing it in bad-faith. --Davmid055 16:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Glad to have the assurance. I seem to have used too strong a word, and I've changed my comment DGG 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that "speedy keep" is an indication that you feel that the nomination was a bad faith nomination. Do you really believe that? And, according to the MoS, Wikipedia should not use the R tag. Corvus cornix 18:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a clearly mistaken nomination, and used the Speedy just in response to that--not that I thought anything remotely like bf, --I simply treated it as an error, and consider a speedy keep suitable for correcting an error. I may have been influenced by your prior use of a speedy tag on the article. I'm glad to be corrected myself about the use of R, but a single-character MOS error is no reason to delete,DGG 21:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, no valid reason for deletion given, and there are plenty of independent sources. John Vandenberg 08:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forza Motorsport 2 Car List[edit]

A list of cars to feature is too trivial and in depth for encyclopedia. Just listing the car manufacturers in the parent article - Forza 2, alongside a suitable external link would suffice. - hahnch e n 23:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide --Haemo 23:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Haemo said. Yechiel Man 11:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandahl 02:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Williams ninth studio album[edit]

Poorly sourced, unverified, and speculative article about an upcoming album that apparently won't be released for at least a year. Tabercil 22:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, VERY obvious crystallization. People really need to chill. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a "rumored follow-up" to another "rumored" album. Pure speculation --Haemo 23:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an obvious case of someone not reading WP:NOT. If it was being released next month, it would be different. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article based on speculation Corpx 02:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Album doesn't even have a name yet. Legalbeaver 14:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IFrogz[edit]

Reason: Fails WP:NN. No ascertation of notability. Kevinwong913 ^{Speak out loud!} 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at all. Yechiel Man 22:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick search on google, and after reading the page, does not seem notable enough for wikipedia. Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 22:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Their products have been the subject of a number of reviews by industry specific sources, such as [1], [2], [3] and [4]. Granted, some of these are from blogs or e-zines and their reliability might be a little on the low side, but a google search finds their products have been reviewed several times in such fora. Notability is rather on the low side though, and I'd not be personally devastated if this one goes down. Arkyan ^(talk) 23:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as this stub is pure product placement. --Gavin Collins 07:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I don't know what else to say. Yechiel Man 22:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've explained my action here on User talk:WalterWalrus3. Yechiel Man 22:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal Expos[edit]

No other defunt team has its own article, this shouldn't either WalterWalrus3 22:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superwookie[edit]

Non-notable unsigned band. Fails WP:MUSIC. Having supported Marillion once does not make them notable. John 21:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable. Very little in the way of reliable sources. Supporting Marillion makes you cool in my book, but it doesn't make you notable.--Ispy1981 21:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Utterly non-notable. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldnt find much from a google search Corpx 02:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails to establish notability. Pfainuk 10:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, technically an A7 article. No assertions to why it passes WP:BAND. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 19:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a developing Gibraltar band, who have been on television a number of times, have released a CD and played a major concert recently. --Gibnews 19:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Jones (editor)[edit]

Doesn't seem notable, especially if the fellow is leaving his job at a (rather minor) newspaper to work for a local council. Possibly a vanity article; created and sometimes edited by registered users who have created or worked on no/few other articles. Neale Monks 21:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its a weekly newspaper too, which might make it even less notable and the same for the editor Corpx 02:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Notability --nenolod (talk) (edits) 02:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Lennon miscellanea[edit]

trivia fork, just stuff that was spun off the main article into it's own. Should not have been on here in the first place, doesn't need it's own article. Just pure junk trivia. Biggspowd 21:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; mostly unreferenced or poorly referenced trivia. If kept, rename to "John Lennon trivia." Yechiel Man 22:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to John Lennon, such trivia in a separate article is not necessaryJForget 22:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge - no page should ever be called "miscellanea"; that's the very definition of indiscriminate. --Haemo 23:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even as trivia, this is pretty weak stuff. Someone might want to cull the one or two pieces of actual attributable interesting information and put them into the Lennon article. None of this gives us any insight into anything. Capmango 23:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless trivia. Merging not worthwhile. -- Ekjon Lok 01:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beatles-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a trivia section in disguise. Merge if, and only if, the information is notable. Spellcast 16:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything worth keeping into the main biographical article, i.e. not in a trivia section, then delete. "Miscellanea" is just a synonym for trivia. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 19:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus - on second nomination. --VS ^talk 15:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata trivia[edit]

trivia fork, there should not be a page full of trivia on this just because it was "too long for the main article", then it shouldn't be there in the first place. Biggspowd 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the referenced statements; delete everything else. I have much more tolerance for trivia when it comes with references. Yechiel Man 22:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what you can into the parent article, not as a section, and Delete the rest. Trivia forks are evil. --Haemo 23:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some Delete Rest per Haemo. I don't subscribe to the religion that trivia forks are inherently evil, but this one is made up of some facts that clearly belong in the article ("second largest city in British Empire"), and other assertions that are meaningless even as trivia. Capmango 23:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reads like the "Did you know?" poster hanging on the bathroom wall at my local watering hole. Otto4711 00:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge partially into Kolkata--JForget 00:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, this should be merged into the main article (Kolkata). This looks like a list of potentially interesting and useful information that can, somehow, be incorporated in the main article in appropriate places and appropriate ways, if someone is willing to do it... -- Ekjon Lok 01:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fascinating. I honestly did not know so much of what was on that list. Trivia is a list of trivial things. Delete. Kripto 01:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Survivor statistics and trivia[edit]

Just a bunch of odd statistics and facts and is ultimately fancruft. This violates various WP policy, including WP:NOT. Should not have its own page. Biggspowd 21:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Indiscriminate list of information. Fails WP:NOT. --Bryson 22:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Indiscriminate collection of unsourced trivia. --Haemo 23:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe some merging for the more interesting and/or important info.--JForget 00:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JJL 00:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see what is wrong with the page, other than it may be a tad excessive. It is a collection of information relating to the Survivor television series - and isn't that what Wikipedia is, a collection of information? I think the most we could do to the page is to take out some of the obsessive stuff and reword some in some places, but it is not worthy of deletion. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 05:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Redirected to Make Me Famous, Make Me Rich by Clarityfiend. Non-admin close by Flyguy649^talk_contribs

Make Me Famous Make Me Rich[edit]

There is an identical article Make Me Famous, Make Me Rich that not only uses the correct title for the game show but also has more information CaseyIsDShiz 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You don't need to AfD duplicate articles, just merge any useful, unique info, then redirect one of them (like I just did). Clarityfiend 21:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Ocatecir ^T 05:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground trivia[edit]

Just a page full of trivia, previous AFD was over a year ago, before policies and such came into place about articles full of trivia. Violates several policies and should not have it's own page. The fact that it starts with "this is info not important for the main article" explains enough to me. Biggspowd 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Rackabello 21:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much of the detail in the page could be worked into a main article, but has been hived off to keep the main article size manageable. Yes the article could be better titled/worded/organised, but just because something is less important than something else does not make it unimportant. DrFrench 21:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is not a valid reason to keep an article. The whole "the main article was too big, let's put cruft in it's own article" argument is pure junk. Biggspowd 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for dismissing my argument as invalid purely becasue it doesn't concur with yours. I did not suggest "the main article was too big, let's put cruft in it's own article" or anything of the sort. Please be more careful in future, thank you. DrFrench 13:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into London Underground, but I would there the most pertinant info only.--JForget 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would almost always !vote to delete such articles, but in some exceptional cases there is enough material & enough reader interest to justify it, and this is one of the very few. DGG 23:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because an article is allegedly "interesting" does not mean it is suitable for WP. Might want to read WP:NOT, as this violates much of it. Biggspowd 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge - perhaps by integrating the most relevant information on this page to the main London Underground page, and/or simply copying the external link given at the bottom of this page. Andrew (My talk) 23:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge despite its title, not all of these bits of "trivia" are really trivia - some seem part of the description of the system (e.g., how deep is the deepest station seems a normal statistical thing one would expect in an article about any subway/underground system), some are real trivia (which stations contain no letters in various foodstuffs like lobster and walnut) and ought to be axed. If the London Underground article is too large (however that gets defined) to keep the pertinent portions a London Underground statistics may be a better name once the real trivia are gone. On an ironic note: if the London Underground were some fictional universe we'd have little issue in keeping many of these tid-bits as "plot details", "statistics" or "minor characters" (minor stations?).... Carlossuarez46 23:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speak for yourself. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what you can into the parent article, don't write its own section. Delete the rest. --Haemo 23:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what little seems appropriate (some of the superlatives, say) and lose the rest. Some of it is just mad ("Wapping is the only station with no letters in common with 'lobster'"?). --Calton | Talk 00:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as London Underground Statistics and remove the cruft (including all allusions to lobster and mackerel). There is good stuff here that shouldn't be lost. Capmango 00:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but prune (remove all the useless cruft, keep the statistics etc.) And oh, yes, rename to something like what Capmango suggests. (We shouldn't have "trivia" articles.) -- Ekjon Lok 01:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge most to the main London Underground article, or to the line, station or rolling stock articles if applicable. Most of the items are not simply items of trivia but reasonably significant information about the system. Some things which are of zero consequence (e.g. "St John's Wood is the only station which contains none of the letters of the word 'mackerel' (as the word Saint is not spelt out). Pimlico is the only station which contains none of the letters of the word 'badger', at least until the proposed 2010 opening of Hoxton, which will then be the only station containing none of the letters of either word. Wapping is the only station with no letters in common with 'lobster'. And Redbridge is the only station without 'Walnut'!") needs to go. There is no hurry to do this however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and others. There have been a number of TV documentaries made purely on Tube trivia - ghosts etc, so the subject qualifies as notable in its own right, I would say. Johnbod 11:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but get rid of all the rubbish about ghosts. Lugnuts 15:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The London Underground is, in my view, of sufficient importance and influence to warrant sub-articles and since there is a lot of trivia which is referenced and notable merging it back to the main page would make that page unweildy. I would not be opposed to it being renamed London Underground Points of Interest or suchlike. However there is a cleanup required - linguistics are of no significance and although haunting is a notable and (some would say) common phenomenon on the London Underground, specific intances need to be referenced. However a deletion debate is not the place for cleanup discusions, here we should only be concerned as to whether or not the content is notable and I contend that it is. A1octopus 18:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete We don't need to have every bit of info on wikipedia, and this is a totally indiscriminate list of info. Most of it should be scrapped, and if anything is of any value, there are other articles it can go to. Dannycali 20:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Checking over last voter's contributions, methinks WP:POINT. A1octopus 21:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete-masu! Sr 13 05:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nyoro~n[edit]

Short stub about an obscure internet meme that few have likely heard of, no reputable sources. Fails notability under WP:WEB. --Potato dude42 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right chums, let's delete this. Leeroy Jenkins! (Nonnotable; blogs aren't reliable sources.) Yechiel Man 22:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletio~n No reliable sources, so it fails WP:WEB and WP:V. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nyoro~n delete-masu yotta article-chan, kawaii-desu ^___^! --Haemo 23:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (Translate: delete as failing WP:WEB and, uh, WP:MEME which needs to exist.)[reply]
Delete for being a stupid 4chan catchphrase. Jtrainor 00:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Should it be merged into the 4chan article? Luvcraft 03:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SakotGrimshine 14:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is Churuya-san anyways innit? Sources are not likely to exist and no, it should not be merged with 4chan にょろ~ん Kotepho 11:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Center for Spiritual Living[edit]

Questionable notability, written in an advertising tone (e.g. "CHANGE YOUR THINKING, CHANGE YOUR LIFE"), only sources are their website and other Wikipedia articles Rackabello 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator Rackabello 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to cast an extra delete vote, your nomination constitutes as such. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Per the nom, it feels really spammy and is written with a COI flavor. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. remove the Change your thinking change your life, because that is a bit spammy. However, the article is based on examples of others within wikipedia, which is why it also references other articles in wikipedia. Additional necessary references for the material contained in the article are being added. Cookcorec 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC) C. Cook-Core 6/21/07 — Cookcorec (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment This group was originally the "Downtown Community Church" It's said to be part of "United Centers for Spiritual Living" aka "United Church of Religious Science" whose main article is Religious ScienceDGG 23:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it begs the question: is this individual church notable? Apparently, from what I am reading, the answer is "no". --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Man, we really need notability guidelines for churches. This could well be notable as churches go, but the only news hits for it are community calendar events, so under general NN requirements it fails. Capmango 01:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This church is notable in that it is the first Religious Science church to incorporate ministers from all three major Religious Science organizations, UCRS, RSI, and ANTN as practicing ministers at the same time. The three organizations have been in discussion on how to merge the teaching and educational requirements for several years, and this church is the precurser to that end result. It is also one of the very few churches/centers in a highly urban setting. It is part of the City of San Diego revitalization program to bring families back to the city. Dr. Gordon Bishop, who founded the church, was the President of both NewSchool of Architecture and Holmes Institute for Consciousness Studies at the time. Holmes Institute is the seminary for Religious Science Ministers through UCRS/UCSL. It became an accredited institution through his direct efforts based on his vast experience with state and private schools. This church is also notable in that it brings world-renown metaphysical leaders and teachers to the City of San Diego. This church is active in community outreach to the downtown area, where million-dollar condos and wealthy residents live side-by-side with rampant homelessness and poverty. It is an educational center where no one is turned away for their personal belief system. Should that information have been included in the article? C. Cook-Core 26 June 2007.
Delete I see no reason why this article (that reads like a brochure) should be included. No external sources are presented to show that this church is notable per WP:ORG. Maybe a paragraph about this church could go in an article on Gordon Bishop (who may meet WP:BIO)... — Scientizzle 19:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non admin closure, should have been done when the person made the redir. Kwsn^(Ni!) 03:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coronation Street cast members[edit]

Duplicate of List of characters from Coronation Street without the characters. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you just redirect it?--Sandy Donald 21:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to redirect it because that's the logical move here, but I'll leave the discussion open to give people an opportunity to revert the redirect if it's not correct. Yechiel Man 22:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. And I endorse the notion that reasonably obvious redirects are not out of process as they can be "undone" if consensus ends up differing. Good job, YechielMan. Carlossuarez46 23:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold - it's clear what to do in this case. --Haemo 23:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and speedy close this duh. Lugnuts 15:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Anas ^talk? 01:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Grzegorzak[edit]

Fails WP:BIO criteria of notability for athletes, unreferenced, only one google hit, probably hoax. Visor (talk · contribs) 20:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - unresourced article, add proper references, otherwise will vote to delete. greg park avenue 21:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Playing for a U-18 team does not imply notability, so delete! Corpx 02:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 21:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if sources were provided, he is still playing for at Under 18 level and is not playing professionally and so fails notability requirements. In addition the team he is listed as playing for, are not listed in any of the Polish leagues.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - CSD A7, no assertion of notability. --Angelo 22:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable youth player playing for a non-notable side. GiantSnowman 22:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Daemonic Kangaroo 04:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insignificant. Magioladitis 08:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A7 (article may have originally been G10, considering the Author's vandalism history) slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 20:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - CSD A7, no assertion of notability. Punkmorten 18:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; there is no sourced information in this article that can be merged anywhere. --Core desat 04:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelics in popular culture[edit]

Collection of unrelated instances of psychedelics in fiction. While some content belongs at the individual articles, there is no overarching structure to this article, and there are no references to allow any useful analysis. --Eyrian 20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate collection of info. Useight 20:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with other articles about psychedelics or narcotics. Since drug abuse is a major concern in education and law enforcement, a familiarity with drug culture references isn't silly, nor is a list of drug movies trivial. When strict censorship laws come back to America, we'll need to know stuff like this when we want to be on the town's Board of Censors. Mandsford 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list of trivia and directory of loosely associated topics. The items on the list are unrelated to each other past what is in most instances a passing reference. Otto4711 23:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for obvious reasons. --140.254.225.30 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to share one or two of those reasons with the rest of the class? Otto4711 00:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indiscriminate collection of every possible mention of psychedelics. Unsourced trivia should be deleted, not given its own article. --Haemo 23:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems quite encyclopedic, although conversion from bulleted list to article form would be ideal. The sources in "Further reading" -- which certainly aren't the only sources on this topic -- would seem to be good sources for a more thorough and sophisticated approach. Trivial references to psychedelics shouldn't be included, of course, but many of those included are not trivial and definitely deserve a place in our encyclopedic coverage of this topic ("Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," for example). Not all "popular culture" articles are trivial in nature. -- Visviva 10:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is quite clearly a list of trivia that shows no boundaries. Per directory standards, most of the entries are not famous because they have a mention of the concept. Even if some entries are known for the presence of psychedelics, the article still does not meet notability standards. The topic is supposed to be explored through "significant coverage" that address the subject of psychedelics in popular culture directly, instead of extracting it from the firsthand observations of the editors themselves. Look at the two books in "Further reading" -- that literature and similar types need to be drawn upon to write a prose article about psychedelics in popular culture, not a list of indiscriminate details in an attempt to synthesize an argument by the editors themselves. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and others.--JayJasper 13:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Murphy[edit]

Semi notable figure who strongly objects to the existence of the article SqueakBox 20:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is notable as a movie producer. And several of the movies he has produced have been notable. So I'd argue that he passes WP:BLP (and more so than Daniel Brandt), which would argue for a keep. However, we've got the other side of the issue. Is having the article more detrimental to the project than having it is for completeness? I'm going to have to think on it... Flyguy649^talk_contribs 20:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Don Murphy is notable. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 21:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy produced Natural Born Killers and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? There's got to be plenty out there about him, then. Might be a stub now, but that's an unquestionable indicator of notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. ¿SFGi Д nts! ☺ ☻ 21:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with comment Are we discussing whether the article should be kept or not because of notability or because (apparently) the subject objects to it? If he is notable, as above editors have said, there's really nothing we can do, is there? I thought only marginally notable people were allowed to ask for the deletion of their article.--Ispy1981 21:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Non public figures. He isnt Oliver Stone! I dont doubt that he has some notability but not enough to be a public figure like Oliver Stone or Bill Clinton, if he wasnt unhappy with his bio there would be no notability or other reasons to delete but IMO his strongly stated desire that he doesnt want the article and his not being a public figure is enough reason to delete, and I also think given he doesnt want the article here the very least we can do is put it top the community to see if the article is wanted or not, and yes we absolutely can vote to delete the article, and IMO without having to invoke IAR, SqueakBox 21:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply The links in the article to the videos of him talking to a TransformersCon audience would argue that he is a public figure, though. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 21:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply Its certainly an important distinction, but I dont agree that appearing in a conference makes for a public figure, SqueakBox 21:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His impressive filmography list clearly (and easily) establishes notabilty according to all our notability criteria. Davewild 21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is fine. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: an extensive filmography is not a condition establishing notability. The first source in the article, from Reuters/Yahoo, makes a strong case for notability. If similar articles exist, I'd say his notability is undeniable; if not, I'd say he's borderline enough that his preference should be taken into account. -Pete 22:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Don Murphy is notable. The difference between this and Daniel Brandt (which is what SqueakBox is alluding to) is that Daniel Brandt actually wasn't notable as an individual. Don Murphy is and just because he doesn't want his bio posted is no reason whatsoever for us to delete it. I strongly suggest a speedy close for this rather pointless AfD. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd strongly oppose a speedy or even an early closure given the vehemence with which the subject doesnt want the article here and his comments that could be construed as legal threats. I want us as wikipedia to at least be able to say "the community have spoken on this one" which a speeedy or early closure would not allow, SqueakBox 22:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he doesn't want an article doesn't mean it has to be deleted. I'm not saying keep it to spite him, I'm saying keep it because it's notable. Deleting because he doesn't want it is not a reason we delete articles. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with SqueakBox. Short-circuiting process would not serve our relationship with the subject well. --Dhartung | Talk 00:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Flimography of films he participated as producer is significant enough to merit notability even though they are not box-office blowouts or again not very media-publicized films.--JForget 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strongly agree with the others here. Notability is not only fine, it is proven. Pilotguy 23:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but run the full five days. If we only had figures such as Oliver Stone or Bill Clinton, WP would be a very small encyclopedia indeed. That just isn't the standard. DGG 23:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bullshit. —freak(talk) 23:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject is clearly notable, and there's no "event" to disassociate him from. --Haemo 23:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should probably recuse myself due to past difficulties with the subject regarding the article (and that of his former associate, Jane Hamsher). There's plenty to find regarding that in WP:SSP and WP:ANI, but without double-checking, I believe that Murphy resolved all that via OTRS and promised to limit himself to one account and behave. He formerly objected to one particular part of the article that referenced one particular incident in his life (which is easily googled), and that was taken out as a concession to WP:BLP. It's his cross to bear that he's almost better known for that instead of his actual production career, but that was a long time ago and his career is now bigger than ever, so as much as he desires privacy, it's absurd that we can't document the notable public parts of his life such as his career producing well-known films. In short, I would believe the "detrimental" part if the only purpose of having an article were to cover that one incident, but covering a notable film production career certainly isn't "detrimental". As for the question of notable material, his NBK-related activities are documented in half-a-dozen books as well as full magazine profiles, interviews, and so forth. --Dhartung | Talk 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- the person is notable. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm sure JD Salinger would also prefer not having an article. DS 02:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't really understand how you can call someone like this "semi-notable". -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REMOVE I guess as a lawyer I think he is probably right. The law clearly bifurcates between PUBLIC Individuals (who still retain a right of publicity) and private individuals. There is a standard ( I would have to look it up) that divides the two, but this person is NOT famous, I don't know what he looks like and I don't even know what a producer does. Sure he is Notable by our standards, but I think HIS pov is that he is a private person and as such entitled to private person legal protection- which is pretty strict I must say. Then it becomes a question of who is responsible for what is posted on here- the site or us. Because this guy has the resources. So if we gather accurate, publicly available information he would have zero claim (unless we sold ad space in violation of his right of publicity). But the moment something is up for even a minute that is wrong, and he can establish damages, even if he lies about it, then a liability is created. If the Foundation will pay it then fine- otherwise I would just delete it and let the grouch go on his way. HemoGoblin 05:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— HemoGoblin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (As noted above, the subject has a history on our site of using sockpuppetry and legalistic threats.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "knowing what someone looks like" is a reasonable standard here. I mean, Giuseppe Garibaldi is pretty clearly notable, even though most people don't know what he looks like (I certainly don't). As for the rest of your comment, I think that's more of a structural issue with Wikipedia itself than something that should be considered with regard to this particular article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don Murphy is notable. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely keep, obviously notable. Everyking 10:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because being a producer for a film as famous as Natural Born Killers makes you highly notable in cultural life. From WP:BIO we have 1) "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" and 2) "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions" and 3) "has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Very far from borderline notability, and Wikipedia would be seriously damaged if this article were removed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I am concerned that DHartung knows so much about the circumstances herein, enough to know about HemoGlobin and everything. Murphy complained on his talk page about a sixteen year old Transformers fan stalking him for months on Wikipedia. If DHartung is that person then he should not be expressing anyt opinion, since he is the cause of the problem. DanHeartsNone 15:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC) — DanHeartsNone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy keep This guy has encouraged his fans to vandalize Wikipedia--one of them (or Murphy himself) even created a public account for this purpose. I even recall where he created an account himself and was immediately indefblocked for legal intimidation. Don Murphy, the person making the objection, has a history of incivil behavior and personal attacks. Moreover, he has also posted personal information about a user on his site (since deleted, but the damage was done). Bottom line--the objection is in bad faith, making the basis for this nomination invalid. Blueboy 96 15:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DanHeartsNone's account was created just today and has made very little edits to any topic except this.--Ispy1981 15:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request: I'd like to encourage folks not to request a Speedy Keep or WP:SNOW this. While I believe the article should remain, I trust the good faith in which the nomination was made and think a speedy anything (considering how contentious the subject) would cause big problems. Let the discussion happen, there's no need for an aggressive timeline. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I would agree, but given Mr. Murphy's history, I find it hard to believe this nomination is in good faith.Blueboy 96 22:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was and is a good faith nomination, SqueakBox 17:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~The nomination by SqueakBox (talk · contribs) seems to me in good faith, but I don't think it was SqueakBox you were referring to.~~ (For transparency's sake, editors curious about this angle should read User talk:ColScott.) --Dhartung | Talk 23:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Struck per Blueboy96's clarification. --Dhartung | Talk 00:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think any good can come from this one way or the other. Don Murphy is obviously notable - whether the article should be deleted because of other concerns is a WP:OFFICE decision, not one that we can make here. Nothing whatsoever good can come from this discussion. --Sock used for privacy 15:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, unfortunately, and we're here to write an encyclopedia. I have my own opinions of the subject, however, which are irrelevant to this AfD - Alison ☺ 22:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with the other keeps. Acalamari 22:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable. I see no reason for deletion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure if AFD is the best way to demonstrate community consensus that an article should be kept, despite its subject's protestations, but thus far this AFD has done exactly that. No reason to delete, here. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 04:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Removal I worry about what Hemoglobin wrote. Under the DMCA don't we have to take down stuff if given notice and if not the server and site is liable?? Who backs us up if this joker sues? He has clearly stated that he doesn't want to be repped here. Why not just give him what he wants?CleftPalate 05:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC) — CleftPalate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The DMCA doesn't apply unless we're violating copyright or describing certain methods of breaching copyrights. It doesn't apply here. If the article subject sues over the content of the article, WP reverts anything libelous, as it has done in this case, and relies on the first amendment and section 230 of the Communications Decency Act --Aim Here 07:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless it's new policy to remove subjects that are "notable" by WP standards but the topic demands that the article be deleted. If that's the case, the "policies" and "guidelines" of this website are going to be even more blurred to an ever contradictory trainwreck that ultimately will render them meaningless (if they aren't already). --Oakshade 06:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I assume someone is looking into possible sock puppetry with respect to users CleftPalate, DanHeartsNone, and HemoGlobin. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 06:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CleftPalate was blocked for violating WP:U (specifically, the section about names that refer to medical conditions). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin cannot fail to take these allegations into account, though even if considered legitimate these new users dont change the overall consensus as it is right now, SqueakBox 17:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable guy, nothing wrong with the current article --Aim Here 07:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per filmography, many well known movies there. bbx 18:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ridiculous nomination, Murphy is a major figure in various films' production. Alientraveller 15:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Bad-faith nomination. The guy is notable for producing these major Hollywood films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Don's opinion about his article here is irrelevant. Unless he believes there is some libelous content on it (which he can take up with the office and their legal staff), then his opinion on the matter doesn't count anymore than any other editor's opinion. He's notable, whether he likes to think so or not. The page could use quite a bit of clean-up and expanding, but his notability is easily established in the few things written about him on the page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon in popular culture[edit]

List of unreferenced trivial mentions of Napoleon's portrayals in fiction. Adds nothing to the reader's understanding of society's perspective on Napoleon. --Eyrian 20:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Unless we're going to slash and burn all the articles in Category:Representations of people in popular culture, this one's okay. YechielMan 22:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (non)Existence of other articles shouldn't affect whether a particular article is kept or deleted. --Eyrian 22:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Existence of classes of articles indicates a practice, however. Make a mass deletion nomination if you like; but tag them all if you do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except that this class of article frequently gets deleted. They keep crawling back because people don't like removing good-faith additions, and tend to look the other way. --Eyrian 01:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of these are referenced in text (would adding René Goscinny, Asterix and the Big Fight in a footnote to the relevant paragraph really help anybody?). We may not need a list of the works in which Napoleon himself appears; although better here than Napoleon I of France (where's War and Peace?) But the list of the Napoleonic complexes is interesting and would be difficult to have any other way. Trim. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless a major reconstruction is undertaken before the end of the AFD to make this article more closely resemble Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc and not just be a mass of every time the name "Napoleon" is mentioned or there's a charcter called "Napoleon" by someone or named Napoleon but otherwise unrelated to the historical figure. Otto4711 23:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most influential people in history! Mind boggling that it is even nominated. --140.254.225.30 23:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the notability of the subject of the article is not in question in this nomination. It is the suitability of the pop culture article that is under discussion, not the suitability of Napoleon. Otto4711 00:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's notable and there's iconic; Napoleon is the latter and how popular culture reflects that is encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 23:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I think a good article can be written about this; but this isn't in -- it's just a bag of trivia about where Napoleon has been referred to or mentioned. If it's kept, clean-up the article, and if it hangs around and still isn't cleaned-up in a couple of months, we can trash it. --Haemo 23:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per existing arguments... Ranma9617 02:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Regrettably these "popular culture" articles are necessary, because the public like adding every allusion they find to a subject (however non-encyclopaedic) to articles. This is a consequence of the open-editing policy of WP. Having articles of this kind provides a suitable receptical for this kind of thing. If there was no "populkar culture" article, the main article on Napoleon would become overloaded with a mass of passing allusions. Peterkingiron 11:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better here than in the main article is a poor argument for keeping an article. The proper response to junk information in the main article is to delete it, not to spin it off and make it someone else's problem. Otto4711 13:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is pretty poor at the moment, but the subject has massive potential. Johnbod 11:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This needs editing and some paring, but the basic structure for arranging these allusions thematically is already there. It definitely needs to be expanded with references to other appearances of Napoleon in fictions that no longer count as "popular culture", such as War and Peace. Indeed, Napoleon's absence in the works of Jane Austen probably merits a paragraph. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please tell me this is a joke. You're suggesting that the absence of Napoleon from works of fiction is justification for a list of the times he does appear? Otto4711 06:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it's an example of knowing something about the subject. The fact that Austen doesn't mention Napoleon, although writing during the wars, is repeatedly mentioned in writing on her, and her period. Tolstoy would be a useful contrast; see, for example, this article ("Jane Austen: In Search of Time Present" by Julia Prewitt Brown; Persuasions: The Jane Austen Journal, Vol. 22, 2000) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Beautiful. So not only should we have Napoleon in popular culture, we should have Lack of Napoleon in popular culture. That would no doubt be a simply super article. Otto4711 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is clearly a list of indiscriminate trivia in disguise. This is essentially a directory because #1 states that entries that are not made famous due to the association with this figure. Furthermore, per WP:NOTE, if one wanted to write about Napoleon in an encyclopedic context, it would involved citing attributable sources that provide significant coverage about the figure in popular culture. Personally throwing together details that are indiscriminate in nature is a synthesis of the so-called argument for Napoleon's impact in popular culture. This isn't a logical 1+1=2 argument -- we the editors do not judge a figure's lasting prominence by saying, "Napoleon was mentioned in a Seinfeld episode!" As editors, we are not supposed to be the original presenters of a topic using indiscriminate details that mean nothing when they stand alone. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, for all the reasons previously listed by other keepers.74.133.188.197 20:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friendbot[edit]

Potentially created by a person with a conflict of interest, no independent sources. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 20:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, AFD is malformed. Working on it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, done. I'm going to abstain here as such. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Videmus Omnia 20:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NN. Capmango 21:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is non-notable. — Wen li ^(contribs) 22:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable...First few links on search engine were to Myspace version. Corpx 02:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly non-notable. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 04:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - someone* decided to un-transclude this nomination: [5]. The Evil Spartan 13:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing and fixing that. John Vandenberg 13:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, no evidence of notability on the article, and I cant find any RS. Internet bot and AOL Instant Messenger both mention this bot. John Vandenberg 13:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Btw, "someone*" was Special:Contributions/172.159.141.149. — Athaenara ✉ 04:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. --Core desat 04:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portland, Oregon in popular culture[edit]

Large collection of unrelated and irrelevant trivia. They only sentence that is referenced belongs in the main article (where I have moved it). --Eyrian 20:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before I !vote I'd like more information. The article was split off from Portland, Oregon in August of 2005 [6], probably to serve the purpose of the keeping such trivia out of the Portland article. Many of the items can be added to the proper categories such as Category:Oregon writers, and deleted, but I would welcome suggestions on a possible page rename and other cleanups. Though other stuff exists isn't a great argument, I'd like to see some examples of similar culture-related articles that are better written. Is something like List of fiction set in Chicago acceptable? Some of us have talked about moving this content to an article about Oregon culture in general and expanding it. Latr, Katr 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This discussion was already going on at Talk:Portland, Oregon in popular culture and is now continuing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon. I appreciate the effort to bring this up, but I think we have a pretty strong crew these days at WP:Oregon that will come up with a good solution; I'd prefer to see this "speedy kept," and let the processes currently underway take their course. -Pete 21:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re:References--If the individual articles mention a connection to Oregon, is it necessary to also cite the source in this list/article? Latr, Katr 21:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the point. The problem is that uncited entries are caught between the two halves of the trivia pincer. If it's unreferenced, either there's original research making analysis, or there's no analysis, in which case there's no relevance ("this location was featured in a film", by itself, isn't relevant). --Eyrian 21:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Eyrian on this point - it will be a valid question if we decide to keep the pages at all, but for now it only complicates the decision…let's leave this for latr. -Pete 21:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eyrian, can you please reply to my point about keeping the discussion centralized? It's very confusing having it go on in three separate pages. Is this AfD necessary at this point? I have no problem with an AfD if it results from the discussion, but at this moment it seems to be unnecessarily complicating the decision process. -Pete 21:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think centralization is necessary. This article as it stands needs to go. If people want to refactor it into the appropriate articles (via categorization, lists, etc.) that's fine, and they've got plenty of time to do that. The refactoring can be discussed elsewhere. What needs to be be discussed here is whether this current article should stay. --Eyrian 21:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for explaining. -Pete 22:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per healthy and productive process currently underway at discussion pages noted above. It seems to me the nomination springs more from a desire to make a point than to improve the encyclopedia or the collaboration that supports it. -Pete 22:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can assure you, there's no point I'm trying to prove (though, incidentally, what do you think it is?). I think this article doesn't add anything to the encyclopedia, and just serves as a list that accumulates trivia. It's regrettable that people have invested a great deal of good-faith effort in this, but it's simply not an encyclopedic entry. --Eyrian 22:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clarification: Having re-read WP:POINT, let me clarify that I am not accusing Eyrian of disruptive editing, nor am I basing my vote on that policy. Though I generally dislike the invocation of this policy, I guess this is a case of ignore all rules. The article serves an important function merely by its existence, by making it possible to divert disruptive edits from newbies that would otherwise provoke unnecessary disputes. Thus, it allows us to both be more welcoming to newcomers, and keep important articles like Oregon and Portland, Oregon relatively stable and spam-free. I believe that is enough to justify the existence of the articles, but some of the content justifies it as well: the Portland connections of some items, like Beverly Cleary and The Simpsons, are significant and widely-reported. I agree that the article could use some improvement, but strongly disagree that its current flaws justify deletion. -Pete 22:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Better here than there" doesn't work as a reason for keeping an article. As I now watch Portland, Oregon, I'll gladly volunteer to excise trivia as it attempts to creep in. --Eyrian 22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - But the Portland connections of The Simpsons and Beverly Cleary, and a number of other subjects, are notable, being the subject of stories in reliable sources. I'm curious - is there another article in Category:Lists of films by location that you might recommend as a model for improving this article to an acceptable standard? I really don't see a problem with the article that would come close to justifying deletion. It's far from perfect, but it can be improved - and IS being improved. -Pete 22:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So, put those pair of small things in the main article. Two entries doesn't justify a spin-off article. Further, since when is "wholly unreferences" not an argument for deletion? --Eyrian 23:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Putting a couple of items in the main Portland article would be fine, but it wouldn't solve the problem overall. "Notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia" and "Notable enough for inclusion in the Portland, Oregon article" are different standards, and there will always be items that meet the former, but not the latter. Where exactly the line lies will always be somewhat controversial, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
        
        "Wholly unreferenced" is a red herring - references for many of these items are already cited in the linked articles; I'm not sure there's consensus about whether they should be repeated in the list, but if you think they should be there, just move them over - problem solved.
        
        Once again - are there other articles/lists that you think could serve as a model for this page – or do you believe that all the items in Category:Lists of films by location should be deleted? -Pete 23:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & delete despite its title, this is not really a popular culture article as we're used to here in Afd land. This is a mish-mash of famous people from Portland (merge to the main article, or the arts subarticle, or have a see also and categorize them, perhaps), books associated with Portland (delete; in 2 I checked because I doubted the association, no reference to "Portland" was found in the entire article, so whatever association is probably nonexistent or tangential at best, like the author lived there), a bunch of films shot in and around Portland (for the ones where Portland wasn't just passed off as "Springfield" or some unnamed burgh, a new list for List of films by location category mentioned above might work), the TV section is a little of the famous people mixed with real trivia (gosh someone on some show thought she was going to Portland), music groups from Portland (merge to the main article or the arts subarticle), songs with Portland ties (delete; the only song with an article's only tie to Portland is the band's ties). Carlossuarez46 23:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but maybe rename to Culture in Portland, Oregon.--JForget 00:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just added full citations to reliable sources for every single author and filmmaker listed on the page. Every article cited mentions the subject's connection to Portland; in some cases, the entire article concerns itself the impact the subject has had on Portland, or their ties with the city. I don't doubt there are items that are not so notable - for instance, that many of the bands should be deleted. But I believe this proves beyond doubt that this article as a whole should not be deleted. Further objections? -Pete 00:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total junk, widdle down and merge to main article. There is no reason to have this. Biggspowd 02:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify on model of List of people from Chicago, List of fiction set in Chicago, and List of films, operas, and plays set in Boston. Probably would require some culling and splitting into separate lists. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is one of the more organized "culture" articles, and I will assume good faith in we editors who will keep the list from spinning out-of-control with non-notable information. pinotgris 02:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article was nominated for deletion, I have added 16 citations for some of the more notable items on the list. I believe these citations demonstrate that the list is not merely a bunch of trivia about Portland, but provides an introduction to numerous subjects that tell the story of Portland. In this way, this article is very different from, say, "Ferris Bueller in pop. culture." Elliott Smith has been described by a mainstream publication as not only reflecting, but adding to the history/culture of the city; similar things have been said about Chuck Pahlaniuk, and others. I reiterate my strong keep vote, on the grounds that it's a pretty good article that is getting better, on an important subject. -Pete 15:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as the current title is misleading. A list of people with a common defining characteristic is encyclopedic, especially if their connection to the culture of the city is given context. For instance, what I know about Portland is limited to a subset of these artists. This is a legitimate subtopic of Portland, Oregon (though putting it under #Arts and culture seems more fitting; or Oregon if it gets expanded). There is a dedicated editor working on it, so no need to worry about maintenance issues. –Pomte 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopediac list--Sefringle^Talk 22:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, as this is more of a list than an article. Then listify, merge and categorize as necessary. I agree that the article as it stands is a mishmash of lists, but lists in and of themselves are not unencyclopedic, so this should be split into several related lists per Akhilleus, with content merged with other articles or categorized and deleted as needed. Almost everything on these lists can be referenced as having a Portland connection, those things that can't be or are true trivia (characters passing through the place, etc.) can be removed. Knowing most people who vote keep in Afds do very little of the suggested work, I pledge to make sure the prescribed work gets done. Katr67 23:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I still feel that the issues of whether and how to rename the article, and modify its content, is better left to the article's talk page, where it had been under discussion for several weeks prior to this AfD nomination. Why rush it, and why make the decision on a page (here) where many Portland-oriented editors may never go? I think we have this under control. Current proposals include "List of fiction set in Oregon" and "Culture of Oregon." If you want to join the discussion, I request you do so over there. -Pete 05:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics. There is no independent, secondary source to determine just it means to define New Oregon in popular culture. There are various apparent criteria offered in the article such as: (1) If you're born in Portland, Oregon and have done something great, you can be listed, (2) The great things that you've done, even if they don't take place in Portland, Oregon, can be listed, (3) Movies that have been filmed, even in part or inconsequentially, in Portland, can be listed, (4) Passing mentions in the media are worth noting, and (5) Music by people from Portland or music written for Portland can both be listed without worry. There is no criteria to sort and clearly define these items beyond a list of indiscriminate trivia, determined without attribution of significance by the editors themselves. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please try to keep up with the discussion, or alternately take a look at the article before commenting on it. There are currently 16 citations, nearly all of which concern themselves with the individual's (or the work's) connection to Oregon (as opposed to merely mentioning it in passing.) There's no rule against your cherry-picking the poorest examples, as you did above; but a better option would be to help us weed them out. The presence of some inconsequential items is not a reason to delete the entire article. -Pete 18:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have found no arguement withint this discussion that even remotely makes me consider this article worthy of deletion. All the arguements I've read for deletion are based on personal preferences of how they would like to see wikipedia run, non-binding guidelines (not policies), and frankly, utter nonsense. - T-75|talk|contribs 16:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Sr 13 05:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Night At Church[edit]

This appears to be a walled garden of articles about a band and its albums, none of which provide any evidence of qualifying for our relevant inclusion guideline. Some of the album articles claim to have been recorded for a notable record label, but I can find no actual evidence that this occurred. JavaTenor 19:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete all. Despite long tenure, the band doesn't demonstrate any notability, it's almost as if this is a resume page for the band. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. Hey, this one was tagged and given plenty of time to fix things! Capmango 21:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, unless reliable 3rd party sources are provided. It is up to the author to prove notability. Cricket02 05:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, bad faith nom as stated by User:Otto4711. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalier_Marching_Band[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cavalier Marching Band

Does not meet any criteria WP:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles Bassgoonist 19:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Makes assertions of notablity including being the youngest Division I-A college marching band. I also note that WP:MUSIC is a set of guidelines and not policy. While the article needs work, the subject is clearly notable in my opinion. I note that this is the 3rd time you have nominated this article for deletion today and the 2nd marching band you have nominated via AfD today. -- Upholder 20:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Upholder. Wildthing61476 20:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage in sources such as the Fredericksburg Free-Lance Star [7], Washington Post [8], and Roanoke Times [9] bolsters notability under criterion 1, as well as extensive coverage from the UVa school paper, the Cavalier Daily [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. The band has also performed with Al Cheznovitz and The Temptations (incidentally, I think these might need to be mentioned in the article). Mr Bound 20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I will repeat what I said at the related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan State University Spartan Marching Band: The fact that the sourcing in the article is a bit short does not mean that there is no notability. I would suggest to the nominator doing a quick, easy Google search to improve the sources rather than saying to hell with it and requesting the deletion of articles that don't come out of the box in perfect shape. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and this attempt at pruning notable organizations whose articles do not meet his or her quality standards is misguided at best. --Dynaflow babble 22:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because it's a marching band does not mean it's not notable. What's next, drum corps noms? Kwsn^(Ni!) 22:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mr. Bound. Edison 22:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, speedy close, suggest blocking the nominator - this is a bad faith nomination made in furtherance of a point because the nominator is upset that a marching band article he wants on Wikipedia got deleted. ~~Note in the deletion review the comment If you are to delete this article, you may as well go and delete all articles from any band in any college.~~ This nomination is a deliberate disruption of Wikipedia and the nominator should be sanctioned for it. Otto4711 22:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am editing this following closure because I misattributed the above quote and it's important that be noted at the site of the attribution. I stand by my belief that this is bad faith and point but the nominator didn't post the quote in question. My apologies for the error. Otto4711 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, bad faith nom per User:Otto4711. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan_State_University_Spartan_Marching_Band[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michigan State University Spartan Marching Band

I see no significance. One source that isn't even accessible anymore. Bassgoonist 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep From the article:

The band has played for five U.S. Presidents, performed at four Rose Bowls, two World's Fairs, and one World Series.
The Spartan Band has toured the United States extensively, appearing in concert and on football fields in San Francisco, New York City, Dallas, Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, Orlando, St. Louis, Denver, New Orleans, Pasadena, Salt Lake City, El Paso, Tokyo, Tucson, San Diego, and Washington, D.C.[1]

If that isn't notable I'm not sure what is. Wildthing61476 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Sudler Trophy awardee, the primary athletic band for Michigan State university, former Good Article canidate, part of the Michigan State University topic series, has pubished albums... it's also listed in the MSU navigation template. -- Upholder 19:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't even exist. Bassgoonist 19:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really trying to assume good faith here, but this information is easily verifiable. I also noticed you have marked a number of Division I-A marching bands for speedy deletion as well. This is a very well known and award winning band. Wildthing61476 19:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have to agree. It does appear notable per WP:MUSIC. I do believe though that someone should provide more sources. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 19:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen all the criteria, only a partial list. Now that I've seen it, it does appear this particular band does fall within those criteria. Bassgoonist 19:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC) However, the only criteria it meets is "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,3 reported in reliable sources." Notice it says sources, so we need sources. Bassgoonist 20:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could do with a little stronger sourcing, but notability really isn't in question here. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. 140 year old organization at a well-known school. It has received plenty of coverage. The fact that the sourcing in the article is a bit short does not mean that there is no notability. I would suggest to the nominator doing a quick, easy Google search to improve the sources rather than saying to hell with it and requesting the deletion of articles that don't come out of the box in perfect shape. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and this attempt at pruning notable organizations whose articles do not meet his or her quality standards is misguided at best. --Dynaflow babble 22:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:N and WP:A. Added some references. The 300 member band, founded in 1870, has played for 5 U.S. Presidents, performed at 16 postseason bowl games, at two World's Fairs, for one baseball World's Series, and for nationally televised Thanksgiving Day professional football games. They won the 1988 Sudler Trophy [15] awarded by the John Philip Sousa Foundation, which recognized them as a band of "particular excellence that (has) made an outstanding contribution to the American way of life," and "demonstrated the highest of musical standards and innovative marching routines." Even thjough WP:MUSIC is not a policy, the national travel and performances for over 50 years, and the winning of the Sudler award satisfy WP:MUSIC.Edison 22:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, speedy close, suggest blocking the nominator - this is a bad faith nomination made in furtherance of a point because the nominator is upset that a marching band article he wants on Wikipedia got deleted. ~~Note in the deletion review the comment If you are to delete this article, you may as well go and delete all articles from any band in any college.~~ This nomination is a deliberate disruption of Wikipedia and the nominator should be sanctioned for it. Otto4711 22:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am editing this following closure because I misattributed the above quote and it's important that be noted at the site of the attribution. I stand by my belief that this is bad faith and point but the nominator didn't post the quote in question. My apologies for the error. Otto4711 00:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. No source has named it "Integrity". Pure crystal-ballism. – Sasquatch t|c 17:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Integrity (Britney Spears album)[edit]

This is just a copy and paste of Britney Spears' fifth studio album. There are all sorts of rumours about this album, and we've been quite strict here on the English Wikipedia about keeping them out. There have been several rumoured names, none of which have been backed up with sources, and I and other editors have removed such unsourced rubbish from the article many times.

(Other language Wikipedias, such as the Galician Wikipedia and the Turkish Wikipedia, have not been as diligent. I've just removed several bogus names from gl:Britney Spears, tr:Britney Spears, fi:Britney Spears, and pap:Britney Spears.)

The simple truth is that Spears has not given this album a name, yet. She is currently running a competition to allow the fans to pick a name. I suspect, given that I've already had to edit out unsourced claims that this title won, that the creation of this article is an attempt to stack that poll. After all, news organizations are already citing Britney Spears' fifth studio album as their sources for information on what is happening. (See this badly researched article by Angela Russell published by Associated Content, Inc., for example.)

When Spears picks a name, as a result of the competition or otherwise, we can rename Britney Spears' fifth studio album to whatever name it turns out to be. But that time has not arrived yet. There is and will be no requirement for this copy and paste duplicate at this title. Nor is or will there be there a requirement for a redirect. Uncle G 16:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Might even be speedyable. --Kurt Shaped Box 17:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails criteria in WP:MUSIC and possibly a hoax.--Edtropolis 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I will say delete because of WP:CRYSTAL, but I have to disagree with it being a hoax, Edtropolis. Look at the number of sources. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 19:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand it, Uncle G is proposing to delete this particular article as a needless cut-and-paste move of Britney Spears' fifth studio album - not based on the content. --Kurt Shaped Box 20:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt roche[edit]

Corporate bio-spamming. Has some sources, but I don't think they show notability. NawlinWiki 19:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 19:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion, no evidence of real notability. If kept, move to some variant of Matt Roche. Brianyoumans 20:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Written like an ad and fails WP:BIO. — Wen li 22:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lol I like how the birthdate says "unknown-present". Apparently this guy has been going through an extraordinarily long birthing process. 68.200.107.111 23:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable!Corpx 02:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Saab[edit]

not notable under WP:Bio Geraldk 19:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unsuccessful candidate for county office? This must be someone's idea of a joke. Out! Brianyoumans 19:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor local politician, not notable. Yechiel Man 22:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom_Rohr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tom Rohr

Entry appears to be complete nonsense -- Slimfish 19:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete it's a hoax. -N 19:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:PN.--Edtropolis 19:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be hoax, and if it is true then it fails WP:BIO along with WP:VERI. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 19:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Random Editor. — Wen li 22:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Nonsense Corpx 02:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poof, and there it was gone, 19th century, born in 1947? Goodbye hoax article. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep — Caknuck 19:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XDEATHSTARx[edit]

Non-notable band, no sources, reads like a band bio (I mean like the one they'd write for themselves) -N 18:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'll admit I'm somewhat of a deletionist when it comes to bands, but this looks like they JUST meet WP:BAND. They've played throughout the state of California, just doing a Google search for "xDEATHSTARx" comes up with 58,000+ hits, and they are on a label which meets WP:MUSIC. Wildthing61476 18:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, funny how metal bands seem incredibly commonplace in AfD's... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of edgy on this one, but Christian rock bands tend to be a bit difficult to define unless they're leaning into the mainstream. I'd be more comfortable seeing more than six Google News Archives references to them and more outside coverage, but again, Christian band. They are touring nationally at present, so I think that, combined with the Facedown Records album make this a weak keep. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability criterion 4 as stated above, and arguably criteria 1 and 5 as well. The album reviews look like sources to me - Zeibura ^(Talk) 21:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very surprised keep per the above. Needs sources, though. --Haemo 23:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space colonization in popular culture[edit]

Page contains an open-ended list with no defined criteria for inclusion. Content substantially duplicates that of the {{Astronomical locations in fiction}} suite of pages. RandomCritic 17:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there is anything to be said about this topic it can be said in Science fiction or an appropriate sub-page. Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Laundry-list of uncited, context-free examples. --Eyrian 20:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only shame is that a lot of editors have spent a lot of time in good faith on this. What a shame it wasn't caught and slated for deletion earlier, to save their time. A great example of why 'X in popular fiction' ought to ring loud alarm bells as an article title. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 21:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of editors have spent a lot of time on this? I must be looking at a different list, all I see is a relatively small list with little content other than links to other articles. It was compiled by about a dozen editors in less than 50 edits. I have seen articles deleted that were started in 2001 and had over 5000 edits. This is nothing. 172.189.19.219 22:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You'd have to include a majority of science fiction novels and films! Clarityfiend 21:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Looks like list cruft.--Bryson 21:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Random; author should consider editing the articles that are referred to, since this duplicates other info. Mandsford 22:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything said above. — Wen li 22:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Eyrian. This could be an article; but this isn't even the hollow shell of what it needs to be in order to be included. --Haemo 00:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because first, this is a list that shows no reasonable boundaries. Science fiction is filled with an overwhelming number of stories based on space colonization. This article is basically a list of indiscriminate trivia in disguise. Per directory standards, most of the entries are not famous because they have a mention of the concept. Per notability standards, the topic is supposed to be explored through "significant coverage" that address the subject of space colonization in popular culture directly, instead of extracting it from the firsthand observations of the editors themselves. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note: "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles." The list is deletable, but not because it violates WP:OR (there's virtually no research at all, let alone OR) or WP:NOTE (the topic of space colonization is certainly notable); it's deletable because it's not the list it claims to be (it is in fact "list of random space stories somebody liked"), and the information it should convey could be easily contained with the Space colonization article, IMHO. RandomCritic 17:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These reasons are good, too. I am not opposed to prose articles that depict a certain entity or concept in popular culture, based on the significant coverage of secondary sources. Obviously, though, this article does not attempt to do that at all. It's just a list of trivia. I would have no problem with attributable sources describing most depictions of space colonization as realistic or unrealistic or whatever common traits have been seen by that independent perspective. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. —Kurykh 23:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eli El-Chantiry[edit]

The WP:BIO threshold is provincial level for elected councillors to merit an article. A city councillor is well under the bar. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 17:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Being a city councillor does not preclude satisfaction of WP:BIO. I agree the article needs more sources, however. Evouga 18:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--Edtropolis 18:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this falls below the threshold. Compare, for instance Arthur K. Snyder, who was also a city councilor, but for many years, in a larger city, and with much controversy. Brianyoumans 18:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've already decided that Ottawa City councillors are notable enough to have articles. That's why all of them do! -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly who decided that all Ottawa city councilors are notable? Would that be the same bunch who put up articles on every elementary school in British Columbia? On the parish churches in Windsor, Ontario? Canada is a wonderful country, but I don't think Wikipedia needs all this Canadacruft. This level of detail is just excessive. Brianyoumans 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent. City councillors of major cities certainly deserve articles, and every councillor in major Canadian cities like Ottawa and Toronto have pages. As a brief glance through Category:Canadian city councillors will show. - SimonP 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I notice that you tried a unilateral amendment to Wikipedia:Notability (people) that was smartly reverted. That underlines that city councillors are not considered inherently notable. The way forward is to take the issue to the talk page of that project rather than trying to establish notability through AfDs. At present, without reliable secondary sources, the article fails WP:V. Bridgeplayer 21:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Councillors of cities of over 100,000 residents (which means major cities) are notable. The city population in this case is nearly 900,000 (metro area 1.2 million)--JForget 20:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BIO is clear - why should the standards be relaxed just for Canadian cities? Here in the UK every city and district council has over a 100,000 catchment. The options are either to consult on a broadening the standard or to establish notability through secondary sources. BTW you say "Councillors of cities of over 100,000 residents (which means major cities) are notable" - where is the guide line that says this, please? Bridgeplayer 21:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. According to that, we can have articles on Nunavut's MLAs which represent 1000 people but Ottawa city councillors that represent 50,000 people are bad? -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Councillors for the largest cities are notable enough to deserve articles. Davewild 21:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are disagreements on this point, but I believe pages such as this should be retained. CJCurrie 22:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Merge with Ottawa City Council. WP:BIO: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." Unsourced claim to being a 'prominent' local citizen is insufficient demonstration of notability. Canuckle 23:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After four years on council and two years as a Wikipedia bio, his three-sentence claim to fame can easily be accomodated on the current-members section of Ottawa City Council. I think that's the best way to handle these city councillors of questionable notability: a brief description on the organization's page. If it gets too lengthy, then they get their own standalone bio. Canuckle 20:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope. No other councillors have their content on that page. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And who said that we can't take 5 minutes to add 3 sentences on each current city councillor on that page? Is it written somewhere that short lists of people can't describe them? Vancouver at least lists their party affiliation. Canuckle 03:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Key politician in a major/capital city, therefore practically guaranteed to receive significant news coverage which should be added to the article (which is still declared a stub) - therefore notable. Deletion would also be discriminatory given that all Vancouver and Toronto councillors have articles. Dl2000 01:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's non-sense to think about deleting this article. He's a very well known politician in the Ottawa region, with much enough news coverage (which, in my opinion, should not even be a factor). Also, I agree with what everybody has said precedent. --Deenoe 01:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability of local elected officials depends in part on the size of the locality; it is not automatically established but is also not automatically precluded. JamesMLane t c 15:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of current and historical news coverage. John Vandenberg 04:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Vandenberg. GreenJoe 17:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have to draw the line somewhere, or every Tom, Dick, and Harry is going to have his own Wikipedia article. Unless they've done something to make the news outside of their hometown, city councillors should not have their own article. RedRollerskate 17:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete the others. I don't think they are ever mentioned in news outside their own city. If any are, it will be because of other notability. I thought I was an inclusionist, until I heard these arguments--the other ones have it -- every councillor in a city over 100,000 are N,--known in the Ottawa region -- and so on. I do not think most NYC councillors--my own city-- are notable outside of NYC, and I wouldn't include them for even the largest cities automatically. The guy for my district has no notability outside, or at least none demonstrated. A failed Congressional candidate, like many of them elsewhere. I tried 6 others, and they are noteworthy mainly for the politically biased WP articles, most positive, some negative. DGG 03:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not an inclusionist if you are part of the minority who supports an article deletion. BTW, New York City councillors are definitely notable. One doesn't need media attention outside their city to be notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, everyone has different views on different topics. I tend to have a higher bar for local articles. WP is complicated. DGG 02:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the subject attains some notability in the future, he will have his article. --Stormbay 03:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In past AFD debates on city councillors, the principle was generally accepted that while city councillors are not automatically notable, city councillors of major metropolitan cities such as Toronto, New York City, Vancouver and Ottawa are notable enough. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes ("people" section). If you want to shoot for a new approach, go right ahead, but until there's an actual consensus to revise the existing precedent, laid is played. Keep. Bearcat 02:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Buffington[edit]

Non-notable UNIX administrator and podcaster for a non-notable podcast which has already gone through speedy deletion. Corvus cornix 17:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:V. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Corpx 02:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark of Me[edit]

I can't find any information on a series by this title anywhere, which leads me to wonder if this is something made up in school one day, unless the title is misspelled or something similar. JavaTenor 17:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my one problem with this AfD is that the article appears to have come here without having first been tagged with notability. Some occasional editors don't check their article every day, and won't see the deletion tag until it's too late. This definitely looks to me like something made up in school one day (and makes no claim otherwise), so most likely it should be deleted, but I like to see due process. Capmango 18:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is it said that a notability tag should go on an article before it's nominated for deletion? Corvus cornix 22:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no context, no indication of notability, it's the author's job to include these. NawlinWiki 19:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree it appears to be stuff made up in school one day. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 19:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NN. — Wen li 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep — Caknuck 19:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Connolly[edit]

This biography appears to be of a non-notable individual. Only one online reference given that does nothing to establish notability, and the other reference is not online, and certainly doesn't satisfy the multiple non-trivial references part of WP:BIO. With all due respect to the man, I'm not sure he's any more notable than my grandfather is. The Evil Spartan 17:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Asserts notability. There's no requirement that a reference be available on-line; for a composer of hymns who was most active in the '50s, and in Australia, seems reasonable that most references that would establish notability would be offline. Capmango 18:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding me. The problem is that there's only one reference period. As it is, it completely fails WP:BIO. The Evil Spartan 20:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not kidding. A composer of hymns that are sung throughout a country is notable. A composer who was active in the 1950s, even one whose hymns are still sung today, would be hard pressed to come up with sources to attest to that notability. But that is a WP:V problem, not a WP:NN problem. But verifiablity is concerned with information that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Unless we have reason to believe he's just pretending to have written hymns, then we should just mark the artivle with verify and be done with it. Capmango 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are more than one references. There are the two footnotes, the formal reference, and 3 reasonably reliable web sites. DGG 23:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in Australia, needs some additionnal references though.--JForget 00:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite apart from his religious works, writing the Playschool theme would make him notable enough for mine.[16] Capitalistroadster 02:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not sure what that link has to do with this article - it's about Carpentaria by Alexis Wright.Ga rr ie 03:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Play-school theme... Close, WP:SNOW. This needs verification from reliable sources, not deletion.Ga rr ie 03:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have changed the style of the citations. There are now four items in the Notes section, some of which belong in References - my solution would be to have one "Notes and references" section others may have a different idea.Ga rr ie 03:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted earlier, I feel that:
- The article should be marked for verifiable content, as opposed to deletion.
- Composing the Play-school theme is notable; this alone is not enough but it adds notability.
- "verifiablity is concerned with information that is challenged or likely to be challenged" To date, noone has challenged the content on this page. Until an editor/reader feels that Richard Connolly has not contributed to Australian hymody and challenges the claims in the article, I feel the article should be kept. -- aJCfreak yAk 10:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For editors looking for verifiable sources, these references might help.[17][18] [19][20][21] aJCfreak yAk 11:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily notable, given the sources provided. No particuarly controversial claims are made, so while I think the article could always use more sources, I don't think there are any real problems with this article in its current state. Lankiveil 04:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, if someone has a good merge target fine, but at this point there doesn't seem to be a clear one. RxS 03:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filterset.G[edit]

This article does not assert notability, which would be difficult to do in any case. Filterset.G is simply a set of filters -- one among many -- created for the Firefox extension Adblock and its variants. As such, it does not adhere to WP:NOTE. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 17:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Adblock. Then delete Adblock. Capmango 22:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adblock is the most useful thing on the web. If it was a choice between wikipedia and adblock, I'd choose the latter. Nick mallory 00:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that last part was meant as a joke. Seriously, it seems like Filterset.G would be reasonable as part of the Adblock page. Capmango 02:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a comment about the notability of Adblock, it's a comment about the notability of one of the many filter sets available for it.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 08:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough! MERGE to adblock page. Nick mallory 03:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is the first popular filterset (probably the first but I could be wrong on that); definately the most notable. A merge is inappropriate, as it is supported by other browsers (i.e. not via Adblock or Adblock Plus). John Vandenberg 03:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly not the first filterset. They existed long before Firefox did and used to require manually editing /etc/hosts (and whatever the Windows equivalent is). --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 05:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you know of another one that was widely distributed, now would the time to provide the evidence... John Vandenberg 07:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It will take a bit of digging. List of websites to block emerged soon after the mainstreaming of the web but Google isn't very helpful searching for historic web related items that have modern counterparts.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 14:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Worth remembering at this point that it is the responsibility of those seeking to keep to provide any evidence. The default assumption is that an article is unverifiable and non-notable in the absence of evidence to the contrary (to do the opposite would require proof of absence). 81.104.175.145 19:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, notability was asserted before the Afd as the first popular filterset for web browsing, and the article had some sources. The default assumption should not be that an article is unverifiable; the default assumption should be that sources may be found and added when one looks, or failing that, tags can be used to request sources. I have included some more references, and there are others, even if they are trivial. John Vandenberg 21:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That cannot be the default assumption, because it cannot be disproved. "First popular filterset for web browsing" would be an over-specific intersection if it were actually true. 81.104.175.145 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What cant be disproven? "The first"? or reliable sources? "The first" can be disproven by mentioning any other filtersets that could have comparable notability and/or date of creation. The nonexistence of reliable sources can be established by looking and asking, which is then followed by removal of the unsourced facts. John Vandenberg 22:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The default assumption (null hypothesis) must be falsifiable. The assumption that "sources may be found" cannot be proven false, because no evidence can possibly be presented to support it. The default assumptions that an article is not verifiable and not notable can be proven false, since evidence can be presented to refute them (verification in the former case, meeting the WP:N criteria in the latter). In all cases, the burden is on those who claim that an article is verifiable or its subject notable to demonstrate so. 81.104.175.145 22:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Afd is not intended to be a forum for proving things. Opinions are given, and either there is a clear way forward, or there isnt enough information at hand or consensus cant be reached. The default assumption is that we can keep an article, and delete it next week when new evidence comes to hand. see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. This is the best all round strategy for growing the encyclopedia. wrt to sourcing, our Verifiability policy allows "Any edit lacking a source [to] be removed" ... please feel free to either tag or remove any part of this article which is not verifiable. John Vandenberg 22:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to be making several mistakes here. (1) You appear to be taking this personally and specifically. I'm not trying to get at you, and I'm not trying to suggest that you are specifically wrong in this article. I am merely pointing out an error in your logic. (2) If AfD is not a "forum for proving things", then one should not be asking for proof. (3) You seem to be reading the words of WP:V without understanding them. Wikipedia is not a system of laws, and our rules are to be read in their spirit, and not their letter. (4) Without wanting to needlessly throw accusations around, it seems somewhat less than kosher to be trying to handwave around the debate by glibly saying "if you don't like it, edit it out". I'll assume that was well-meaning advice not quite coming out right as opposed to an attempt at misdirection. It is true that opinions are offered, but we do rather they are backed up for others to evaluate them (and maybe use the information to re-evaluate their own). To deal specifically with this debate, nobody has suggested why a merge is inappropriate - after all, blacklists have been around almost as long as bureaucracy itself. Any combination of "firsts" in this article would by necessity be over-specific. 81.104.175.145 23:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I haven't been taking it personally; I took exception to the way you initially put it (i.e. "The default assumption is that an article is unverifiable and non-notable in the absence of evidence to the contrary") as I expect the reader to verify the text in an article irrespective of what evidence is provided that it is verifiable and notable. I also feel it is appropriate that someone who contributes to an article should also get their feet wet on the topic and do a search or two. If the nominator believes something is not notable and guidelines dont make the outcome clear, then I think it is reasonable that they also can define what (in that general topical area) is notable in their opinion.
(2) My comment to RandomHumanoid was a round a bout way of saying that it would be good to know what is older or is more notable, in his/her opinion. It wasnt intended to be an ultimatum. It goes without saying that my opinion is subject to change if more info is provided; obviously I shouldnt have said anything.
(3) I think I understand WP:V correctly, but if you think otherwise, a direct email would be welcomed (honestly).
(4) It was more than a bit tongue in cheek; the point I was making is that prior to your last comment, you were not talking about content, we were going around in circles, so would you kindly come to the point.

Merging with something like DNSBLs has been in the back of my mind, but they are usually server side rather than client side, so the target audience of the article is quite different. The Windows web proxy anonymisers also have filter lists IIRC. John Vandenberg 01:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi John, two things. First, I am a "him." :) Second, I'll try a brief search for older filter sets as they certainly existed so I'm hoping some reference to them is locatable. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And more generally in response to many of the comments above. In the article, the burden of proof is on the editors to establish notability. There, a claim such "this is the first filterset ever" without a published citation would be a violation WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability. Here however, we are simply discussing notability and it doesn't seem to me that WP:NOR even applies. Nonetheless, the article does not happen to claim notability, but I will make a quick effort to find something that came earlier, just to put the matter to rest.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 15:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subsequent request 4/7/2008[edit]

This article seems like nothing but a chance for FiltersetG + Adblock plus creators to snark at each other in the Criticism section. The entire article seems to have left behind the NPOV concept. It is not notable, in the same way that any of the other millions of software products out there are not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.141 (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree - having my blog post quoted here as the ultimate wisdom certainly wasn't my idea. I was simply disappointed with the way Wikipedia was misused. Also, the "snarking" is very old, Adblock Plus and Filterset.G simply go separate ways nowadays - and have been for a long time already. —Wladimir Palant, 16 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.61.171.11 (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan 'Doc' Holiday[edit]

Subject does not appear to be at all notable. Only links are a few nn websites. The Evil Spartan 17:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page, subject is not notable, and it appears the only editor is the subject, ie conflict of interest --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that COI is not cause for deletion.

~~Weak Keep for now~~ Notability is clearly asserted in the first sentence, and throughout the rest of the article. The article was only created today, so if we're not happy with the references, tag it with verify (as well as tagging it with autobiography and peacock), and let somebody fix it. If they don't fix it, then send it here. Delete I should have looked at the history more carefully. If author removed notability tag w/out addressing it, then due process has happened. Capmango 19:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this so called book, I can't find anywhere. It's not listed on Amazon, and due to the author of the article being the subject in question, it suffers from WP:POV, and does not have any WP:RS. Where the is notability? I don't see any... --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 20:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book appears to be self-published and only available on his web site. He's not claiming to be notable as an author, he's claiming to be notable as a bouncer. The process, as I understand it, if an article asserts notability but lacks sources, is to tag the article with verify. I do not have significant experience in the bouncer subculture, so I don't even pretend to know what makes a bouncer notable. Capmango 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the other discussion: you must be kidding me. Notability asserted, mind you, is simply a qualification for not being speedy deleted - but AFD is different. The Evil Spartan 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this guy looks like much more of a long shot for notability than our hymn writer. Capmango 21:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get 7 Google hits for "Ivan 'Doc' Holiday", one with Arsenault included, and 40 for the book. No Google News or Archive hits. Unless my Google-fu is failing me, I can't see the "recognized worldwide" bit being backed up whatsoever. Delete unless someone can come up with good sources to indicate notability. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, WP:GHITS. But on the other, you're probably right. Capmango 21:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Before this AFD, I tagged the article with a {{notability}} tag, which the author removed (along with references requested tags added by somebody else) without comment and without the addition of any additional information except a link to his website. I came up with the same results as the above comments when I tried to search for the book. If the subject matter is indeed notable, the article author (judging by the author's nickname I presume it is the same person) has a few days more to come up with some substantiation of the "notable worldwide" claim. Neil916 (Talk) 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Ivan 'Doc' Holiday : I believe that I am a point of discussion. My book the bouncer's Bible is self published and used to sell on the Barnes and noble website till B&N refused to send me money due. If you follow the links http://www.clubsystemsinternational.com/year_archive.html/2002/apr02/holiday.htm

there you will find an article written on me in 2002. I have sold 5000 copies of my book and DVD worldwide. If you would like, I can email you copies of reviews from diffrent sources. If you like I will send you a copy of my DVD & Book for your review. If there is any dispute regarding my credintials, I will gladly email a copy to you. If you would like I can have MENSA verify my membership. I though that since Geoff Thompson was listed here I would join as well. If a person has his book and DVD sold from 10 diffrent countries on earth, this would be considered "worldwide" or damm close. Do you seriously believe that a person with my reputation would put his shit on the street without being able to back it up? As I told Barnes & Nobles, I am not going to have my life story/book tossed in some 99cent bargain bin...If you wish to delete me that is fine I don't want to offend anyone...if you want verifiable sources just email me at "[email protected]" and I will email the information to you. thank you. Ivan Doc Holiday

Delete. Wow. Talk about vanity. Jauerback 14:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Doc, just want to let you know, that being a member of MENSA does not make you notable. Yes, there are famous members of mensa, but being a MENSA member does not make you notable. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 12:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs featured in Vanilla Sky[edit]

Delete - as with a number of recently deleted lists of songs from movies or TV shows, this is a directory of loosely associated topics. The songs on the list do not gain notability from happening to have been heard in a film. The list tells us nothing about the songs, the films, their relation to each other or the real world. The article Vanilla Sky (soundtrack) for the released album exists and this is to a degree redundant. Otto4711 17:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't the information be incorporated into the article somehow? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - The article is not encyclopedia in any way. This information could easily be incorporated into the prose of the main article. NSR77 ^T_C 18:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification I was too vague and I apologize. What I meant was...could the songs be incorporated into the article about the movie instead? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I assume (didn't check) that the list was part of the Vanilla Sky article, and was pulled out because it is so long. It shouldn't be deleted, but I think it should be put back in the movie article, even if it is kind of long. Capmango 18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be some information attesting to the songs in relation to the film before a merge is considered. If there are reliable sources that discuss the process of selecting the songs, the effect of the songs on the narrative, etc. then great, merge it. But a bare list of songs that are heard in the film is no better in the film article than it is on its own. Otto4711 21:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Indiscriminate list of information. --Bryson 22:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a movie guide --Haemo 00:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This info can easily be found on the IMDB and many other places. there is no need for it to be on Wikipedia. Ebay3 07:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. NawlinWiki 02:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-State Beirut League[edit]

Non-notable local league which may not even exist. Appears to be advertising, very few google refs (5 total, 2 of which are Wikipedia), no reliable sources, and the page was made by User:Tristatebeirut, who probably has a conflict of interest. This was a PROD contested by User:Tristatebeirut. AW 16:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created by User Tristatebeirut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - (list may not be complete)

Tri-State Beirut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2007 Summer TBL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tri-State Beirut League All-Star Classic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tri-State Beirut League rules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Image:2007 Logo.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Tri-State Beirut League All-Star Skills Competition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Template:TBLBracket (edit | [[Talk:Template:TBLBracket|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Season structure of the TBL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tri-State Beirut League awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TBL All-Star Classic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (redirect page)
TBL All-Star Skills Competition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (redirect page)
Unrelated but questionable:

List of RHI seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Template:RHIBracket (edit | [[Talk:Template:RHIBracket|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete If we hurry, we can delete this before their first game, if they play it. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it does not exist to promote beer pong leagues. Brianyoumans 19:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and note to closing admin Please check Special:Contributions/Tristatebeirut very carefully. He has authored a number of articles relating to this league, and they all belong in the eternal garbage dump. It's a blatant conflict of interest on his part. Yechiel Man 22:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the associated articles are still PRODded, but that will probably change and we'll have to go through this again with them. No references, COI problem, not notable. I love that this is a tri-state league in only two states, though. Corvus cornix 22:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was right. See 2007 Summer TBL season, which was PRODded but the tag removed. Corvus cornix 22:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. — Athaenara ✉ 01:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of streets and roads celebrated in music[edit]

Delete - leaving aside the POV and OR inherent in deciding that a street was "celebrated" in song, this is a directory of loosely associated topics. The list captures songs from across every era, genre, theme and style that have nothing in common with each other than they're about a street or mention a street. Very similar to previously deleted lists for songs about or mentioning geographical features, towns or cities. Otto4711 16:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator that this suffers from WP:POV and WP:OR issues. What kind of encyclopedic value does this add, anyways? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and sumnjim. NSR77 ^T_C 18:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because article is almost content-free; does not even match the streets with the music, just lists the streets and lets us guess. If there were an actual article about streets mentioned in songs, I'd vote to keep that. Capmango 19:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and expand/merge per Capmango's suggestion of creating an article about streets in songs --172.133.145.96 20:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, loosely related topic. Not to mention pointless. Useight 20:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- as per Campmango. Not that the idea is that bad, but because the list is dull, with no clue given about why these blue-linked streets are celebrated in song (or even what songs -- does anyone remember the hit, "Get your kicks on... U.S. Highway 66"? Lists, like any other article, have to be interesting. Mandsford 22:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Wen li 22:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a list of streets? With no references -- even to the songs they're in? This is indiscriminate, anyways. --Haemo 00:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless unreferenced list.--JForget 00:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etheria Plot Summary[edit]

Delete - Clearcut violation of Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 16:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Parent article already has a plot summary. Some info may be selectively merged.--Ispy1981 16:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ispy1981. Violates Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. NSR77 ^T_C 18:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this isn't Cliff Notes. Useight 20:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and add a redirect per WP:LOCAL. --Core desat 06:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T. Benton Gayle Middle School[edit]

Non notable, Un-verifiable middle school. --trey 16:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Stafford County, Virginia. Notable - probably no; verifiable - probably yes (there must certainly be some records about this school). --B. Wolterding 17:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see why we would want to merge this into the county link. If it's not notable (which most schools aren't), there is no need to have an unneccesary link. It's just a middle school --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any info here worth merging, except maybe the size of the school. Middle schools in general are not notable. Brianyoumans 19:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, they are not notable. But even if the topic is not notable for an own article, one or two sentences can be included in the list of schools in the article Stafford County, Virginia. Usually these would go into the article about the school district, but that article doesn't seem to exist. --B. Wolterding 08:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand It's one of the oldest schools (used to be a high school) in the area so it is somewhat notable. I'll work on expanding it and adding sources soon. --Ohseven4ever 21:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 00:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Stafford County, Virginia. Eusebeus 13:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N as notability is not even asserted and WP:V as there are no WP:RS. The only source is the school's website, which is not independent. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deletecore. --Core desat 06:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scenecore[edit]

Neoglism, I think. None of the "further information" links at the top actually mention the term. The "references" are mostly WP links. The one external site that is actually in the ref links is hardly a WP:RS, and does not even mention the term anyway. TexasAndroid 16:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:WINAD. Wikipedia is not an urban dictionary. There is nothing to suggest anyone more prominent than myspace users and fanboard posters use this.--Ispy1981 16:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never heard of this before! Sounds like a made up name for Hardcore Kids, or Scene Kids, but not Scenecore! Google shows only 946 results. Whereas for the others it shows a lot more! However, they are still not appropriate for wikipedia, as Ispy1981 says, it is not an urban dictionary! Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 23:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G.A.M.E[edit]

Non-notable company, does not pass WP:CORP. A google search on "Dark Phoenix Publishing" -Wikipedia returns only 20 hits, almost all myspace pages. Creator of the page appears to be the founder of the company. See Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vampire: Undeath v.1 DES ^(talk) 16:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom. DES ^(talk) 16:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. Could possibly have been speedied as a nn-group, but that might have been pushing things a bit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP and nom. The article is clearly a product of the founder. NSR77 ^T_C 18:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Note also that this article is heavily based on the article White Wolf, Inc. - it's even still got a link to Mage: The Awakening! The creator should probably note that there's a fine line between imitating White Wolf's games and plagiarizing their work. Zetawoof_(ζ) 18:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violation of WP:CORP. Probably could have been a speedy. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 20:58, 21 June 2007 UTC)
Delete per everyone above. Capmango 22:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Kevinwong913 ^{Speak out loud!} 22:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything said above. — Wen li 22:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Perhaps we can redirect it to GAME (retailer) which is a large store chain in the UK.--Kylohk 14:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Jaq[edit]

All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed. All in all, the character appears to be a hoax—for example, Randy Jaq could not speake to Nute Gunray in Star Wars: Empire at War as Gunray had been killed before the game takes place. All users were given more than a week to find reliable sources for this character, but were unnable to do so. Arwen Undomiel ^talk 16:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probable hoax. The only references to this name are fanboard postings. Wookieepedia doesn't make any mention of him, and on a side note, how many SW characters do you know named Randy?--Ispy1981 16:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire: Undeath v.1[edit]

Non-notable computer game, apparently only recently released. A google search on "Vampire: Undeath Game "Dark Phoenix" -Wikipedia" gets only 13 hits, and not all of those are about this game, and none of them seem to be independent reliable sources with non-trivial discussion of it. Other searches got more noise but no more signal. Also the creator of the article is User:Mykal lakim who seems to also be the creator of the game, so there is a WP:COI problem here too. This was tagged for an A7 speedy, but A7 does not apply to games, software, or products in general, and IMO it should not. DES ^(talk) 15:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom unless there are citations of independent reliable sources added to the article that establish notability (which i doubt). DES ^(talk) 15:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's reasoning. (Minor correction though: I don't think this is actually a computer game.)Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you are correct "Non-notable RPG" then. DES ^(talk) 18:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Was going to suggest that G.A.M.E should be deleted too, but I see that someone already got there. Probably worth noting that this article is heavily based on the article Vampire: The Masquerade, with a few names and phrases swapped out. Zetawoof_(ζ) 18:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NOTE and the AFD above. NSR77 ^T_C 18:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystical Order of the Temple of the Rosy Cross[edit]

This is a NN group that doesn't even exist yet according to its article. All the pertinent historical info on this group when it did exist is already in the article on its defunct predecessor (Order of the Temple of the Rosy Cross). MSJapan 15:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, or a place to recruit members for a new society. Out! Brianyoumans 18:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, although there are quite a few google results, it does seem like it is trying to recruit members. If when it reforms it does become moe notable, then it may possible be alright to add back on, but at the moment I think not. Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of an article previously deleted via an AfD). --Angelo (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onome Sodje[edit]

Page was re-created after being deleted as it was non-notable, Sodje has never appeared in a fully pro league. Previous AfD is here Jimbo^[online] 11:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of deleted material), plus the link on Template:York City F.C. squad should be blacklinked to stop people being tempted to recreate it again. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Directive (retrospectives)[edit]

Non-notable concept with no assertion that it is used outside the one cited source. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This might even be a speedy candidate, I can't make heads or tails out of this article due to a lack of context. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would have csd'd it, but it just didn't seem to meet the criteria either for nonsense or lack of context. If enough people think it deserves to go, it could be snowballed. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 18:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks to me like it references an article that no longer exists. Concept clearly doesn't merit its own article anyhow. Capmango 22:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Who is Norm Kerth? "Regardless of what we discover, we understand and truly believe that everyone did the best job they could, given what they knew at the time, their skills and abilities, the resources available, and the situation at hand." That's it? Bad enough that the name is unoriginal (think Gene Roddenberry), but even if the name wasn't plagiarized, calling this a "prime directive" is egotistical. Mandsford 22:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not speedy. The context is pretty simple to figure out - project management and evaluations following a project. I assume that it's "Prime," because in software projects (and any other kind of group retrospective analysis) assigning blame is a discussion killer. Yet it happens a lot. So setting a guideline like this makes sense. (I mention the previous just to indicate that figuring out context on this isn't all that hard.) I suppose you could speedy it under G11 for apparently advertising the book, but I'd recommend against that. Since it was nommed twelve minutes after creation by a first time contributor, it could well be a stub that the creator intends to build on. (Or not...) I don't know how notable this particular concept is, and would agree that if it reaches normal end of AfD that it be deleted on WP:N and WP:NEO. LaughingVulcan 01:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, context is poor, notability even worse.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above, i.e. Piotrus. Debivort 18:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Anas ^talk? 01:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Barbera Award[edit]

I tried prodding this, but it was opposed by an anonymous editor. This appears to be a joke page. Note that the wording is quite similar to that of Emmy Awards, even the listing of the presenting organizations (see the first revision in case this changes). By a random resume on the web[22], Hanna Barbera Awards may actually exist, but I'm not convinced this article actually describes the real thing. No reliable sources, and no sources at all to back up the description of the award. Delete NickelShoe (Talk) 15:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, smells like a hoax to me. Certainly has no sources to back up its claims. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find it interesting that one of the editors even added the Category "Fake Awards" to the article. Wildthing61476 15:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is weird. The article creator jacks up his own userpage, by putting the "blocked" tagged on his own site. I did a google search for "hanna barbera awards" and couldn't find anything. Doesn't appear to be a real award. In addition, there is a Fake Awards category. WP:HOAX --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong & Speedy Delete - If the article in question comes into an AfD and no one knows whether or not it exists, then it certainly and instantaneously infringes WP:NOTE. Most probably a non-existent award. NSR77 ^T_C 19:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the winner of this category is: Delete. Hoax. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax-- Not that I can blame the hoaxter for trying, but a good prank has to be as much fun to read as it was to write. Mandsford 22:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It really does sound like a hoax, and has no references to back up the statements made. — Wen li 22:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete Compare this article to Emmy Awards and you'll find that the HB awards is simply a joke C/P of the first sections of the Emmys articles. As jokey/hoaxy (joaxy? :D ) as it gets. 216.201.119.71 17:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Checking the history of the user behind this article shows him to be a vandal-only account, so the creator should be blocked indef as well. JuJube 08:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per author's request. JuJube 19:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Wikia is not a reliable source, and there is hardly any non wiki search result on the internet. Hence it's very likely to be a hoax and could be speedily deleted.--Kylohk 15:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg Wager[edit]

For all I could find out, this composer fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. He has written for notable newspapers, but that doesn't make him notable. He has published one record, with "Menschenfreund Records", a minor label founded by himself (go here, click "Punk Rock Journal"). The article's original author is User:Huwonproductions, and Huwon Productions is at least closely related to the subject [23]. I cannot completely exclude notability since I do not have access to the sources listed under "futher reading". Google books gives one hit; however, in view of the apparent COI, I rather doubt that these sources contain substantial coverage of the subject. Perhaps someone can verify. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 15:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be right on the borderline of notability, as a musician and as a journalist. I lean towards keep because he has written articles for several different major publications. Capmango 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also on the basis of the publications and where they have appeared. DGG 02:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't think he passes either WP:Music or WP:Bio. Cricket02 05:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was even with consideration as to the multiple voting by two or three editors no consensus of action was determined - article kept. --VS ^talk 15:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday of alpinism[edit]

Content was forked out of Francesco Dionigi after that article was put up for AfD. This is an attempt to circumvent the AfD process --Akhilleus (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a completely different article based on a noteworthy calender date of a special event - two different subjects with no relationship of any particular point of view being common to the two. They happen to have common denominators that couldn't be helped in producing the new article. See Talk on the article itself. My understanding of something being "forked" would be that the same point of view is being carried over, which is not the case here. If there is a "point of view" on these subjects I believe it might be closest to:
- Francesco Dionigi is noteworthy because he was a close friend of Petrarch as an Augustinian monk and is talked about by Giovanni Boccaccio.
- The calendar date of April 26, 1336, is very significant since it has been designated as the "birthday of alpinism."--Doug ^talk 15:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the forking issue, there's no indication that the "Birthday of alpinism" is a notable concept. Is it celebrated by anyone? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has multiple reliable secondary sources. Evouga 17:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The general idea at that AfD was that because this is notable, the small amount of material on the Diongi could be merged into here. This is a celebration of a major work by a major author. DGG 17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That AfD is ongoing, and hasn't resulted in any consensus yet. This wasn't a "merge", it's a content fork created yesterday. I don't see how it can be acceptable to create a content fork during an ongoing AfD. Furthermore, the creator claims that this article is about "a noteworthy calendar date". That's not the same thing as the poem! --Akhilleus (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is an interesting bit of info, but I don't see how it needs its own article, particularly one as badly named as this one. Merge it to alpinism and/or Petrarch. Brianyoumans 18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Alpinism per Brianyoumans. There's no reason we need a "Birthday of sport/product" article for every single thing that has ever been invented. -- Plutor ^talk 19:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The phrase only exists in Wikipedia and its mirrors. All the references are to the original works of Petrarch and of other citations of that work, and none using this phrase of concept. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (probably). I vote keep as a separate article depending on whether this phrase was used before or is newly coined. There's nothing here that says it is established; if that information is added then it seems perfectly notable. Doug says "...has been designated." When and where? Rigadoun (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps that is not the correct word to use here. Mostly what I have found is the word "regarded". Designated and "regarded" are different words with similar meanings. "Designated" perhaps would mean something closer as being "offically documented" - and the word "regarded" should be used here instead. If you feel this is more correct, go ahead and change it.--Doug ^talk 22:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do we have any reliable sources that call this date the "birthday of alpinism"? I don't see any; the only source in the article that used something close ("the birthday of the alpine") was a German language website hosted in the Czech Republic, the article cited a version machine-translated by Google. That wasn't a reliable source, and I removed it. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The secondary sources attest to facts about Petrarch (all of which are or ought to be in his article). Nothing attests to the "birthday of Alpinism" (and Mount Ventoux is not a difficult climb); the closest is Burckhardt, and that's really the birth of Romanticism. A novel synthesis. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Septentrionalis above. No need to merge in my opinion; Alpinism redirects to Mountaineering, which already contains the relevant information about Petrarch in the the "History" section. Deor 23:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My original suggestion was to name this for the poem/letter, which as a major work of world literature will have abundant references. I'd still prefer it. I agree the present title seem a little lame. DGG 23:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ascent of Mount Ventoux? A little early to break it out from Petrarch, but I could live with that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  And have so !voted at the other AfD. Delete this; it won't even make a good redirect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What makes this article separate from the articles of (say) Petrarch or mountaineering is the idea that the anniversary is notable. That seems to be original research. Bucketsofg 12:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - disgusting attempt to circumvent other afd. The phrase "birthday of alpinism" does not seem well-used, if at all, so don't redirect. All the content is in the article this was originally copied from so if its going to be merged that should be discussed at that afd. This should just be deleted. Savidan 17:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - several additional references has been added to the article pertaining to this event and Petrarch being the Father of Alpinism.--Doug ^talk 15:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the additional sources provided in Doug's edit [24] uses the phrase "birthday of alpinism", so they do not justify the existence of the article. In addition, several of the sources seem to fail WP:RS. This site is just plain wrong; Petrarch did not climb "all the way to the top of the Alps." --Akhilleus (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a different name for the article is in order: "Father of Alpinism." Couldn't tell you if he went all the way to the top or not, however these sources seem to talk about his ascent of Mount Vertoux by Petrarch and his companions and brother. Can you be more specific as to which sources you feel are not correct? Is it Morris Bishop's book of Petrarch and his World or Jacob Burkhardt book Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy or the Famous First Facts? Did you research these in the library to see?--Doug ^talk 16:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would we need a separate article for that, when a note in Petrarch and Mountaineering suffices? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another name that might be even more appropriate would be "Birth of Alpinism." As noted by Morris Bishop, "Probably by design, for Petrarch had a great sense of anniversaries, he planned the ascent for April 26, 1336, exactly ten years from the day he and Gherardo had left Bologna." Also Bishop noted Petrarch as "..."the first modern mountain-climber", therefore this date would be as its "birth" and Petrarch as its "father." Its noteworthy because this date is known as the start of modern Alpinism - the sport of mountain climbing just for the sport of it. This was not done as such, before this date.--Doug ^talk 18:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would we need a separate article for this, when the event, such as it is, is already noted in Petrarch, Mont Ventoux, and Mountaineering? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much what I was saying all along - that "Birthday of Alpinism" and Petrarch being the "Father of Alpinism" has been in these articles for the last 3 years (in addition to European Wikipedias in German, Italian, and French) - however now that we have done this additional research it appears that the exact wording of "Birthday" can not be attributed to a well known author, which the date itself can and Petrarch being the Father of Alpinism can. Therefore this would be a great opportunity having this article and linking to it from these many other articles to explain the "birth" as a significant event (which has many references to show it). I think Birth of Alpinism is an appropriate renaming.--Doug ^talk 18:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I started this article on the "Birthday of Alpinism" many of these other articles have since been tagged for a citation source of this quote plus "Father of Alpinism" that has been around for 3 years with no source. This now is a great opportunity to Keep this article and not only use it for the citation repairs for these many articles, but as a link also. These other articles then can just be edited accordingly as Birth of Alpinism just by dropping the part "day". Then all these other articles on Petrarch, Mont Ventoux, and Mountaineering (and possibly others) can be linked to this new article with a full article explaining everything with references accordingly as to why this is significant.--Doug ^talk 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Potential names for this article could be
- - "Birth of Alpinism"
  - "Birth day of Alpinism"
  - "Birth date of Alpinism"
  - "Day of birth of Alpinism"
  - "Start of Alpinism"
  - "Beginning of Alpinism"
  - "Genealogy of Alpinism"
  - "Origin of Alpinism"
  - "Inception of Alpinism"
With the many citation tags now in all the articles that have "Birthday of Alpinism" and "Father of Alpinism" there are potentially now about a dozen links that could be make to this article explaining everything. These two items are inter-related, so links coming from either to this article would be appropriate. There would be potentially many more links anytime there is a reference to "father of mountain climbing" or "start of modern day mountaineering" or "environmental history" and similar topics.--Doug ^talk 22:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article still has no sources for the usage. Wikipedia is not a reliable source; and articles like this are one reason why. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary - it now has over a dozen very reliable sources from various references. No reference to Wikipedia itself. This would now be a great opportunity to fix all the citation tags in these various other articles asking for references for "Birthday of Alpinism" and "Father of Alpinism" by just linking to this article. Both those topics are well covered in this article with many references. Yes, these quotes have been around for 3 years in these articles, however now there are citation tags requesting references. This article solves that problem, especially if the new name were Birth of Alpinism. This is a great opportunity then to clean up all these other articles that have had these quotes for 3 years. If this article were renamed to Genealogy of Alpinism then it would become a very large article with many items related to the history Alpinism.--Doug ^talk 12:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have time to go through all of them now, but it appears that all of the sources that Doug's added are websites, largely tourism/mountaineering websites, that don't meet WP:RS. In addition Doug, why do we need a separate article on this concept, when it's mentioned in Petrarch, Mont Ventoux, and Mountaineering, and citations can be given in those articles? Why is "birthday of alpinism", or whatever you want to call this content fork today, a significant, notable concept worthy of its own article? Are any of the articles you've turned up exclusively about Petrarch's climb as the beginning of mountaineering, or is this just an incidental claim in articles that are about another subject? --Akhilleus (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that "Birthday of Alpinism" is an entirely different subject altogether than the person Francesco Dionigi.Yes, most talk about Petrarch's climb as the beginning of modern mountaineering known today as Alpinism. Most of the websites sources are on Mountaineering History. The many book reference sources are on the significance of the event. Petrarch's adventure of this ascent to the top of Mont Ventoux is considered a turning point in Western civilization and a milestone in human history generally. There are over two dozen sources in the article showing the significance of this major event. There are so many sources that reference it as the "Birthday of Alpinism" that I believe it would be proper just to leave the name the same as it is now. If anything to make it a little more clear and the potential of a much larger article, renaming to Genealogy of Alpinism would be good. Have you checked out the library reference sources? Another interesting point is its significance in the man-in-nature concept and environmental history.--Doug ^talk 14:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the links you've spammed the article with fail Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source, and in fact most of them are mirrors of Wikipedia; this one repeats the text from Mountaineering#History; so does this, this, this, this, . The reference to Petrarch on this page is from a jumbled copy of the text from Mountaineering#History. Same here and here. This is a thinly disguised rewrite of the Wikipedia article. This one doesn't load, nor does this one. This one is a modified version of the Wikipedia article on Petrarch--it says so on the bottom--and that's the article you're using as the evidence that Petrarch is considered the "father of Alpinism"?
- This tourism site at least is not a copy of Wikipedia, but it doesn't meet WP:RS either. Same here. This timeline of Petrarch's life simply notes that in 1336 "Petrarch climbs Mount Ventoux", with no mention of the event's significance, or the exact day. This article devotes 2 paragraph's to Petrarch's ascent in a much longer article. This paper also briefly mentions the climb in a much longer account of Petrarch's career.
- This is truly abominable sourcing for an event which you've just claimed is "a turning point in Western civilization and a milestone in human history generally"--and what is the source for this particular claim? Why it appears to be Thomas Hochstettler's inaugural speech as the president of Lewis and Clark College. As we all know, speeches given on such occasions never involve hyperbole, nor do they ever magnify relatively trivial events into turning points in world history for the purpose of illustrating the values of the new administration. (In any event, the speech is not about Petrarch's climb, no matter what claims it makes about its significance. The climb is merely an illustration of the speech's larger theme.) --Akhilleus (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some of those sites you mentioned are a "modification" of Wikipedia articles (from this being in these other articles for 3 years), so that's why I have provided many additional External Links referencing these same facts as well as many reference source books from the library showing the "Birthday of Alpinism" and Petrarch as the "Father of Alpinism". I have provided several dozen references showing these facts, so even if some of them you don't like for whatever reason, there are others you can rely on. One example on this list is the location of a Petrarch Museum that references this, however there are still many more. As you can see finding references and sources to back this up is not hard to find. However let's say there are 20% of these that you don't approve, that still leaves 80% that can be relied on (leaving dozens of references). You can always find some reason for any reference that you could disapprove it for some "technicality". The point here is that there is much referencing these facts of the "Birth of Alpinism" being April 26, 1336, and Petrarch being the "Father of Alpinism." Just because there are some references you don't like personally that you may disapprove that doesn't make the rest of them not valid references. It just means some you don't like personally, which could then later be removed if other editors also don't like them. That would still leave dozens of very reliable sources from library reference books, to encyclopedias, to newspaper articles, to university papers written by professors in the field. Let's let others look over these several dozen references and if ultimately there are some that several editors disapprove, then just remove those. The article is still a very viable significant and notable event in history that has influenced mankind in all kinds of ways for nearly 700 years as is demonstrated by these many references. The article name could stand as "Birthday of Alpinism" since there are so many references showing it.--Doug ^talk 22:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am very confident that any webpage that says the "birthday of alpinism" is April 26, 1336 and Petrarch is the "Father of Alpinism" got this information from Wikipedia. Most of the webpages you've cited are copies of Wikipedia content, often exact copies of text from Mountaineering. Circular referencing does not justify the existence of a Wikipedia article. As for books and magazine articles, you haven't shown that any call this day the "birthday of alpinism", nor have you demonstrated that in any of these references, Petrarch's ascent gets more than a passing mention. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about that. This German page (the author of which has published regarding mountain climbing) identifies Petrarch as the "father of alpinism" and calls April 26, 1336 the "birth hour of alpinism" (making it clear it's not a "birthday" in the sense of something celebrated on anniversaries). But I don't see why these claims need their own article. The fact is mentioned in the articles on the mountain and Petrarch. If this particular climb has so many details that it really needs its own article, it should be Ascent of Mount Ventoux, or more specifically Petrarch's ascent of Mount Vertoux, per Septentrionalis. Rigadoun (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for finding that page. My German is not very good, but I agree that the page you've found is not a copy of Wikipedia's content. However, I stand by my comments that the English language websites that call this day the "birthday of alpinism" are copies of Wikipedia's content--just compare the sites I linked above with Mountaineering#History and you'll find that most of them are copying the exact wording of the Wikipedia page, while some have reworked it slightly. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The additional references I provided does not have the exact wording of the Wikipedia page. Take for example footnote # 4 which uses the wording "beginning of alpinism". Also footnote # 7 uses the wording " birth of alpinism and Petrarch its father. " Then there is footnote # 8 which says " "the first recorded Alpinist" (which is in Morris Bishop's book, Petrarch and His World which I pointed out in the lead of the article). That is why I am suggesting to rename to Birth of Alpinism, since this is what all the references seem to reflect. The reason for the article is to show the significance in influencing the human intellect and philosophy. This is referenced in the first item in External Links with "Humanism" linked. The second item shows its influence as the potential intellectual precursor of Columbus crossing the Atlantic. The third item points out this "birth" as influencing the role of mountaineering and human quests in general. There are several more to follow with an analysis of the letter and its philosophical significance as the last one. So you can see from here it is not only just the start of modern day Alpinism but has influenced intellectual thinking for nearly 700 years, all related back to this event of the "birth."--Doug ^talk 17:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also footnote # 6 does not use this exact wording. The link went temporarily bad, so I replaced for now with a cached version.--Doug ^talk 18:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also in article lead I point out a 1995 University of Illinois paper referring to Morris Bishop calling Petrarch "the first modern mountain-climber."--Doug ^talk 18:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move and rework into Origins of alpinism or something like that. The concept itself is preposterous and apparently original to this article. However, much of this content could be worthwhile in the right context. The idea of the "birthday" may not warrant inclusion, but it does seem there is some kind of notable creation myth around Petrarch climbing that mountain. Of course, an "origins" article should be much broader than that, but it would be appropriate as a portion of it. Everyking 10:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe the way to go is to expand Mountaineering#History, which is just a bullet list right now. The information about Petrarch is already there. If the "History" section got big enough it could then be spun off into History of mountaineering. Alpinism redirects to Mountaineering, so sub-articles should be titled "X of mountaineering" rather than "X of alpinism". --Akhilleus (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Birth of Alpinism. I am not confident that any webpage that talks of the "birth of alpinism" as April 26, 1336 and Petrarch as the "Father of Alpinim" obtained this information from Wikipedia. However some of the sites may be "modifications" of articles that have been around for the last 3 years with those expressions. Since you asked if Petrarch's ascent on this date was the beginning of modern mountaineering, you can now see that it was. Also you can see now it is a very significant event since many people talk of this event to this day (almost 700 years later) and its influence on the human intellect and philosophy. I have removed those references that you feel are Wikipedia modifications and replaced with others. Perhaps also a renaming to Birth of Alpinism is more appropriate, since that is exactly what the article and its references are talking about. Did you check out The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy by Jacob Burkhardt where he describes Petrarch's ascent as the first time mountain climbing had been undertaken just for the sport of it? Also did you check the reference of Famous First Facts: International Edition where it credits Petrarch for writing of the first account of mountain climbing of importance? Did you check out Morris Bishop's book, Petrarch and His World where there is a long chapter titled "The Ascent of Mont Ventoux" and what I pointed out in the blockquote in the lead of the article? Morris Bishop calls Petrarch the first modern mountain-climber. Also Garrett Mattingly in his book Renaissance Profiles refers to Petrrch as being the Father of Alpinism, which also is in the lead. In the lead of the article also is Quadrant Magazine's article as it relates to environmental history and the man-in-nature concept. Since I just recently made several improvements, this new article (perhaps under this new suggested name of Birth of Alpinism) now is an excellent basis for others to contribute.--Doug ^talk 11:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Renaming to Birth of Alpinism I believe to be most appropriate, instead of say Ascent of Mont Ventoux. The reason being that it is the beginning of modern day mountaineering, not just one event of a particular person climbing a particular mountain. As I already pointed out, it has a relationship to personal growth and self-knowledge as well as human quests in general. This event has special significance far beyond a single ascent to a mountain top since it is the beginning of many intellectual ideas, not just modern day mountaineering. The event influenced much Western Civilization thinking. This material, which can be obviously expanded considerably, deserves its own article.--Doug ^talk 20:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional reasons why I feel Birth of Alpinism is the most appropriate name is because it most precisely fits the article concepts and fits exactly with the associated reference wording:
  - "of discovery"
  - "birth of alpinism
  - "birthday of alpinism
  - "birth hour of alpinism
  - "new Renaissance (rebirth) spirit"
  - "beginning of alpinism"
  - "the first mountaineer"
  - "first recorded alpinist"
  - "pioneer of sightseeing"
  - "first modern mountain-climber"
  - "beginning conscious perception of landscape"
    --Doug ^talk 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to whomever takes on the task of closing this AfD. Doug has been very industrious in adding sources to try to save his article, but the sources he's adding are either of poor quality or provide only trivial coverage of the so-called birth of alpinism. For instance, this EU report only mentions Petrarch's climb on one page of a 160-page document; in this book Petrarch's climb is an anecdote mentioned briefly in the introduction but not in the main body of the text. Sources such as these should not overcome the already apparent consensus that the subject of this article is best covered in existing articles such as Mountaineering and Petrarch. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There has not been a consensus that the subject is best covered in another article. It is obvious that with this much material on this subject by so many different quality references that it should be its own article. This is a major event in human history as these many sources show. The references should definitely be checked out as they will show are very high quality reliable sources. The references will stand on their own as being of significance and importance pertaining to this material and article. There are over 4 dozen high quality library references that show the importance of this major historical event. Just by reading the article itself one can see the historical importance of this as a breakaway point from the "Dark Ages". This event is the mark of the beginning of the new humanistic "Renaissance" spirit. This event has influenced the human intellect much in philosophy and other areas (i.e. humanities, mountaineering, religion, human endeavors, goals, natural science, environmental science, social sciences, etc) for the last 670 years since the event happened. To this day it is talked about much, especially in higher education. The only change I recommend is that the name of the article be changed from "Birthday of Alpinism" to "Birth of Alpinism" by dropping the word "day." This material would then apply to many articles and these other articles would link to this one because of the relationships. If I can come up with this much material on the event and it meanings, imagine how large the article will become when other Wikipedians get involved. I see the article splitting again into other parts because of its increased size that will develop with the future contributions by others.--Doug ^talk 21:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here's some more "checking out" of the references:
- Burckhardt's The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy devotes a paragraph to Petrarch's ascent in a larger discussion of the "Discovery of the Beauty of Landscape". That's trivial coverage of this "major event in human history."
- Preface to Rudolf Steiner's Mysticism at the Dawn of the Modern Age ([25]). The article implies that this reference is by Rudolf Steiner, but the preface is actually by Paul Marshall Allen. The ascent of Mt. Ventoux occupies one paragraph of this preface, and Petrarch is only mentioned in one other paragraph. This is trivial coverage in a long introduction which is giving the reader the background for the subject matter of Steiner's book, medieval and early Renaissance mystics like Meister Eckhardt, Nicolas of Cusa, etc. This illustrates the real significance of Petrarch's climb--it's an anecdote that appears in discussions of other subjects.
- This New York Times article discusses Petrarch's climb as a foil for the author's own climb of Mt. Ventoux. Once again, trivial coverage. The NYT article also notes that "Jean Buridan, a Parisian, left an account of climbing Ventoux early in the 14th century, just before Petrarch." So the claim that this event is the "birth(day) of alpinism" needs some qualification. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I discuss more of the article's sourcing at Talk:Birthday of alpinism. Executive summary: the sourcing is very poor. --Akhilleus (talk)
Its interesting that for an article that Akhilleus feels is an article that needs to be deleted and the material is not sufficient material to become a full blown article, he "improves" it by removing major parts he feels are not good for the article - making major improvements to the article! Or is it that he does not want others to see the version of up to June 29 before he edited out major portions that I previously put in with extensive references. If the material is bad and the references not good, then why not let others (not emotionally involved with the article) see this material and let others judge for themselves. Since he has made all these "major improvements" to the article and given extensive reasons why the material is not good for the article, apparently his vote has changed to Keep - since he wants to make many "improvements" to the article because he feels the article deserves to be a full blown article. I am assuming this is what he is doing in removing these major parts, that he is just "improving" the article. Otherwise he is hiding this material and censoring the material from others because he feels the material is outstanding references. He has made 8 major "improvements" to the article since yesterday, apparently since he wants to Keep the new article, since I am assuming good faith that he is not censoring this material from others to see. He has studied the article for days and the refereces extensively since he feels the new article deserves this much time for improvements. He obviously wants the new article to get these excellent improvements, since his vote has now changed to Keep as a full new article. These "major improvements" (removing over 6000 bytes of information) are far more work than one would normally do just to add a section to an existing article - so obviously he wants to Keep it as a full new article of its own. Since his vote has now obviously changed to Keep, then we have mostly Keep votes. I am willing to let the article stand as it is now with all these excellent "major improvements" - and my only other suggestion is that the name change to Birth of Alpinism for the new article.--Doug ^talk 13:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deal! Edit in good faith and assume I am editing in good faith. Trust me on this one: you are not interested in bowling (I'd bet the farm on it!). And I am still a little puzzled as to what Francesco Dionigi has to do with mountaineering. Let's agree to let this article be Birth of Alpinism and let the community of Wikipedians edit it to their heart's content. Keep in mind, I have not edited any of your articles that you started (that I know of), however do edit articles you work on (but not take away any of your edits, just further improvements). Deal?--Doug ^talk 15:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I love bowling. If you think that Dionigi has nothing to do with mountaineering, why did you fork Birthday of alpinism out of Francesco Dionigi during an AfD? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point exactly - Dionigi has nothing to do with mountaineering! Francesco Dionigi (a person Petrarch wrote a letter to in 1336) and Birth of Alpinism (beginning of modern day mountaineering for the sport) are two completely different subjects (which happen to have similar references in some cases).

In Wikipedia:Content forking it points out: "Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject." This means the same subject. Also under "What content/POV forking is not" in the section "Related articles" it says: "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. As an example, clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France, this does not make it a fork." Birth of Alpinism (beginning of the sport of mountaineering) is an entirely different subject than Francesco Dionigi (a person Petrarch wrote a letter to in 1336). They only contain some information and references in common with each other. Two entirely different subjects. Therefore there is no POV brought over, since there is no common POV.

Bowling: Great, I also love bowling, been doing it for 30 years and you? So then you know all about Automatic scorers? (since you made several edits to it)

The only reason I bring this up is because many of my articles I started you either nominate for deletion or tag for improvements or that they don't have adquate references. It seems pretty coincidential, since we have been debating this article. So happens that I worked for Brunswick as an Electrical Engineer in the 1970's and helped develop this specialized computer for the bowling industry. So I guess in this case, I would be considered "the expert" on the subject.--Doug ^talk 16:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bottomline then is that we are in agreement that your vote has changed to Keep, since you made all those "major improvements" to the article itself indicating your vote is "Keep" the new article. Do you then agree the name for this new article should be Birth of Alpinism? If your vote is still Delete then I assume it is alright with you to put back all the material with the multiple references that was already there at zero hundred hours 29 June. Since you are saying this is bad material with bad references, then by me putting back this material you removed it only would reinforce your point by allowing others to see the material with the extensive associated references. Obviously you can't have it both ways. I can only assume that you made these "major improvements" to the article because you feel the article itself deserves this. I will not assume you are censoring the material and editing the article in such a way to make it look bad so that it gets deleted. If the material you took out makes the article look bad and you want the article to be deleted, then why not allow this material to stay in the article. I will assume you are editing the article in good faith and want to Keep the article as a new article. I will assume that the reason you made these "major improvements" by deleteing major sections and multiple references is to improve the new article. If I don't hear back from you today, then I will assume you approve my putting back these large sections of extensive material I already had there 00:00 29 June that you removed with the dozens of references associated with them.--Doug ^talk 18:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
stop putting words in my mouth. I've already said that I think this article should be deleted, because it was created as a fork to evade the AfD on Francesco Dionigi and because its subject receives only trivial coverage in reliable sources. I removed material from the article because it had been stuffed full of terrible sources, including sites that were obvious copies of Wikipedia's Mountaineering article. I would not recommend reverting my changes. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So what you are saying is that your vote is Delete? Why then are you editing the article, since you feel the material is bad material. If it is in fact bad material, then it would be in your favor to allow others to see this material. You are saying then that you are not censoring the material and shaping the edits in such a manner to make the article look bad so it gets deleted? Why don't you want your edits reverted, unless of course you are in fact improving the article. The only reason you would edit the article with "major improvements" with these major deletions is if you want to Keep it as a new article?If you think the material I added up to 00:00 29 June (that you removed) is bad material, why not allow others to see it? That would be all in your favor!! Of course, anyone that wants to see this major deletion and see what the article looked like before you made these major deletions can of course just look in history at 00:00 29 June to see all these major references you removed. You are not censoring the material, are you? Why then can't I have this material in the article? Why have you then edited out these major references? What's the purpose? If the article is "stuffed full of terrible sources" then you are making improvements to the article. Why are you making major improvements to an article? The only purpose I can see is if you want to Keep it as a new article, since you would not be censoring the material from others to see. You have to decide if your vote is Keep or Delete. If it is Delete, then I should be permitted to have the references and the extensive material you removed - since in your words it is "terrible sources" anyway. This way then others can check this out to verify if it is such or if it is outstanding reliable sources that I contend. Let others verify themselves! If it is Keep, then decide if Birth of Alpinism or "Birthday of Alpinism" is the most appropriate name for the new article. I think the best name is Birth of Alpinism?
  Since you have edited out these major references, then the problem is solved and it is a Keep vote from your part to be a new article - is that correct?
- As I have pointed out above per policy, this article is not a fork. Your definition of "a fork"? Need details, please. If the only real reason for deletion is that it has the same POV as Francesco Dionigi, then that problem is also solved. It obviously is not. Francesco Dionigi is a person Petrarch wrote a letter to. Birth of Alpinism is the beginnings of the sport of mountaineering and the philosophy aspects related to it. These are two completely different entities and subjects with completely different points of view - not even close to each other. The article on Francesco Dionigi was deleted because most of the editors felt that he was not notable enough for an article. Please explain to me (details) your definition of "a fork" - since I know what Wikipedia's policy is as I have pointed out above. Neither is a fork of the other.--Doug ^talk 19:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Akhilleus says that "this article should be deleted, because it was created as a fork to evade the AfD on Francesco Dionigi. I have asked his definition of "a fork", however have not received an answer. Wikipedia'a policy I pointed out above of Wikipedia:Content forking. It says that articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the same subject" (perhaps in the policy the word "same" should be added). I did not do this. Wikipedia further says what a content fork is not: "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another." My two subjects are definitely different and distint topics.

The first distinct topic is Francesco Dionigi is a person. He was an Augustinian monk, a Professor of Theology, a close friend of Petrarch, and Petrarch's confidant. He was also a priest and had the title "Father." His patron was Robert the Wise (King of Naples, a.k.a. King Robert of Anjou). It was determined that this person was not notable enough for an article to be written up on him.
The second distinct topic is Birthday of alpinism - a calendar date of April 26, 1336. Besides being the start of modern day monutaineering, it has special philosophical meanings. Francesco Dionigi has nothing to do with either of these.

Akhilleus continues to edit this article, however says his vote is to Delete the article. By doing these "major improvements" it gives an indication however his stance is Keep. He says I can not edit his edits: "I would not recommend reverting my changes." In the process of his major edits he has removed several of my key points that are key references to the article itself, which of course will make the article look like it should be deleted (since there are not adequate references). Some examples that were removed from my edits of 00:00 29 June that I feel are key points that should be allowed in the article are:

The wording "The sport of mountaineering began in the Alps and is the reason for the term alpinist - meaning mountain climber." Referenced then with encyclopedia reference as footnote [10].

This is important since it shows how the word alpinist came about and what it means.
This then relates to the reference of Morris Bishop where he calls Petrarch "the first mountain climber" - which is referenced in his book at page 104.

He won't allow a key passage from Petrarch himself as reflections he made of the ascent as he noted in his letter The Ascent of Mount Ventoux:

"Yes, the life which we call blessed is to be sought for on a high eminence, and strait is the way that leads to it. Many, also, are the hills that lie between, and we must ascend, by a glorious stairway, from strength to strength. At the top is at once the end of our struggles and the goal for which we are bound. All wish to reach this goal, but, as Ovid says, ‘To wish is little; we must long with the utmost eagerness to gain our end.’” Niccolò Machiavelli perceived plainly that the struggle against necessity required that an individual have excellence and freedom as primary life purposes."

He has removed key references from 00:00 29 June that back up the article theme of "birth of alpinism" and Petrarch being the "Father of Alpinism", some which have not been determined or noted in the article itself as originally coming from Wikipedia. Also there was another editor above that even challanged this thought ("Rigadoun"). Examples removed that I feel should be as references are in my 00:00 29 June edit:

History of First Ascents

Mountaineering History

Mountaineering Definitions and Statistics

Mountain Climbing News

Mountain Climbing History

Mountaineering History

Petrarch: The Grandfather of Alpinism

Petrarch: Books and the Life of the Mind

Location of a village where there is a Petrarch Museum and Monument identifying that April 26, 1336, is known as the "birth of alpinism and Petrarch its father."

--Doug ^talk 12:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It appears that there is general consensus here which says that this list is indiscriminatory, Original research and subjective, and these arguments have not be refuted appropriately by the keep arguments. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video games that have been considered the greatest ever[edit]

Per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, section 9:

Statistics.' Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.

This article is a list (even though it's not a "List of"-article), consisting of statistic, arranged loosely without any assertion of notability. _→AzaToth 14:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire. Just about every video game on earth has been "considered the greatest ever" by someone. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Which isn't actually relevant to this discussion, since this article only covers important video game publications or websites. Jeff Silvers 01:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a List of video games which have been described using hyperbole. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No brainer. Totally subjective, can not be properly cited because of such issues, and inherently unencyclopedic. --Durin 15:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit I find this to be a good source, a page that needs to be kept, granted it needs mass overhauling, it still needs kept. There is statistics and there is no possible way to list all the games people conisider/considered great. The best way is through official awards, game magizines attempts, and polls or perhaps even wikipedia. Eventually enough people will edit the artical adding games and sources this will become reliable for finding at the very least good games, which I guarntee users of wikipedia will want. The name does need edited however, it is in my oppinion to long and not centered around the main idea of the artical, least not as good as it could be with a shorter name. We should be talking about the top rated more or less but there is no way to definitivly say "the greatest ever". All and all keep and edit. Asharon 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The preceding post (signed Asharon) was edited by an IP and neither userpage nor talkpage nor contributions exist for a user Asharon (as far as I can determine). Is there any policy on signing posts as such? Merely curious, 74.134.255.99 11:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original post read:

"Keep and edit This is a good source to find top rated games, however the artical is misnamed in my oppinion, it should be top rated or somthing of the sort. The author does back up info it just needs to be edited. Asharon 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Despite the signature, the original and modified posts were both made by 71.59.247.46. Assuming good faith, I'd say that this is a newbie who doesn't know how to sign posts, and doesn't know that you're not supposed to edit posts, even your own. I say don't discount the opinion based on this breach of the rules. Jaksmata 14:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete urgh. Nick 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-tool into an article called "List of video games that have received the highest ratings" or something like that, because while this list is more objective than it could be (say, "Video games that have been considered the greatest ever by Messedrocker"), it still could be better. We could have the cutoff at winning first place in reliable publications. Failing this, delete the article. (messedrocker • talk) 15:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This was Previously nominated last year and the result was Keep. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change --Durin 15:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have grounds for that Keep there? For my part, Delete per above. This is an indiscriminate mishmash that could be applied to dozens of games, as witness the numerous sources giving their "greatest" accolade (such as it's worth) to several games. RGTraynor 16:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly suggest everyone (including the closing admin) to read the previous AFD as there was a lot of discussion on this topic already --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The concept has some merit, and there do appear to be well defined inclusion criteria to this list. However, given the sheer quantity of entries - due both to the large number of competing sources for the pronouncement of "Best Game Ever" as well as the often annual change of said pronouncement in any given source - the distinction of having been considered the best game ever has been diluted to a matter of trivial importance. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely POV, different people are likely to consider different games to be "the greatest ever". It's like a personal essay, and hence should be gone.--Kylohk 15:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is premised on incurable POV. Otto4711 16:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as I'm actually a bit shocked such a well-referenced article that a previous debate voted to keep would even come up on this again. Borderline speedy keep. --164.107.222.23 16:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as I love the concept of having a list of really good games, there's no way this article could ever meet Wikipedia standards. The name of the article itself implies POV. If there was a published list, from a well known source, with secondary sources showing its notability, that would be fine. Compare, for example, Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time. That list was created by a magazine well known even outside its genre, and the list has been critiqued by other well known publications. Jaksmata 16:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again as mentioned this article would never meet Wikipedia standards and has a lot of POV content. Definitely needs to be deleted. Xtreme racer 19:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article does not contain anything at all encyclopedic. We're writing an encyclopedia, not a report. Extremely POV, biased, infringes WP:NOTE and several issues on WP:NOT. NSR77 ^T_C 19:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article is outrageously biased towards Nintendo. Very little content is featured on the Playstation Two, and virtually no content on the Xbox. Nothing on the Next Gen. systems, either. NSR77 ^T_C 19:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article Television Shows Considered The Greatest Ever just came through AfD, with the result of keep; same arguments apply to this article. I think the formatting of the TV article is a lot clearer than this one, and should be looked at as a good model. I agree that the video game version has gotten a bit muddled and should be cleaned up.Capmango 19:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice the important difference in wording: it's not "Television shows that have been considered the greatest ever", like something was number 1 once. Here its a muddle of ancient history (by video gaming standards), current (or sort of current) sources, and the list can only grow because once considered the greatest it fits the list "have been...". Therefore, the comparison with the tv or film articles is inapt. Carlossuarez46 00:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subjective. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of video game scores. If Edge or similar did a "100 Greatest Games" feature, it would be fine to include it. CloudNine 19:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edge did to a 100 greatest games feature. The #1 choice was Ocarina of Time. That is mentioned in this very article, so why are you voting to delete? Capmango 20:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per CloudNine. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin I'm wondering how many folks voting for delete actually looked at the article, given the number of arguments that it is "totally subjective". From the title it would appear so, but like its sister articles for films and TV shows, it is actually an objective summary of notable sources that chose a greatest game ever, which is a very different thing. Capmango 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is highly subjective, and yes I did look at the article first. --Durin 20:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but help me understand what you think is subjective. Is it that the sources themselves have been subjective in choosing their games, or that the article is subjective in choosing the sources? The winner of the Oscar for best picture is subjective, too, but we still list them in articles. Capmango 21:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read it. Delete and bury in a lead-lined casket. An ad hoc collection of non notable fluff; correctly referencing such fluff does not prevent the whole thing amounting to bollocks. --Tagishsimon (talk)
Keep and retool as per User164.5 and Campango. After reading the article, I see that it is well-researched and based on the opinions of the gaming magazines, rather than the author's opinion. Campango's analogy to the Oscars is apt. A list going back to the 1970s would illustrate the changing nature of the industry. The title should be changed to something less subjective-sounding. Mandsford 23:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - but it needs to be re-written as a list with a strong inclusion criterion. --Haemo 00:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inherently POV and subjective: and contrary to Capmango, the choice of sources is inherently POV and subjective too. Various zines come out with rankings, ratings, etc. for video games, and it changes over time. Even the article isn't what it claims - of what purpose to include 1994's best games when the same source in 2005 after considering also came out between 1994 & 2005 dropped all of 1994's games from its "greatest ever". In 1972, Pong was the greatest ever, but by 2005 it paled in comparison. Carlossuarez46 00:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this article were about the video games Wikipedians think are the best ever, sure, that'd be pretty subjective, but this is about video games which have been accepted by several important, mainstream video game media outlets as having been the greatest (either by reader survey or by consensus of the editors). There's no subjectivity issue here since we're just reporting what the majority of notable video game publications and websites have said. Jeff Silvers 01:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Article seems to be organized in an arbitrary manner?—a list of lists, with poorly defined criteria for secondary sources that should be deemed worthy of citation. What it lacks in readability, it more than makes up for in superfluity to Wikipedia's goals. Per the Oscar argument, the Academy Awards are one source, not a haphazard collection of internet articles of varying notability. Cruft such as this sets poor precedent for future wikipedia articles. Validusername 10:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with just about everything you are saying here, but this is almost all an argument for clean-up, not for delete. There are good solid sources in the gaming world, and games are as big and important an industry as movies or TV. Capmango 15:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not POV because it does not assert a list of the "Greatest Video Games Ever", it gives sources opinions on what the greatest game ever is. The article is well sourced, as well. Besides, I like this article and there are other "Greatest/Worst Ever" lists for films, and songs. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 17:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found one for TV shows too. I notice that many of the Greatest/Worst Ever lists have come up for deletion lately, and have ended in keep. There doesn't seem to be a consensus to remove this type of list. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 01:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dosen't belong on an encyclopedia, (would you find this on Britannica?) POV, more of a list of game scores. Anyone can put thier favorite game on the list and call it the best ever. GreaterWikiholic 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Lots of sources and a good article. Also maybe rename to "List of video games considered the greatest ever"? カラム 02:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP - Some of these games have so obviously been considered the best ever that they don't even need sources, and the fact that sources are provided just proves the already obvious sentiment. This article is important factually, and unlike most of the people who say that this is fan rubbish (they are probably also non-gamers who no nothing about gaming), the games on here are FAMOUS in the gaming world. Zelda, 007, these are among the titles that NO ONE CAN DISPUTE, and there are many others, so this needs to stay to maintain the factual accuracy and comprehensiveness of this encyclopedia.Paaerduag 07:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember I did nominate the article for an other reason. _→AzaToth 09:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just FYI I am a gamer and I still think this list should go. Try to assume good faith. Whisp e ring 14:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see the problem. It's not POV, it's sourced, and it's interesting. Unless someone wants to go ahead and nominate every "list of X" article on Wikipedia for deletion, I don't see why this one would deserve special treatment. That being said, it certainly is improvable, but not being perfect is not a reason for deletion. -- Schneelocke 09:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A subjective list, with extreme bias, list can never be completed even if kept. Whisp e ring 14:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per User:Whispering. -- Magioladitis 19:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reorganise. This is, however, a list that in and of itself may invite other violations--I can imagine it being hit by less mature readers who would insist Stick Figure Fighter 99 is the best ever and so totally better than Immortal Combat 43. As it is, it's an honest attempt to compile games that have been considered as such, and seems free of bias from the writer. The writer's sources may be biased in one direction, and as for an earlier question ... how can the latest (as of this time, PS3/Wii/XBox 360) games be listed, considering how new they are? The article is getting a bit full, though--some trimming would be better. As for being subjective..yes, it's an inherently subjective matter. At least this has multiple opinions, rather than arbitrary fiat. But it needs some more work! IL-Kuma 08:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably do a bit of a rewrite on it. We have a similar article for films [[26]] so I don't see why we should discriminate against videogames. Communisthamster 17:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that we have other articles like this article isn't relevant. What is relevant is the fact that the article breaks policy. Whispe ring 18:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but edit. Shouldn't there be a best selling section? The Sims isn't even listed on this page, though it and the others in the series were top for many years.

Strong Keep There's other articles for books, films, and whatnot. Just revamp the article with specific categories, or something similar.
Weak keep It's probably a good resource for seeing what is perceived as making a game great and how those characteristics change over time, but it's largely listcruft and open to vandalism and OR. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge because it's a fairly obvious decision from an AFD process perspective. If you wish to remove the names individually from the merged list (which would nullify the merge from a content perspective), be my guest. Yechiel Man 11:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway musicals stars[edit]

Short list of the "most notable" Broadway musical stars. List was created in response to a category discussion [27] but this short, abandoned, and orphaned list does not seem useful. A list of actors who have appeared on musicals on Broadway should be quite extensive, and one appears at List of Broadway musicals stars. which was created around the same time and better serves this purpose. JJL 14:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge; can't see any reason for not merging into List of Broadway musicals stars, they look like they are trying to do the same thing. Fourohfour 15:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I considered that, but there is absolutely no overlap whatsoever between the two lists--not a single name. So, I think they're using different criteria for inclusion. This one says "most notable" and the other says "most famous" and while I'm not sure what the distinction is, I was reluctant to merge. JJL 15:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete Looking at some of the individuals included, I can't really see why they are particularly notable any more than other actors who have appeared on Broadway. Petula Clark has been on Broadway, but she didn't appear there until 1991, and she is certainly not known primarily for her work on Broadway. Some of the others were primarily on Broadway, but somewhat obscure. It looks like sort of a random list to me. Brianyoumans 19:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Fourohfour.--JForget 23:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as appropriate as likely search term. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - or at least move material not repeated in the other list to the bigger list.Bec-Thorn-Berry 08:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Today we have a special offer: cut-price redirects. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NCG 1260[edit]

Title is spelled incorrect and article already exists under the correct title NGC 1260 T@nn 14:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected with nominator's assent. Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice 19:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And action. Evilclown93_(talk) 10:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Iqbal Sacrani[edit]

Poorly formated, word for word duplicate of Iqbal Sacranie Rackabello 14:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Iqbal Sacranie. No need for AfD. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 14:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Evilclown93_(talk) 14:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; Rackabello, AA said and Evilclown93 did exactly what I would have had I got here first. Pointless dupe covering same thing, no harm in redirecting without AfD. Thanks for the thought, though. Fourohfour 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Thanks for the heads up. Next time I'll be bold and just redirect it! Rackabello 15:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The voting must close since the redirection is already done. Magioladitis 16:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus so by default the article will be kept. DES ^(talk) 05:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Upton[edit]

No references establishing notability per WP:BIO, has been so tagged for nearly a year. Article seems autobiographical and strongly promotional in tone. Videmus Omnia 14:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I dunno. Article doesn't look right. I guess it could be cleaned up. His Wire Sculptures book is on Amazon.com --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A hard call, but he seems to be prominent only among a small subset of British experimental poets. He hasn't won any awards, and I don't see any articles on his work. He has a large body of work, but so would any prolific poet. Brianyoumans 17:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article does not seem to hold any significance, as indicated by WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. Only noteworthy to a small few, if any. NSR77 ^T_C 18:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As poets go, he is notable. Most poets - including the best and the most influential - are rarely heard of outside a small circle of cognoscenti. The article does need work, but needing work is not grounds for deletion. If it was, there'd be about 3 articles on the whole of Wikipedia. DuncanHill 21:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable (in terms of English experimental performance poetry). Needs work, as per DuncanHill's commments, but that no reason to delete.HeartofaDog 01:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What evidence is there that he is in fact notable as a poet? He is the chair of some poetry forum in London, and I found a radio interview with him by an organization called Radio Radio. Other than that... his books are all from small presses or self-published, as far as I can see. Can anyone find any other things to point to that demonstrate his notability? Brianyoumans 16:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete given that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and there is no sourced information that can be kept or merged. --Core desat 04:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Strangelove in popular culture[edit]

Trivia fork full of times said movie has been (or may have been) referenced. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to The Shining for precedent. Biggspowd 14:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete in popular culture The way to deal with bloated trivia sections in articles is to purge them, not to split them out into whole new "articles" with nothing but trivia. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. MSJapan 15:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list, directory of loosely associated items. trivia, take your pick. Otto4711 16:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, because this film has had a strong influence on culture and even appears in textbooks we used in college! Therefore, it is something students could find helpful as a reference for their courses. --172.133.145.96 20:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to take a good look at WP:USEFUL. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of WP:USEFUL talks about when Useful is a valid argument. The anonymous user above seems to be appealing to it in that sense; and I agree with 172.133.145.96 in this case. Capmango 22:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took film classes in college too and in no instance would we ever have studied a list of every single time the film or a character from a film was mentioned in every other medium. Otto4711 00:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Guy has the right idea here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list has gotten crufty and should be trimmed to things that truly reflect the effect of the film on popular culture. Seeing how a film has influenced popular culture is one thing for which people turn to encyclopaedias. Capmango 22:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pare this down or Delete. Lists of pop culture references do not need to include every reference ever. If anyone ever invents a Wikicommandment on this one, it should be something like "Do not list obscure references to legendary events"Mandsford 23:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of this article is historically significant. Ebay3 07:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because a subject is notable doesn't mean a bunch of subarticles are suitable for here. 2001 and The Shining are also historically significant subjects, but those articles were deleted too. And a similar page about Star Wars was also removed. Biggspowd 22:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this article is largely a list of indiscriminate trivia in disguise. Per directory standards, most of the entries are not famous because they have a mention of the film. Per notability standards, the topic is supposed to be explored through "significant coverage" that address the subject of Dr. Strangelove in popular culture directly, instead of extracting it from the firsthand observations of the editors themselves. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems like someone has a personal vendetta against all the pop. cult. articles. Comment are all the articles in Category:In popular culture and Category:Fictional works in popular culture going to be deleted too? Why have these cats? Lugnuts 15:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories aren't any more prominent than the popular culture articles are. There's no personal vendetta -- it's clear that many popular culture articles are biting the dust based on the rationale of multiple editors. Per WP:NOT#DIR, a list of items that are not made famous as a result of the entity is indiscriminate. If a book or a film was a direct influence of Dr. Strangelove, that would count, but a quote used from the film elsewhere doesn't warrant encyclopedic mention. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the film is notable; its impact on society is notable; random references to it in pop culture is not. ck lostsword•T•C 21:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't merit it's own article. Gather together the most notable half dozen and merge them back to the film's main page. A1octopus 18:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by TexasAndroid (talk · contribs) per CSD A7 (web). Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyMozart.org[edit]

This website does not meet the notability criteria described by WP:WEB. Evilclown93_(talk) 14:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam, has already been csd'd once today. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 14:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A7 and G11, no assertion of notability and spam respectively Rackabello 14:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't know that... Well, that speedy delete under WP:CSD#G4. --Evilclown93_(talk) 14:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Seems it's been tagged for Speedy Already. As above MyMozart has already been speedied earlier. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 14:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that the original article, Mymozart, contained phrases like "LET MOZART DRIVE YOUR SUCCESS!" and testimonials from clients. This article isn't as blatant. Just wanted to note that it may be possible to write a non-advertorial article about it. Leebo ^T/C 14:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went on mymozart.org, there's really not much you can say about it other than the fact that its' a duplicate of the million dollar homepage. Even if a non spam, non copyvio article could be written, I don't think there's enough content even for a stub Rackabello 14:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MyMozart is a project concieved and managed by the Associazione Mozart Italia - a non profit organization - to raise the funds necessary for tis activity. Why the milliondollar home page can be on Wikipedia and mymozart not? Mymozart
Merge Obviously can't stand on its own, merge to Universitat Mozarteum Salzburg and redirect.DGG 15:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MyDelete.org spam-mungous. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Obviously can't stand on its own, merge to Universitat Mozarteum Salzburg and redirect. Suggest Rapid close.DGG 15:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hopeless spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously spam and was already tagged today and deleted. Xtreme racer 19:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:ADVERT. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advertising.--Edtropolis 19:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. If half of your article consists of "It is part of a development that consists of single dwelling homes", then odds are it doesn't merit an article.--Wafulz 19:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normandy road[edit]

Appears to be moderately-sized road in residential area with no notable features. There are countless roads of this size in any moderately-sized town/city. Note that this is based on article and road's Google Maps view. Fourohfour 14:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Firstly, it is barely long enough to be a stub, and secondly, the title is gramatically incorrect. --Evilclown93_(talk) 14:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline speedy A7. Yechiel Man 14:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no "borderline" about it. --Calton | Talk 15:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Areas of Twin Cities Minnesota[edit]

The subject is covered fully in Twin cities and there is no reason of an article or redirection with the name Urban Areas of Twin Cities Minnesota to exist. Moreover, the article is orphan. Magioladitis 14:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a very short article, it's orphaned, it already has a merge tag, and it is covered by another article. I would have prodded this one, Magiladitis. Evilclown93_(talk) 14:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, redudant orphan article that offers no new information worth merging. Arkyan ^(talk) 15:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Nips 16:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. NSR77 ^T_C 18:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant Capmango 22:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. — Wen li 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge/Redirect to Twin Cities or appropriate/related Twin Cities article--JForget 23:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- covered much better in Minneapolis-Saint Paul. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Chick Bowen 18:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonese wedding[edit]

Everything on this page is already included in Chinese marriage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjwong (talk • contribs) 2007/06/20 22:17:17

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see it that way. Chinese marriage, if that's the article intended by the nom, does not contain the search string "Canton" anywhere, nor much of the content. However, merging could be a solution. Yechiel Man 14:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you see duplicate articles your first port of call should be Wikipedia:Duplicate articles not AFD. Please read our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Uncle G 14:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: not exactly a duplicate, more like a regional sub-topic. The main question is whether the sub-topic has been noted in WP:RS as being sufficiently different from its parent topic to the extent that it deserves its own article. This differs by topic; Cantonese cuisine and Cantonese (linguistics) are obviously notable as subdivisions of Chinese cuisine and Chinese language, to give two examples at one extreme; at the other extreme, there's non-notable regional subtopics like "Cantonese American", which was redirected to Chinese American as the result of this AfD discussion. I'll do some reading over the weekend and see what I can come up with in the way of sources. cab 01:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. cab 01:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cem Kurtuluş[edit]

Does not meet notability guidelines for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oab729 (talk • contribs) 2007/06/21 03:32:48

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Google has only 500 hits, many in Turkish (so we'll be hard pressed to read them), and the folks at tr.wikipedia have already deleted their article about him. Yechiel Man 14:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very poorly written article, and most google articles are in Turkish. Not notable enough to be on really. Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 23:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daren O'Toole[edit]

Non-notability, promotion of friends Daverotherham 12:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, vanity. JJL 14:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A mayor may be notable; a road inspector is not notable. Yechiel Man 14:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Capmango 19:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it has no references, no context, badly written, and written like an advertisement. — Wen li 22:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, this is a lot less notable then political figures such as councillors and mayors.--JForget 23:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Efe Murat[edit]

The article in question does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Being covered in a national magazine is not enough. The national scrabble champions this year were featured on NBC, but are not an entry. Furthermore, Efe Murat, has only been published in high school magazines and failed to win a high school competition-The Princeton Poetry Prizee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oab729 (talk • contribs) 2007/06/21 03:32:13

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL 14:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cem Kurtuluş - same nominator, similar subject, similar problems. Yechiel Man 14:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kavajava[edit]

This drink is a fictional drink that is occasionally mentioned in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy. It is essentially a mixture of coffee and Kava. While it is possible to combine these two beverages I have no idea why anyone would. I drink both coffee and Kava but to mix the two would be terrible - the awful taste of the Kava would overwhelm the taste of the coffee. People do not drink Kava because of the taste, but for its effects. I'm happy to revert this afd if someone can actually show me a link to a real Kavajava drink. --One Salient Oversight 06:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability or actual existence in the article. MSJapan 15:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the Internet today, if anybody actually drank this it'd be trivial to find vendors online. All I can find, however, is a few people who use it as a username (and, of course, a few Wikipedia mirrors). That's confirmation enough for me that it doesn't exist outside fiction. Zetawoof_(ζ) 19:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferris Bueller in popular culture[edit]

giant trivia fork for times that Ferris Bueller was mentioned or referenced. Various other movies with "in popular culture" articles have been deleted, including The Shining and Star Wars, among others. Biggspowd 14:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JJL 14:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate collection of information, directory of unassocaited topics, triva. Strongly oppose the inevitable suggestion to merge any of it to an article on the film or the character. Otto4711 16:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would translate "in popular culture" as "all the stuff that didn't make the cut for the main article". Out! Brianyoumans 19:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as well Xtreme racer 19:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge, as a fair compromise to keep all the hard work that went into the article. --172.133.145.96 20:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EFFORT is not a strong argument for keeping an article. Otto4711 21:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unlike similar lists for Day the Earth Stood Still and Dr. Strangelove, which I am in favor of keeping, this list appears to be at least 90% useless. This list does not help you understand how the film affected popular culture; the other lists at least mostly do. Capmango 22:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to the parent article, the most pertinent, important info.--JForget 23:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You worked hard on the list, but information like this actually detracts from a film that's clearly one of your favorites, and one of my favorites too. I think that's why this was not made part of the article on Ferris Bueller. Who wants to read a list of parodies and jokes about a classic film? You have the DVD, I'm sure... listen to the commentary, and count how many times John Hughes says that this was mentioned in other media... zero. Mandsford 23:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Addendum To your credit, you didn't take away from the main article by piling in a list of references like this. Having written another type of references-in-popular-culture list (and getting an unmerciful hectoring for it), I can see both sides of the matter. True, nobody is forced to read your list. On the other hand, does it pass the (non-Wiki) test of "was this more fun to write than it is to read"? Maybe a few (emphasis on few) of the best examples would be OK in the main article. (Note to administrators-- I hope that the policy of notifying the author of a proposed deletion has been followed. Not fair to author if it hasn't, and we debaters are should be addressing the author, not just trying to impress each other with our supposed intellectual prowess) Mandsford 12:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this article is largely a list of indiscriminate trivia in disguise. Per directory standards, most of the entries are not famous because they have a mention of Ferris Bueller (like Family Guy, which spoofs a range of entities too indiscriminate to record). Per notability standards, the topic is supposed to be explored through "significant coverage" that address the subject of Ferris Bueller in popular culture directly, instead of extracting it from the firsthand observations of the editors themselves. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Trailer Park Boys characters. I am not deleting the articles in question, so any possible merges can still be performed. --Core desat 04:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randy (Trailer Park Boys character)[edit]

~~Minor~~Non-notable character (WP:FICT), no sources. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Propose merge into List of Trailer Park Boys characters. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to propose a merger, there's no need to list the article on AfD first; just go ahead. --B. Wolterding 14:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per SatyrTN with some explanation kept on the character.--JForget 23:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a recurring character who is notable in the context of Trailer Park Boys. I would keep the article. --Eastmain 05:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this and Sarah (Trailer Park Boys character), Ray (Trailer Park Boys character), Barbara Lahey and especially J-Roc to List of Trailer Park Boys characters. Fictional summaries and trivia do not make decent (real world) encylcopedic articles. --maclean 05:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per maclean - agree totally. Eusebeus 17:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GRBackPro[edit]

Delete as non-notable software. PRODed for notability on 6/13, removed anonymously on the 14th. On 6/21, the notability cleanup template was also removed without comment. Karnesky 13:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- Karnesky 13:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Capmango 22:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis in popular culture[edit]

Delete - another indiscriminate list and directory of loosely associated topics. The items on the list, drawn from multiple mediums, genres, themes and styles, have no commonality beyond happening to have a person or thing named "Artemis" in it, which may or may not be the goddess. To forestall the inevitable suggestion, oppose merging any of the information to the article on the goddess. Otto4711 13:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's inevitable. Selectively merge at least a couple of the entries into the article on the goddess. For example, Artemis's appearance on Hercules: The Animated Series, voiced by Reba McEntire, strikes me as hardly trivial, or for that matter irrelevant to the article about the goddess. The use of Greek mythology in works of literature and fiction continues to the present day. Other entries may be worthy of inclusion at Artemis (disambiguation), and should be merged there. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any useful info. as above. JJL 14:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not with Artemis but with Artemis (disambiguation).RandomCritic 18:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge with Artemis: this is the article for modern works about the goddess; and Artemis doesn't need these. Move any of these that link to notable articles to Artemis (disambiguation) along the lines of chimera (disambiguation), and make a non-list article out of any entries actually significant in modern culture, which Hercules may be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what about Wild Wild West's Artemis Gordon??? I mean delete. Capmango 02:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this article is largely a list of indiscriminate trivia in disguise. Per directory standards, most of the entries are not famous because they have a mention of Artemis (like Bomberman 64). Per notability standards, the topic is supposed to be explored through "significant coverage" that address the subject of Artemis in popular culture directly, instead of extracting it from the firsthand observations of the editors themselves. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. --Core desat 04:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simone (porn star)[edit]

An IP editor nominated this one and a large series of others for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion over one day two weeks ago. That whole series of nominations was reverted, since many of the articles in the series were clearly notable per our standards, but this one seems to be a reasonable deletion candidate. The article doesn't show any sign of meeting Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). It's unreferenced save to databases. The IMDB and IAFD list a good number of films, but almost all are number 6, number 32, number 11 of unrelated, and not notable series, indicating nearly anonymous parts. The name is common enough so that when I searched, almost everything that came up was apparently unrelated. It looks like no one has written articles about this actress, she has won no awards, and has no apparent notable fan base. Even our article recommends that people recognize her by an unremarkable tattoo. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: she has received a 2004 award. UnknownMan 01:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per research and analysis by AnonEMouse as not satisfying WP:BIO , WP:N or WP:A. Edison 14:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JJL 14:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; regardless of anything else, I don't think that an informal abbreviation like "porn" is appropriate for an encyclopedia, particularly not in an article title. Fourohfour 15:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It is, however, the convention on Wikipedia. RGTraynor 16:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Has this ever been properly discussed? Fourohfour 20:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tabercil 22:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 22:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes WP:PORNBIO as she was nominated for a 2004 AVN Award for Best New Starlet,(1) and a 2004 XRCO Award for Teen Cream Dream.(2) Epbr123 09:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to meet WP:PORNBIO. I would like to see some other references, so if kept either an inline or references tag should be added. Vegaswikian 20:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball keep. While the nom has points, a simple move in this case would save trouble. The rename fits within policy now, and the name is now a redirect. Non admin closure. Kwsn^(Ni!) 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tawana Brawley[edit]

Per policy: WP:BLP. This policy was used to justify the deletion and merge of the article for Crystal Gail Mangum. If we are to be equitible in the application of policy, then the same should be done for this article. Tawana Brawley is only notable for one event, and elements are very similar to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case. The information could be merged into the article for Al Sharpton or a separate article documenting the event and not the person could be created. —M (talk • contribs) 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: It has been pointed out that the article could be simply renamed. I think this is an excellent alternative to deletion and merge. It would remove the biographical aspect to the article (which would require inclusion of personal information not relevant to the case e.g. DOB, early life etc.) and be compliant with WP:BLP. I'm certainly not arguing for deletion because the other article was deleted but I'm looking at the application of the policy. Even the media has drawn comparisons between the two cases. —M (talk • contribs) 16:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable person and event; unlike the Duke case, this event is often referred to by her name. JJL 14:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it is interesting that this might be part of the reason that she has changed her name (in addition to converting to Islam). —M (talk • contribs) 14:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the same reasons given by JJL. I suppose the article could be renamed "Tawana Brawley case" or something, but I'm not sure what that would accomplish. This case is most widely known by her name, as opposed to the Mangum/Duke case. Videmus Omnia 14:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming would change the focus of the article as biographical to being one about the case. She's only notable for one incident and the article reports mostly the incident, not the person. A well rounded biographical article would have to include personal information which is not necessary if you're reporting the event and not the person. —M (talk • contribs) 16:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Propaniac 14:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just as "OTHERCRAPEXISTS" is not a good basis for keeping a non-notable subject's article, "THERE WEREOTHERIMPROPERDELETIONS" does not justify yet another deletion of an article about a highly encyclopedic and notable subject which is fully in accord with all Wikipedia policies, including WP:N, WP:A and WP:BLP. The article could be renamed Tawana Brawley rape case. The New York Times alone shows 387 articles about the woman and the case [28] 1987-1998. There are at least 2 books about her and the case: "Outrage" [29] and "Unholy Alliances" [30] . A redirect to Al Sharpton would be wrong, because attorneys Alton Maddox Jr. and C. Vernon Mason were just as prominently involved in the false accusations against white officials, per Time magazine, 1988 [31]. The Brawley case remains important in the history of race relations in the US, and was frequently brought up in coverage of the false rape accusations against the Duke lacrosse players, and in other similar accusations of rape. Edison 14:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Crystal Gail Magnum honestly will be little more that a footnote to the Duke rape case, when compared with Mike Nifong, etc. As stated about there have been numerous publications about her, and countless amounts of news coverage. Wildthing61476 15:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Were there a "Tawana Brawley media sensation" article, I'd advocate a redirect, but there isn't. That being said, Edison is quite right: this case is overwhelmingly associated with Brawley's name, unlike the Duke case. RGTraynor 16:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per User:Edison's points. Someone needs to make WP:THEREWEREOTHERIMPROPERDELETIONS now, you know. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 23:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hala alyan[edit]

The article does not assert the notability of its subject, who fails WP:BIO. There are exactly only 20 Google search results for "Hala Alyan". —Anas ^talk? 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a conflice of interest here, too. Useight 13:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the author (whose only contribution is this article) can provide independent secondary sources. (I'm sceptical in that respect however.) --B. Wolterding 13:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A7/nn-bio. Unless of course you count things like "At 16 she had already published her poetry on the internet." as claims of notability, that is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. — Wen li 23:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was this is deleted. --Core desat 06:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Bored[edit]

Does this really meet WP:WEB? As far as I can see, this article looks very much like an advert for the site, and its only claim of notability is a gold rating from TopTenREVIEWS, a website source which I am unsure meets the source criteria for WP:WEB itself. Delete, unless it can be demonstrated that this site meets WP:WEB. -- The Anome 12:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it reads like an advert. Useight 13:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love the website, it's one of the first sites I visit every morning, but I'm not sure if it meets WP:WEB. Wildthing61476 14:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete popular and well-known, but can't find evidence that it's notable. Does indeed erad like an ad. JJL 14:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert, and even the Alexa rank trumpeted in the article is pretty unremarkable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Capmango 22:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a badly written spam article. — Wen li 23:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references in the article are limited in scope. Bored Entertainment Weekly? Had it been a general magazine like Time, it would be a different story. So it does not satisfy WP:WEB.--Kylohk 15:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak weak delete. The advertisement aspect calls for delete. The fact that someone did some decent work putting it together draws the 2 modifiers. --Stormbay 02:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monterey Boulevard[edit]

PROD deletion contested, so the page has been restored. But IMHO the reasons for it's PROD deletion still stand. Non-notable local road. TexasAndroid 12:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable road. No references cited. Hut 8.5 14:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly nn. JJL 14:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reasons listed for notability do not in fact convey notability, and no sources. Capmango 22:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had it really been a site for illegal racing, there ought to be reliable sources mentioning such incidents, but there are not. Hence it's not a notable road.--Kylohk 15:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable thoroughfare - see [32] for a map. Articles should only exist for major thoroughfares. Orderinchaos 14:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Orderinchaos. No sources and it is unlikely that non-trivial sources establishing the notability of the road will be found. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not really a notable road. If hooning is good enough to get onto Wikipedia, then my street definitely qualifies. No sources either. Initial reasons for the prodding were definitely valid. Lankiveil 11:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 04:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fujifilm FinePix cameras[edit]

Page is simply a list of the cameras in the line. Most of the cameras on the page are either red linked or have no Wikilinking whatsoever. Delete as per WP:NOT as it is a collection of information. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 12:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is basically the same article with some minor differences:

List of Fujifilm products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 11:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems that a category would better suited to contain this information. PCock 12:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do the job via a category. Several of the blue links are just redirects back to this list! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 12:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The list, as it stands, is certainly no encyclopedic content, it's just a product catalog. But my first thought was in fact a different one: What about the blue links in the list? They often contain descriptions of products (digital cameras), the notability of which has not been established by WP:CORP, at least I saw no sources cited. Would it not be better to merge these articles into the list, thus filling it with some (hopefully encyclopedic) content? (For me, that would make more sense than deleting the list and keeping the articles about non-notable products.) --B. Wolterding 13:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sort of thing just encourages people to write articles on each model, and I am pretty certain we don't want tens of thousands of articles on individual models of camera, printer, computer, etc. A description of a product line may be appropriate, if it won't fit in the corporate article; and a particular product can certainly be notable - the Apple II computer, for instance. This sort of thing is better maintained on the company's own website. Brianyoumans 19:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Unless you are willing to withdraw this nomination and then submit a group nomination for ALL of the similar lists this needs to be kept. The products for many companies have lists like this, List of products manufactured by Kodak is another example. Given the number of lists like this that do exist, they all need to be considered as a group. If these articles are deleted and not merged into the main articles, the material will likely return as sections in the parent company articles. Vegaswikian 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument here. Let's discuss this particular case. What would be the best option? Merging into Fujifilm does not seem appropriate, the article would grow too long. In my opinion the list should be transformed into an article about "Fujifilm digital cameras" by whatever name. But what should be done for that? Stubify? Merge content from elsewhere? Rewrite (who does that)? --B. Wolterding 18:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. It is a case of we have a real problem here that is best discussed by dealing with all of these at one time. Selective deletion is not good. Vegaswikian 20:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., and most of above comments. At the very least, this is borderline spam.--JayJasper 19:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...as a list I don't think it serves a useful purpose but if it was renamed and expanded to something like 'Fujifilm cameras' or 'History of Fujifilm cameras' might it have a place? Something like Lumix. Agree that there are many many 'List of X products', which I'd apply the same argument to. In summary, Merge the 2 articles up for deletion, rename to one of my suggestions and delistify. Paulbrock 00:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I will be going on a personal campaign to remove many such lists from WP in one fell swoop over the course of the coming weeks. As such, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS will not apply ^(hopefully) after the overhaul. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 12:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; we cannot transwiki to WikiTravel due to an incompatible license. --Core desat 06:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vadodara: Places of Tourist Interest[edit]

Wikipedia is not a travel guide; see WP:NOT Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 11:40, 21 June 2007 UTC)

If page like Tourism in London can exit on Wikipedia, what's wronge with the information for smaller cities. Kind regards, -- Baroda Boy 13:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I see what your point is, the two articles have a fundamental difference -- Tourism in London article is simply an overview of the tourism in London, and is really just an add-on to the London article, noting some of the historical places in London. Your article is much more indepth however, and is written in a similar fashion to a travel guide, which is not suitable for wikipedia. See no.2 here. Maybe that can answer your question. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 12:35, 21 June 2007 UTC)

Delete as per nom, it reads like a travel guide and is not a travel guide. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 12:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of this is already in the Vadodara article. The 'excursions' section is completely unnecessary, that is travel guide material. If there was a "WikiTravelGuide", this might be appropriate, but not here. Brianyoumans 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But wait, there is a wikitravel, at wikitravel.org.

Transwiki to wikitravel. Capmango 02:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Last time I saw the information on it, Wikitravel had a different kind of license for contributions than Wikipedia does, so I'm not sure that a straight-out transwiki would work. The original author should have a look at the Wikitravel entry for the location and see what can be added to it from this article, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information in the article is very useful, but it's not encyclopedic. I would advise the creator to move the content to Wikitravel's Vadodara travel guide. utcursch | talk 08:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wikitravel and then delete. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 09:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above. Malc82 21:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

!dea Star Singer[edit]

Non-notable local television program with commercial advertisement that is likely to be only of temporary interest. Shyamal 11:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - the article seems to be of very local interest and more of an advert than anything but it may have some value to a specific group of people. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 12:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs references, but is a series that is now in its second season. Could be expanded. Corvus cornix 22:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Unnotable and reads like a commercial. Unless someone wants to expand it, of course! Escape Artist Swyer | Talk to me | Articles touched by my noodly appendage 21:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful content to Asianet#Shows and Delete. The article doesn't assert notability. utcursch | talk 08:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and delete is a GFDL violation. Corvus cornix 23:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with above - article about a non-notable show that reads like an ad. Eusebeus 17:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've added a little bit more. Corvus cornix 23:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Anwar 17:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 17:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mantis pro wrestler[edit]

Non notable wrestler. J Milburn 11:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Largely unverifiable, probable hoax, fails WP:BIO and WP:V. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and One Night In Hackney. Fails WP:BIO without a doubt. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 12:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, doesn't meet WP:BIO, no sources. PCock 12:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One (count 'em, one!) GHit for Ronald F. McNorson and that is this Wikipedia article! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 12:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned fails WP:BIO and is probably a hoax article Xtreme racer 18:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per Plm. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 19:08, 21 June 2007 UTC)
Delete as false article. ... discospinster _talk 20:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I WP:BIO apparently makes all professional wrestlers notable, but only the real ones. I don't think this guy is real. Capmango 02:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and probable hoax. Nikki311 20:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable in the slightest. And no not all pro wrestlers are notable by definition, wrestling and pro wrestling are two different things, anyone can work a match in outer Podunk in jeans and a shirt and call himself a pro-wrestler because he got a ham sandwich as payment ;) MPJ-DK 00:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete after discounting the marked SPAs. --Core desat 04:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TREAMIS World School[edit]

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

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

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

Before everyone gets hung up on the word school, please note that this is a commercial enterprise in India, the article was created and primarily edited by a single purpose account, there are fewer than seventy unique Google hits, and most importantly the artist's rendering that illustrates the article is the only picture I can find. I also cannot find any independent discussion of the school which does not trace back to press releases. If it has opened yet - which is not clear - it is evidently very new indeed. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that as a non-registered user my views here don't count, but since when did that stop anyone, so... delete. When the article was written, the author was asked to provide records and uncommercial it; he couldn't/wouldn't. Several editors have tried to get the info out of him with no luck; any tags asking for information are removed straightway. None of this fits with what I think your policy on deleting is, so I've doublechecked what the person above said and agree that there are no independent records. I also think the license is wrong on at least one of the pictures, but that's beside the point. Thanks. 86.147.226.186 11:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy or guideline stating that the views of unregistered users don't count. Your views are as important as the views of registered users. utcursch | talk 08:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable school, page reads like advertising. Also to the Anon IP, if you make a strong case your views DO count. This isn't a vote, but a discussion on the article. It's rare we have anon IPs who make constructive edits to an AfD, so this is a welcome change. Wildthing61476 12:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable nn spam, per Guy and Wildthing. Sarah 12:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. --Yamla 15:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam flavored COI. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article provides multiple articles about the school, including from The Hindu, India's largest English-language paper. All of the articles provided are about the school, not mere mentions. There is plenty of verifiable information, it just hasn't been integrated into the document as references. Minor rewriting and removal of puffery would make this a more than adequate article. I strongly suggest that anyone evaluating this article click and read all five of the newspaper article links provided. Alansohn 02:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having adapted User:Alansohn's suggestion, and looked at the school's web-site it is clear that this school cannot be notable, because it will nt open until July. Delete now, with liberty to start new article in 7-10 years' time, if the school has made any notable achievments. -- Simon Cursitor 07:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eusebeus 13:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Alansohn. Given the comments I first saw here, I was pleasantly surprised that they had the news coverage they did get. The references indicate some news coverage, and even rewritten press releases involve editorial judgment from independent, (seemingly) reliable sources. If they're getting this press now, they'll get more later as well. Being for-profit doesn't seem like a relevant drawback in this case. Noroton 22:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Alansohn and Noroton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RisingTide45 (talk • contribs) — RisingTide45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep I've gone through the website and references. It doesn't say anywhere that the school is a commercial enterprise. I don't think it's spam; the article just needs rewording. I will volunteer to recreate it using the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.208.68 (talk) — 75.49.208.68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep If you compare the March 26th version and latest version, there is a considerable improvement in the article. There are five references in English and considerable number of references in local papers (that are of no use to the English speaking crowd). All the sources are credible. The Hindu is one of the most widely read and respected newspapers of India. Economic Times has international presence. It is difficult to provide link to the TV coverage. Treamis is not a commercial enterprise. About 15 people living outside of India have contributed fund to establish this school. They are trying to bridge the gap in K-12 education between India and the west which is a notable achievement. The article is not edited by single purpose account. I see that nine people have edited the article. I have asked the school authorities provide me photographs of the building. They have assured me to provide them within a week or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commonsense999 (talk • contribs) — Commonsense999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - This article did not go off to the best of starts and still needs a lot of work doing to it, however the verification provided from independent sources suggests notability so I think this article is worth keeping. On the side note, can users please sign their comments here to prevent confusion. Thank you. Camaron1 | Chris 11:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as now sourced. It still needs a good deal of clarification. DGG 03:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Anwar 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N by way of WP:CRYSTAL, as the school has yet to open. The sources appear to have relied on either press releases or aggressive marketers, as they read like promotional material and as the place is not even open yet, so I deem them unreliable. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reliable sources quite clearly state the school is being set up, and provide verification of most of the details. So the existance of the school facilities is not WP:CRYSTAL. The press related to the school clearly indicates it is notable; my guess is it is because of its planned curriculum, and because people like the Wipro president is on the advisary board[33]. John Vandenberg 06:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, independent sources do not exist for any of the information, because the school does not exist yet so the sole source for all information, repeated or not, is the school's management. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that the tone of the sources indicate that the existance of buildings/facilities/staff/etc has been fact checked, esp. [34] by The Economic Times. Of course, all those things dont make a functioning school that has done anything notable, but notability is only a guideline. What is important is we can write a verifiable article here where normally that is difficult, and there are only 25 schools in Category:Schools in Karnataka. While not terribly useful here, there are Hindi sources too. The address of the school appears here, but that site isnt reliable. John Vandenberg 03:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe article contains reliable references which are verifiable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Honestabdul (talk • contribs) 11:00, 27 June 2007 — Honestabdul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Wild[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 09:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:A. Edison 14:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JJL 17:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no evidence of notability established. Tabercil 22:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 22:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 10:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Velocci[edit]

Non-notable wrestler , signing a WWE developmental contract is in itself not enough to warrant a wikipedia article. Fails WP:N and WP:V MPJ-DK 08:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Nikki311 21:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no google news, and the accomplishments dont look notable. John Vandenberg 07:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (WP:SNOW). --soum ^talk 13:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rage (Wrestler)[edit]

Non-notable small time indy wrestler who’s never been close to working for a well known independent wrestling promotion. Fails WP:N and WP:V MPJ-DK 08:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because: it's another article about the same guyMPJ-DK 08:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is a mess (copied from somehwere), subject is nn. JJL 14:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, this article is pretty bad. Delete b/c the subject is non-notable. Nikki311 19:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both, we need to clean up the project, these pages do nothing to help. Darrenhusted 16:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to cdb. I saw nothing I could merge that wasn't already there. Chick Bowen 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constant Data Base[edit]

Delete - Article is not notable, discusses a commonly implemented data structure. Would be better as a section in an article about programming theory or database theory. The largest part of the article is about Dan Bernstein's implementation of a CDB, in which case, it may be relevant to discuss CDBs there as well. A seperate article with little information is pointless. As such, this article does not contain enough information to establish notability per WP:Notability. --nenolod (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to cdb per Dhartung. (updated concept) --nenolod (talk) (edits) 08:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I created a stub for this subject as cdb, which was expanded significantly by an anon; it may as well be considered part of this nomination. John Vandenberg 08:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The stub is not interesting to me at this time. I am against nominating the stub as part of this. --nenolod File:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this library/database is used in a number of very notable pieces of software. John Vandenberg 08:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a specific database or library, but instead a design paradigm. This should be a section in an article about database design. I have yet to determine a good candidate for a merge, however. --nenolod File:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to cdb. There is really no other notable implementation (no, this isn't a "commonly implemented data structure", either). --Dhartung | Talk 10:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair solution. I think this is what should happen. --nenolod (talk) (edits) 22:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question/Comment. Why does the cdb article also have an AfD banner that redirects to this AfD? Is cdb also coming up for deletion? Or was the idea simply to alert users that the little-sister-article was up for deletion? Is the proposal to delete both sisters? Or was it supposed to be a Merger banner? Initially I thought it rather startling that we would propose merging to an article that was also up for AfD. I also wonder which article "name" is more appropriate to be the base title for the Wikipedia - cdb or Constant Data Base ... or perhaps Constant database seeing as database is (or should be) the real name. Data bank is sometimes used as an alternative for database, but I seldom or never see "data base" used in proper authoritative sources. Bottom line: Something needs to be merged, redirected, and/or renamed, but to where? --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 12:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to The Academy Is.... The other band members will need to be nominated in separate AFDs or sent to PROD. --Core desat 06:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam T. Siska[edit]

Virtually all content is unencyclopedic trivia. "prod" tag previously removed without justification. Hqb 06:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the trivia and keep everything else...oh wait, there is nothing else. Yechiel Man 07:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the trivia and there is nothing left, as pointed out above. --Stormbay 14:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Academy Is.... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect article name to band, unencyclopedic trivia only page. Non-notable separate from the band. --Dual Freq 03:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete this, because everyone else in the band has an article, and some aren't any better than this!!! So why should you only delete Sisky's????! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ziggy S. Darkside (talk • contribs) 18:39, June 22, 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe the others should be deleted as well and redirected to the band article. --Dual Freq 04:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Starblind; no information worth keeping in this article. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no excuse here if the other members' articles have content, and assertions of notability. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 11:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Starblind; this entire article is nothing but random trivia that really doesn't even have any sources. Thesloth 04:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Starblind; 150 ghits, but not enough to base a biography on. this mentions him twice. John Vandenberg 05:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin's Law[edit]

This saying has been around for 3 months according to the article, nowhere near long enough to have gained notoriety. I doubt whether there are any reliable secondary sources to prove notability. The whole article reads like an essay. Was originally tagged as speedy delete, which was rejected and changed to prod. This tag was removed without comment, hence my nomination. Kevin 05:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references listed, none are likely to exist: this is completely unverifiable. Note also that the article was created on the 8th of March, 6 days after it was first stated. Wikipedia is not for things made up ~~at school~~ while standing around the water cooler one day. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Peter Principle or Murphy's Law. No offense to Shawn Martin or to the author of this article, but the idea of a manager out of touch with the rest of the organization is not anything new, and was observed well before March 2007. Lawrence Peter wrote a bestselling book about persons who rise to the level of their own incompetence in The Peter Principle, and touched on this; Scott Adams writes about this on a regular basis in Dilbert. In addition, people who like to put their names on some observation of human behavior will more likely be located as part of an article about such "laws". As proof, read my article Mandsford's Law: if you must name a new idea after yourself, it is probably not a new idea. Mandsford 12:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing to merge. This whole article is unverifiable. Uncle G 15:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up at work one day. JJL 14:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites no sources and, searching, I can find no sources. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 15:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:NFT.--Edtropolis 19:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh, how true it is, but even Murphy's Law, the Dilbert Principle, or the Peter Principle were not notable when first stated. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazons in popular culture[edit]

Totally uncited laundry-list of trivia Eyrian 05:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom hit the nail on the head. -- Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Lifthra 05:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even by the pathetic standards of "X in popular culture" on Wikipedia, this one's bad. Yechiel Man 07:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only redeeming feature of this article is that someone at least tried to write it as an article, and not a poorly disguised list. --Haemo 07:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom.
Delete as indiscriminate and OR. Gathers any reference any editor can find to any strong woman or women, regardless of whether they bear any relation to the classical Amazons of myth. A great article could be written on the topic of modern usage of the Amazon myth but this isn't it. Otto4711 13:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a subpage of the talk page and keep. Indeed, a good article could be written on the topic of modern usage of the Amazon myth, and this page contains information that would be helpful towards that purpose. If it is judged not ready to appear in main space yet, it should be kept for future reference and improvement. Forking and deleting information is not the best way to deal with this sort of problem. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because contributing firsthand observations to forward an argument is synthesis. There is no significant coverage of this topic, only a list of indiscriminate trivia items. Per WP:NOT#DIR, "There is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic." The only problem is, the entries are not famous for having Amazons (except for Wonder Woman, it seems), they're famous for other reasons, and they are only loosely associated for having Amazons. It is original research to support a topic by providing examples while saying nothing attributable about Amazons' presence in popular media. Even if attributable sources existed, it would not warrant extra examples that are being uncovered by the editors themselves. Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sr 13 06:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wakefield High School (Wakefield, Massachusetts)[edit]

No proof of notability over other high schools. Prod contested, so created an AFD. Guroadrunner 04:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ into the education section of the Wakefield, Massachusetts. This article is a mess, but a trim version will be OK within the article on the location since it is of local interest and a major institution in that town. (Incidentally, school deletions have traditionally been pretty controversial, so don't be surprised that the prod was removed.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to the improvements to the article, and some notability conferred by the athletic achievements, I am OK with keep-ing this as a separate article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Wakefield, Massachusetts. The existing article needs a lot of work and has very limited verification. All the important notable information can be included in the main town article quite easily. Camaron1 | Chris 11:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing comment to Keep following article cleanup and improved verification - now appears to be notable. Camaron1 | Chris 11:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Eusebeus 12:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Weak Keep~~ Article has been cleaned up to remove nonencyclopedic material. Sources have been added re sports championships and alumni, all of which establish notability. Will upgrade as additional material and sources are added to the article. Alansohn 14:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional material and sources added after my initial Weak Keep, providing details regarding multiple state championships, supported by reliable and verifiable sources, combine to make a very strong claim of notability. I hope to add further sources, and look forward to additional input and assistance on enhancing this article from all those with a genuine interest in improving school articles. Alansohn 15:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Despite the additions of references, the article is still really only a paragraph or two if all the headings come out, and should be merged in to the main article pending the discovery of a lot more historical background on the school and its building, for example; it's got to have more than 10 years behind it, and the Wakefield article is mostly stubbed as-is, so it could use the added info in the meantime. MSJapan 15:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Marginally notable, but enough references to clear WP:V. RGTraynor 16:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — RJH (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (yes, that isn't a typo) Some schools are notable, and I think most established high schools will be found to be, if the article is researched sufficiently. This is moderate in content, but it does show several athletic championships and several notable alumni, as well as careful sourcing--and includes no junk content such as a list of the school corridors. DGG 18:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I't not a mess now. Noroton 18:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article is about a school. Wikipedia has many articles on schools, and I see no reason to delete this one. If it were to be deleted, then each other article relating to non-major schools would have to be deleted, as well. NSR77 ^T_C 18:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Wakefield, Massachusetts could use the material; and some of this, like the AP programs, should go. But at this point, this really isn't an AfD question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NSR 77 --JForget 23:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - contains encyclopaedic content and has the multiple sources to meet WP:V. TerriersFan 01:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above votes Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved version satisfies WP:N by revealing several state sports championships which pass WP:V as they are cited to sufficiently WP:RS. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete --Eyrian 05:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F@nb0y$[edit]

Recreation of previously deleted article for non-notable webcomic. Link to original (very contentious) AfD. No new assertations of notability. Recommend delete, again. MikeWazowski 04:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifies as Speedy Delete under CSD A7. --Eyrian 05:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interdisciplinary art-science curriculum[edit]

Captain Panda's PROD got bulldozed by the author. There's a likely conflict of interest and a clear violation of WP:NOR. Yechiel Man 03:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An Essay, could be considered OR, and frankly, I was left wondering why this is even important. This concept has no asserted notability. Resolute 04:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I read this article... and I couldn't parse out any useful information from there that wasn't already implied in the title. The original version was written as an attempt at constructing some sort of academic forum for developing interdisciplinary art-science curricula; while this is a commendable goal, it's not related to our task of writing an encyclopedia. While the current version attempts to be encyclopedic, all it says is that these interdisciplinary curricula exist - not anything about them. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Resolute. JJL 14:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet ready for prime time. Otherwise, it's in the same category as Writing across the curriculum -- a nice acedemic idea, but still at theWP:OR phase. Bearian 00:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I misspelled academic.Bearian 00:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia needs an article on Interdisciplinary education, which has been around at least since the 1970s (I couldn't find one, maybe I need to try a different title), but no need for an essay specifically about art-science. Capmango 02:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Capmango. John Vandenberg 02:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I submitted this article. My apologies for unintentionally "bulldozing" Captain Panda's PROD, but I misunderstood the instructions that state "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS." It's very true that there is little scholarly research on interdisciplinary art-science curriculum, which is why a Wiki on this topic is so important. My own essay, "Artists in Industry and the Academy," published in the peer-reviewed journal, "Leonardo", begins to define some of the contours of graduate studies emerging in this subject, including Ph.D. programs at Georgia Tech, U Wash, UC Santa Barbara, and Arizona State to name a few in the US. UCSB and ASU received IGERT grants to support their students. As a member of the Program Committee and Chair of the Education panel at the recent Creativity and Cognition conference in Washington, D.C. (June 13-15, 2007) it is clear to me that interdisciplinary pedagogies at the nexus of art and science are emerging internationally and that scholarship is beginning to emerge that specifically addresses curriculum, such as "Propagating Collaboration: An Instructional Methodology for Artists and Engineers" by Elif Ayiter, Selim Balcisoy, Murat Germen and Selcuk Artut at Sabanaci University in Istanbul, Turkey. This is notable and demands not only more research but greater public recognition. Moreover, it should not be diluted within the context of general interdisciplinary education or integrative learning, which could include joining social studies and science for seventh graders. Finally, it's unclear to me what it means for sociable media content to be "ready for prime-time"; indeed, such a concept could be considered to be antithetical to the very concept of sociable media. By supporting this article, Wikipedia will help the community engaged in developing and defining art-science curriculum to collectively define and share this field with the broader Web. Please note that I've expanded the entry to include lists and links of PhD and MA programs.

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knowedgeability[edit]

Prod rationale was "Coined word which is provided with a dictionary definition only. No entry for the item in Merriam-Webster. No sources, so the term cannot be verified." Deprodded by original editor, who initially provided a source at Urbandictionary, then a source at a site which is a broken link. Highly non-notable neologism, which I strongly feel should be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research essay. --Dhartung | Talk 03:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above; blatant OR. Yechiel Man 03:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Resolute 04:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 05:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article ranks highly in terms of Delete-ability. --Gavin Collins 18:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- OR. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 21:04, 21 June 2007 UTC)

Delete it's NEO, OR, or both. Capmango 04:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joevis[edit]

Seems to fail Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not on many levels. A check for references was not successful on google [35] considering this is claimed to be a online subject, if it was notable it should have hit big Jeepday (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NOTABILITY. --tennis man 03:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be a widely-used term, possibly a WP:NFT case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Neologism without sources. —C.Fred (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above Rackabello 16:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a place for this and it is urbandictionary. Capmango 04:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep There is no consensus here to move or redirect, but there is no ban on doing so as an editorial decision at any time. DES ^(talk) 05:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The House at Riverton[edit]

This appears to be a non-notable book, by a previously unknown author, and essentially publisher's spam Grahamec 02:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does seem a little early, to list as notable a book that has barely appeared, if it is in the stores at all. Brianyoumans 03:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ not claim to fame... non notable... if it was a best seller or had a lot of pre-publicity energy...Balloonman 03:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to keep and possibly rename as book appears to be best seller in australia per link below.Balloonman 20:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax and patent nonsense. --TWENCIL4 08:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like a hoax.Weak Keep, based on research below. Lankiveil 03:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC). Kate Morton is a real Australian writer, but her debut (and by the looks of it only) novel is entitled "The Shifting Fog" ([36] [37]). By the plot summary, "The Shifting Fog" might be the same book as the one in this article, but it's hardly conclusive. Even if real, and looking past the fact that this article is under the wrong title, I'm not sure that the book is quite notable enough, yet. Lankiveil 10:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment, on further inspection, it appears that they are the same book: [38]. Recommend that if the discussion finishes at anything other than "Delete" that the article at least be moved to the correct title. Lankiveil 10:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

note - at this point article was renamed from "The house at riverton" to "The House at Riverton".
Comment [39] [40] The book has two different titles, it seems - one published by Allen & Unwin (Shifting Fog) and the other by Pan MacMillan (The House at Riverton). The information about Richard and Judy is verified from the UK newspaper The Guardian. The author Kate Morton appears to be notable from The Courier-Mail, Sydney Morning Herald etc, however I'm not sure that her book actually meets the criteria, unless the Richard & Judy thing causes it to do so. ~~I am not voting as I can't decide, but thought I'd present my findings.~~ Have voted below. Orderinchaos 10:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Definitely not a hoax. Has ISBN number 0330448447. There seems to be a number of reviews in reliable Australian magazines which would make them notable. Assize 10:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there are two books by this name [41]. Assize, do you have links for those magazine articles? John Vandenberg 11:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No unfortunately. I looked at her website at http://www.katemorton.com/default.asp?z=8 and got those usual puff piece reviews. One of them was the Womens Weekly. Anyway, the book looks significant as I assume that Richard and Judy is a TV show in the UK. Assize 04:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Fails criteria in WP:BK.--Edtropolis 19:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems to be the best solution to a second release under a new title of the previously released novel.Ga rr ie 00:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to The Shifting Fog. There are 46 Google News Archives hits for it [42] including this [43] that states it has been a bestseller in Australia and been sold in 13 countries. Capitalistroadster 03:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalistroadster. John Vandenberg 04:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Channel 4 is a major British TV channel, it has been featured on a show there, so that is some kind of notability. Others have cited other instance of it being noted. If it is a re-release of a previous title for which an article already exists, then Redirect. Hu 19:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to The Shifting Fog per Capitalistroadster and others. Orderinchaos 05:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand with properly sourced information. It's a new book - apparently just came out a week or two ago. Search hits at booksellers (eg: Amazon.com) and reviews (here). ISBN = 0330448447 / 978-0330448444. Article seems to shows promise for improvements. Seems premature to nominate for deletion at this point. Perhaps if the book flops and proves non-notable, and nobody even attempts to improve the article, then re-submit for deletion. Patience is a virtue. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 13:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films in North Carolina[edit]

Indiscriminate collection of information. An article about the film business in North Carolina would be encyclopedic. This is not. Corvus cornix 02:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not encyclopedic. Oysterguitarist~Talk 02:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete no citation... and no differentiation between film filmed in NC or about NC... This is the type of article, however, that I would be willing to reconsider my vote on.Balloonman 03:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as I believe this is a topic that could be sourced, although unless the list is limited to productions in North Carolina it would be unencyclopedic trivia. There are few enough US/NA films made outside of Hollywood that this shouldn't be unmanageable. The present article, however, isn't worth keeping in its present state. --Dhartung | Talk 03:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of films by filming location is largely trivial information. If it were a sufficiently rare occurance then I could see a blurb about it on North Carolina, but when the list becomes too large for the parent article, it is likely an indication that the distinction is no longer notable. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is not a directory. This is bad precedent to create "List of films in State". There is no encyclopedic worth for this listing, especially if a movie is filmed in a studio in that state, which would be just like filming in a studio in Hollywood (with unnecessary differences in budget detail). If a film is known for its North Carolina locations, then it can be described on the respective film articles. There's no reason to create an otherwise indiscriminate list. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although if the state is really the third-biggest location in the U.S., an article could be written. Other location articles exist, as shown at Category:Lists of films by location ~~(I don't know how to properly format the category link, help would be appreciated).~~ Noroton 21:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on second look, more than half of the articles in this category Category:Lists of films by location are "List of films set in ...". Maybe more should be checked out for possible deletion. Noroton 21:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very poor written article, unsourced except the link.--JForget 23:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quite different from films set in (which are keepers in my book). Because so much of modern film making is parceled out all over the place (special effects in California, filming in studios in North Carolina perhaps, but on location maybe in New York, editing in Washington state, etc., you get the point...) a film by where its made becomes a quagmire of most movies being "made" virtually anywhere and having little or nothing in common. Carlossuarez46 00:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the title is worthy of an article and the article is brand new and might just improve. IMHO, to be a keeper, the article needs to list only films where significant parts were shot on location in NC, and it needs to tell what the location is, not just list the title of the film. Capmango 04:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the title is worth keeping. Like others have said above, it's not clear what context it's supposed to be for. Films set in the state, or films shot in the state? These are not always one and the same. Furthermore, whose definition is it going to be to determine what a "significant" part filmed in North Carolina is going to be? Are flashbacks to a character's history in New Orleans acceptable? There's no set criteria for an indiscriminate list. It would be better, per WP:NOTE, to find significant coverage in detail about the topic, such as a book about North Carolina's presence in Hollywood, not a list thrown together by the editors themselves to synthesize an argument. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Better title would be List of Movies Filmed in North Carolina. List of Movies Set in North Carolina could be a separate article. Both of them would be good Wikipedia subjects. Capmango 04:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. It's awful. The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 01:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Lee Bleichmittel[edit]

This person was definitely not a U.S. Congressman, and can't be found on Political Graveyard either, so he might not even have existed. Basically, there's no proof of his existence and he was definitely not what the article says he purportedly was. Valadius 00:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete "Bleichmittel" is German for "bleach", if that's any help. Delete, but I have to admit, a fake article about Congressman Clorox is funny. Mandsford 01:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as {{db-nonsense}}, the German translation is rather indicative of a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxBalloonman 02:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Tom Gettys was SC congressman in 1965, unless there were two.--Ispy1981 02:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, there were six in '65, but not a Bleichmittel in the bunch. Mandsford 02:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but I needed a good laugh.Balloonman 02:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax. Oysterguitarist~Talk 02:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Sadly, hoaxes aren't speediable. --Core desat 04:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Magioladitis 16:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Republican Congressman? South Carolina? 1955? This is the sort of thing we have BJAODN for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MetsFan76 00:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep — Caknuck 19:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Tedford[edit]

doesn't meet wikipedia guidelines; see Wikipedia:Notability (people); The person has been the subject of published - no references given in article, The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography (NO, imdb doesn't count). The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. (NO) The person has demonstrable wide name recognition (NO) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.(NO) Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products (Welch's doesn't count) Vectorsap 00:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems to have just enough to his name, Welch's commercial or not. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, changing to a vanilla keep due to other users below now that I've checked his IMDb page. He has several notable credits, and I have no doubt whatsoever that he's notable enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant roles in a number of motion pictures, and Welch's has at least some notability to it. If you're concerned about sources, this seems like a case for a {{Unreferenced}} tag, not an AFD. AFD is for topics for which you believe such sources don't exist. Someguy1221 00:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What significant roles are you looking at? With the exception of his role as SPANKY (which was a minor role in the movie) he's roles are not significantBalloonman 02:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from any other issues, Spanky was definitely a major role in the movie. Propaniac 14:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Someguy. Welch's commercial aside, appeared in The Little Rascals, A Bug's Life and The Haunting. Slap a ref tag on it.--Ispy1981 02:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Oysterguitarist~Talk 02:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. JJL 02:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE I don't know what you guys are looking at but [WP:BIO] reads "With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." His role in a Bugs Life is "additional voices" his role in "The Haunting" is "uncredited additional voices." A number of films/tv appearance in bit parts does NOT equal notability!!! His other roles are equally inept.[44]Balloonman 02:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Having held numerous minor roles does not diminish the fact that he significant role in The Little Rascals (film). Someguy1221 02:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While he portrayed a significant character in Americana, I would not call this a notable film... and this is the ONLY semi-legit claim to fame.Balloonman 03:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an actor has several bit parts and one big part, I would think that would be notable enough... But that's just me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd support keeping him on the basis of his Welch's ads alone, to be honest, but the Little Rascals role cements it, not simply because of the prominence of the role, but because when I was a kid at that time, EVERYBODY knew who this guy was. He's that kid from Little Rascals and the grape juice commercial! It was a really recognizable campaign, I guess. Propaniac 14:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Emily Mae Young--Ispy1981 16:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: (coughs) If being the lead in a film that did $51 million domestic box office thirteen years ago doesn't pass WP:BIO, I don't know what does. That'd be a pretty decent box today; the grounds for declaring it a "non-notable" film escape me. RGTraynor 16:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY KEEP (joins RG in coughing) and delete this nomination. While I didn't recognize the name immediately, as soon as I read the article, it was "Oh, the kid who was Spanky on the Little Rascals movie". With all due respect, it does not appear that the nominator is familiar with the film, which was a big hit more than a decade ago. Just as one should become familiar with a subject before writing an article about it, one should be familiar with a subject before nominating it for deletion. I'm envious-- Travis Tedford was wealthier (at 18 anyway) and definitely more famous (at age 6) than most of us will be in our lifetimes. I'm glad to hear that he's living a normal life after having been a child actor. Let's look before we leap, please. Mandsford 22:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, but the roles are just borderline enough for the weak keep, otherwise it would have been a no-vote or weak-delete.--JForget 23:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Spanky is the second most important character in Little Rascals, after Alfalfa. He's well-known for that role! He's also been in several other major films, as previously stated. The article does need work though. Ali ^(t)_(c) 00:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Though it should be kept, I'd argue against expanding the article. Tedford is no longer in show biz, has not sought the limelight (not even a website), is apparently a college student now trying to live a halfway normal life. Mandsford 23:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)1[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a copyright violation. --Core desat 07:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bio-neural gel pack[edit]

An in-universe, uncited technical explanation that does not attempt to explain, if any, real-world significance. More appropriate for Memory Alpha. Similar rationale and problems as these items. --EEMeltonIV 02:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Intrepid class starship (Star Trek)#Appearance and technical information? Admittedly, that article barely asserts any more real-world notability than this, and is "sourced" solely to Memory Alpha. cab 02:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect thank you cab... I didn't want to vote delete, but I couldn't justify a keep... yours is the perfect solution!Balloonman 02:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a redirect is better -- I did it a while ago, but it was recently reverted. Rather than enter into a back-and-forth as happened with M4 and Admiral Komack, figured I'd just bring it up here and reach a broader consensus. --EEMeltonIV 03:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio Question This article was created 18 March 2006. The Memory Alpha article on B/N Gel Packs as of 4 January 2006 is a near word-for-word copy of at least the first two paragraphs. I recall from a previous AfD that MA uses a CC license variant that means we can't transwiki to them; is the reverse true? And it just seems like a copyvio to me and thus should be Speedy deleted if it is. ~~Even if it ain't, there's nothing here that MA doesn't have, and so I'd then change to Delete if not speedied.~~ Add sig: LaughingVulcan 03:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question, Memory Alpha CC License, specifies that material from there can be copied but not for commerical use. Wikipedia GFDL specifically gives permission for noncommercial or commercial use. Thus it is (AFAICT) a copyvio. LaughingVulcan 04:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per LaughingVulcan, this is clearly a copyvio as the text is substantially lifted from the Memory Alpha wiki and the licensing is incompatible with the GFDL. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep probably needs a rewrite, though. Send it through google translator back and forth a couple times and it'll make it no longer copyvio. SakotGrimshine 14:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as copyvio, to Intrepid class starship. 132.205.44.134 18:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Send it through google translator back and forth a couple times and it'll make it no longer copyvio. That always works! SakotGrimshine 09:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Academy Is.... --Core desat 06:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Carden[edit]

The article appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (music) and there are no reliable sources cited only the subjects blogs / live journals and various interviews in other blogs. Dual Freq 02:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am of two minds on this: either Keep and expand, since The Academy Is... passes WP:N, or Redirect to The Academy Is..., if individual band members need not be kept. --tennis man 03:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep orRedirect to the Academy Is... the Academy definately is notable per the guidelines... and while the article is bad, WP:MUSIC 1 "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above" He is given credit for many of their songs. So he clearly meets it as well... but I agree, this is a reluctant keep at best.Balloonman 03:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I support redirection to the band article, subject doesn't seem notable independent of the band. --Dual Freq 14:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect; It is NN as it stands (in my opinion). --Stormbay 00:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasSpeedy Delete, invoking WP:SNOW, as there have been no objections to deletion. Naconkantari 04:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alodia Almira Gosiengfiao[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article had already been deleted as per a previous AfD discussion, and although this new version of the article has a few new bits of information, it is virtually a recreation of the one that has been deleted. All previous problems mentioned in the previous AfD discussion still stand. - Jigokushoujo666 01:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Based on some web searches, it does not seem that an article can be made that meets notability or even verifiability standards, and the edit patterns for the article seems to indicate that the content contributors have no intentions to abide by them. The self-published sources provided do not meet the standard for reliable sources. Dancter 02:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete unless somebody can show that this has gone through deletion review it should be speedily deleted.Balloonman 02:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem notable. Oysterguitarist~Talk 02:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Article was deleted before and was brought back without WP:DRV as Balloonman has pointed out. I see no changes from the state of the article and/or the article's subject since last time that shows any acceptable level of notability for Wikipedia's standards. Therefore, I must vote delete for pretty much the same reasons I voted delete last AFD. Shrumster 06:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as re-creation, even if there are some minor changes it's still basically the same article on the same subject. If anybody really thinks a good article is possible, it can be sent to DRV, but frankly it wouldn't stand a chance whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was not exactly sure how to comment on this, but I will have to go with WP:BLP. Not much of the information is verifiable through reliable third-party sources. Instead, the bulk of it cites a primary source, her deviantART account. This gives the article a vanity feeling. Also the only third-party source for the entire article is a blog entry for the Maxim offer. Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. --Farix (Talk) 02:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Now that Farix has mentioned it, I took a closer look at the other blog mentioned, and it turns out that it's just basically repeating whatever is mentioned in the subject's DeviantArt blog. Definitely not a reliable source. - Jigokushoujo666 05:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTE Snarfies 02:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only one English news result. Please dont snowball this; give locals a chance to look for local RS. John Vandenberg 02:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was deleted already? Delete then, and still delete now. --Howard the Duck 03:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. WTF?!?!? I nominated this the first time for exactly the same reasons the others have mentioned. I stand by for the same reasons I nominated this the first time around, and unless this person hits the mainstream, my stance will be unlikely to be changes. --- Tito Pao 03:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request: If this is deleted, might as well delete the images that come along with this article. And please, get rid of this already as per WP:SNOW.--Howard the Duck 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject of the article is not notable -- WP:NOTE. -- • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ ^Talk 08:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Why is this relevant to Wikipedia? --Potato dude42 21:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oysterguitarist (Duane543 04:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storm-Artists[edit]

Delete - fails WP:SOAP; it's simply a promotion of a Web site PatriciaT 22:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable, tiny art site. Kargath64 00:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent references... and a websearch couldn't pull up anything that looks credible that deals with this (many hits for "Storm Artist," but nothing for this.)Balloonman 02:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N, no sourcing. --tennis man 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. I can't find any references that would qualify as reliable, and the article doesn't cite any third part sources at all. Hut 8.5 14:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is almost a speedy deletion candidate (advert), however AFD seems better in this particular case, as that could be controversial. If it was kept, it would need to have all the useless information removed (an encyclopedia should not list every admin/moderator, as it becomes a directory, which is specified in WP:NOT). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, not encyclopedic. Roccondil 10:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Mertins[edit]

Failes WP:BIO Non-notable minor league baseball player. Once he makes the majors, his notability is assured, but being the 45th best prospect in the Royals organization isn't cutting it right now. Seems that consensus is being set on minor league players from AFD nominations on James Garcia and Blake Beavan. Montco 02:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. 45th best prospect? Good luck with that.--Ispy1981 02:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both above. JJL 02:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Oysterguitarist~Talk 02:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we just had this discussion [45]Balloonman 03:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The comparison to Blake Beavan is invalid, because he had not even signed a contract, much less played. This article's subject played for 2 years as a professional baseball player. Minor leagues players are still fully professional players, so if he has played in the minors he satisfies WP:BIO "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league." Minor league says "Minor leagues are professional sports leagues which are not regarded as the premier leagues in those sports." I expect they still compare favorable in salary and in press coverage to pro leagues in other sports in some smaller countries. If you want to amend WP:BIO, then go there and edit it; otherwise follow it and keep articles about athletes who have played in the minor leagues. Edison 23:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was actually discussed on the Blake Beavan AFD---thus the inclusion of the link. With regard to North America's Major League Baseball. A player is considered notable if they have appeared in one game, minor league players are generally not notable. In other words, while the minor league in baseball is a professional league, there are literally thousands of people playing in the minor league---thus it isn't considered notable.Balloonman 20:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets notability guideline for athletes. Capmango 04:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travis d'Arnaud[edit]

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. fuzzy510 02:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.; recreate if needed later. JJL 02:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not need to be created right now. we don't know if he will even continue. Oysterguitarist~Talk 02:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletejust had conversationBalloonman 03:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO. Montco 03:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wait until he has played professionally, even in the minor league, before creating an article. Edison 04:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my previous nomination of Blake Beavan. Caknuck 13:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Speedy Deleted under DB-G7 SirFozzie 06:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing VC-137C[edit]

I just created this article in an attempt to have an article on both the Boeing 707's that served as Air Force One from 1962-2001 (SAM 26000 and SAM 27000). After writing a bit I wondered if it might just be easier to create two seperate articles on SAM 26000 and SAM 27000. Thus this page should be deleted as to not cause confusion and wasted space. Happyme22 02:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you probably want {{db-self}} or, more likely to use a redirect. FrozenPurpleCube 02:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My advice would be to have just one article on two nearly identical aircraft. The call sign (role) is more important than the airframes themselves. --Dhartung | Talk 03:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A merge/redirect to C-137 Stratoliner would probably be appropriate here. The VC-137C appears to be a special variant of the C-137 Stratoliner. There's probably room within the C-137 Stratoliner article to talk about what makes the VC-137C variant unique, or what modifications they made to it for Air Force One service. Air Force One#Boeing_707s_as_Air_Force_One covers the usage of the aircraft and the events that happened on each, but there might be a little bit of room to move text between articles as appropriate. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Gilmore[edit]

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. fuzzy510 02:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we just had this discussion [46]Balloonman 03:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO. Montco 03:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can we lump these all into one subpage? The same problem applies to all of them. Let's hope they make the major league, but for now they're NN. Yechiel Man 08:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as mentionned in Madison Bumgarner--JForget 23:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wait until he has played professionally, even in the minor league, before creating an article. Edison 04:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my previous nomination of Blake Beavan. Caknuck 13:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Noonan[edit]

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. fuzzy510 02:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we just had this discussion [47]Balloonman 03:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO. Montco 03:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wait until he has played professionally, even in the minor league, before creating an article. Edison 04:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my previous nomination of Blake Beavan. Caknuck 13:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Smoker[edit]

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. fuzzy510 02:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we just had this discussion [48]Balloonman 03:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO. Montco 03:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wait until he has played professionally, even in the minor league, before creating an article. Edison 04:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my previous nomination of Articles for deletion/Blake Beavan. Caknuck 13:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Revere[edit]

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. fuzzy510 02:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we just had this discussion [49]Balloonman 03:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO. Montco 03:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wait until he has played professionally, even in the minor league, before creating an article. Edison 04:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my previous nomination of Articles for deletion/Blake Beavan. Caknuck 13:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Bumgarner[edit]

Non-notable baseball player. Was just drafted in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft, but was drafted straight out of high school, and hasn't signed a contract. He might not choose to go pro, and even if he does, he's got a long way to go to meet WP:BIO. fuzzy510 02:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we just had this discussion [50]Balloonman 03:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO. Montco 03:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 14:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my previous nomination of Articles for deletion/Blake Beavan. Caknuck 20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WEak Delete, article has been created a bit early, should wait until he makes his mark in the minors and/or enters the majors.--JForget 23:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wait until he has played professionally, even in the minor league, before creating an article. Edison 04:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:BASEBALL minor leaguers are not considered notable...Balloonman 20:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Dumstorf[edit]

Contested speedy, I restored it after the article creator gave me references. Article on a kid who shot two police officers before committing suicide. However, Wikipedia isn't a crime log (which the sources available could only be used to write), and not every perpetrator of a crime is automatically deserving of inclusion within an encyclopedia, even if he commits suicide after the fact. Core desat 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is not a news report. It seems that this is all that this article could ever be. Sancho 03:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:not"The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article."Balloonman 03:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Newsworthy is not noteworthy. Resolute 04:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that unless a crime attracts wide and/or continuing interest, leads to a change in the law, or is otherwise actually notable, it does not deserve notice. And the same goes for the criminal, and the victim. This incident seems tragic, but at best 15 minutes of fame. Brianyoumans 04:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, crime is always tragic, but not always notable. Montco 04:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a news service, and that's all it can be in this case. Hut 8.5 13:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tragic deaths, but newsworthy is not necessarily encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Edison 15:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Although I think such incidents can be notable, the one local citation is not enough to show notability .DGG 18:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These days, nearly every murder in North America gets enough coverage to satisfy WP:V, but this situation is no more notable than any other murder of a police officer. Caknuck 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I listed it for speedy deletion, and I still believe it should be speedied. No notability whatsoever. Corvus cornix 01:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note It was speedy deleted, but that was contested. Thus, it has to go through AFD---where it WILL be deleted. That is a forgone conclusionBalloonman 04:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus In number those favoring delete, merge, and keep unmerged were roughly equal. The delete arguments were essentially based on lack of notability. The keep arguments showed evidence (less than a citation though) of media coverage, and of touring, either of which would, if substantiated, support a separate article. There were also claims of notability by association, that is of some members being independently notable, or having been in other, more notable bands. That often implies a merge, although it does not mandate one. There was clearly no consensus here, so the article will be kept by default. Noe that that neither mandates nor precludes a merge. If this is to remain undeleted, better sources should be added promptly. DES ^(talk) 05:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mors Syphilitica[edit]

Contested prod. Prod reason was "fails WP:BAND". I tend to agree, although it isn't a speedy A7 candidate. Daniel 07:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's a sad day when an article like that even makes it to AFD. Okay, I think I'm going to cry now...waah, waah. Yechiel Man 07:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm struggling to find an ascertation of notability in the article, let alone a source to back it up. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the prod has it. --Haemo 07:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Belongs to a notable enough record label, the individual members have articles and seem notable enough, it has an allmusic entry, and it passes any sort of google test with flying colours. If this is to be used as any sort of benchmark then there are thousands of band articles that need purging too. —Xezbeth 07:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please say how the band passes WP:MUSIC? Ryan Postlethwaite 07:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well despite that being only a guidline, it easily covers the first criteria on that page. The article isn't sourced, but just following links to the article shows they were featured in Gothic Beauty. Now I know nothing whatsoever about gothic music but its google hit count alone tells me this is notable enough, especially considering the low threshold thats been established here already. —Xezbeth 07:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Google test is not a valid argument in this context, and neither is the allmusic entry, nor WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The possible claim to notability they might have is #6 in WP:MUSIC: If Lisa Hammer and/or Doc Hammer are notable independent of the band, then the band would be notable as well (although one might to consider a merger). --B. Wolterding 08:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According to their label page, they have three albums, and Projekt is big enough where they advertise in Rolling Stone and do distribute material to chains like Borders and Hot Topic. As far as gothic music goes, Projekt is a big name, so I think that the band meets the BAND notability criteria. MSJapan 15:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Projekt" yes, but Sacrum Torch probably no, so two albums would count as self-released. --B. Wolterding 15:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Projekt was the distributor of the last album - as with the others Sacrum Torch (essentially a self publisher) released it. Bigdaddy1981 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost inclined to say "IAR Keep" on this one, per the above comment; they're only another Projekt release away from meeting WP:MUSIC, but I'm afraid I might be biased just because I like this band. Apparently they went on a US tour a few years back[51] but that forum is the only source I could find for it, which isn't a reliable source, so I'm going to say delete for now as they do not yet meet the notability criteria. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 21:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, after reading B. Wolterding's comments, Merge to Lisa Hammer. She already has the Mors Syph discography and a little info about the band on her page, and her and Doc are notable, but in pursuits other than music. Keeping a redirect won't hurt. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zeibura. I'm not sure this whole set isn't a walled garden, but it will make its best case if compacted together. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, don't Merge It's a separate band, it meets notability for WP:BAND, it should stay. Capmango 04:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which criterion of WP:BAND do you believe it meets? - Zeibura ^(Talk) 05:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4, 5, and 6. Article does need sources though. Capmango 16:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that 6 encourages redirection to the notable figure passing through. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the originator of the prod; I'll repeat the gist of my reasoning (examine the history and talk page for more). Non-notable band (clearly fails WP:MUSIC with flying colours), first albums all self published, no records with major (even for the genre) labels, the best that can be said is that one album was distributed not released by Projekt. Bigdaddy1981 22:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, as illustrated by some of the participants below, the article is an indiscriminate collection of unsourced information. The keep arguments have failed to appropriately address those concerns. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi Muslim tribes from Hindu Lineage[edit]

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

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

Comment

1)The information on this article is from

reliable
Scholarly
published
verifiabe sources often used on wikipedia and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment:

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

Cheers Intothefire 13:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, assuming that the article can be expanded. Sr 13 04:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contredanse (band)[edit]

Non-notable band. No assertion of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Delete.--Bryson 21:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the article indicates, they have toured several European countries, as reported by the band's website. Easily meets WP:MUSIC criterion 4.--Eyrian 20:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, criterion 4 is: "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources." I would assume this means independent reliable sources. If the tour is meant to establish notability, somebody should have found the tour notable enough to write about other than the band itself. Sancho 21:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has written about them in English. It's a foreign band, which has no real presence in English-speaking countries. Please be careful of systematic bias. --Eyrian 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine if you include reliable sources from other languages, but they are still needed. Sancho 22:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a reference. --Eyrian 22:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs a better reference than the one added (an actual review of a performance, or article about the band, even if it's not in English), but meets WP:BAND. Capmango 04:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only suggestion – article needs to be little longer, i.e. as in Belarusian WP. Btw, I can translate that article. --Bełamp 15:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep --Akhilleus (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shepherd Avenue (IND Fulton Street Line)[edit]

I don’t understand what purpose this article serves. There is no assertion of this particular subway station being notable. Delete. --Bryson 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have so far maintained the principle that every subway station is notable, because they are permanent structures and influence the neighborhood, and there is usually material to be found about inclusion in route changes and so on. As a beginner, I challenged this once or twice until I realised that the advantage of not having to debate each one individually was a fair exchange for keeping them all. "Permanent buildings" is a good simple criterion. Longer I'm here, the more groups of things we can keep out of AfD, the better. We have difficult problems to solve and major disagreements about policy, and let's not sweat the small stuff. DGG 23:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reliable sources, anybody? Also, how could this ever be more than a stub? Trying to squeeze an encylopedia article out of every "permanent structure" in the world is an exercise in total futility. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is not the solution. It might or might not make sense to merge, but the information - and a page, whether article or redirect - would stay. A while ago, I decided to test the theory that these articles will be "permanent stubs" with Grand Army Plaza (IRT Eastern Parkway Line) (chosen because there was a dispute over the name, not because it's a particularly major station). I was surprised at how much I was able to find. However, I just took a quick look for this one, and found almost nothing. Local stations on the IND Fulton Street Line might be a good target for merging if nothing more can be found. --NE2 02:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't even know why this article is even going through an AFD. I think it should be closed immediately, but I guarantee it will close as to keep. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 02:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe because it's not necessarily a good idea to have an article with no little information. --NE2 02:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a stub, or should be marked as one at least. Info will be added over time, however. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 03:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What information? I can't find anything else to add, but you might have access to resources that I don't. --NE2 03:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Every other station in the system (there are >400 of them) has an article. As noted above, this one happens to be a stub, but they were nearly all stubs at one point, and over time they do grow into something more substantial. Marc Shepherd 02:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it should be deleted, but I don't know what more can be added here. --NE2 02:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there's an alternative proposal, the project talk page is a good place to decide. I am quite certain that when there are ~400 individual station articles, you don't just delete one. Any such decision should be part of a holistic plan for the whole series of articles. Marc Shepherd 03:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Something like this should not be "pecked at" one by one. --NE2 03:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's very important to NYCS project. It should have issued a stub. -- BWCNY 02:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Local stations on the IND Fulton Street Line per NE2. It exists, but so does the mailbox at the corner and the utility pole behind the house, and both are arguably as permanent as this subway station. If sufficient sources are ever found to create more than a directory listing/stub, then a stand-alone article coould be re-created. For now, it fails WP:A and WP:N. Edison 04:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Organizationally, it's better to have an occasional stub article than have articles for every subway stop but one. WP:SENSE says we keep it. Capmango 04:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Surprising at it may be to some, these stubs do grow into articles, given time. —CComMack (t–c) 12:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subway stations are notable and this one is very important in NYC subway system. --Oakshade 07:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade and others. 192.88.171.35 02:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on what Marc Shepherd said in the above comment. Even if this station ought to be deleted based on AfD criteria (and there's enough debate to indicate this is not an obvious thing), we should ignore the rules here. It would be sensible and in Wikipedia's spirit of consensus to suggest and develop a uniform plan for all stations on the project page as opposed to deleting some articles here and there. Slic e NYC (Talk) 00:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subway stations. They are important nodes in public transportation, and have some history of their own (opening date for example). NYCsubway entry for this station here although it is a bit sparse. Keeping stations as separate articles is much cleaner than trying to merge them... merging subway stations on the same line seems like a great idea until subway stations on multiple lines throws sand into the machinery. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With this particular station, and other local stations on the line, it's possible that all we can say is the location, the opening date, the configuration, and the color of tiles. I definitely agree that any transfer stations should be separate, and in fact the majority should remain separate. But some of the outer stations are "cookie-cutter" copies of each other with no real differences. --NE2 11:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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